I read his comment as saying that the light sentencing was the deliberate enabling of said “useful idiots,” and more broadly that women’s movements supported /encouraged by “Fabian Socialists” have encouraged marital strife and intersexual hostility. Not that he literally meant someone had told her that she should poison her husband.
Honestly, the most unusual part of his comment is who he ascribes it to. If you rewrite it as “feminist influence” rather than “Fabian Socialist,” (or “Jews,” or “Communists,” or “China”) you could use it as a pretty standard talking point for various sections of the right.
I read his comment as saying that the light sentencing was the deliberate enabling of said “useful idiots,” and more broadly that women’s movements supported /encouraged by “Fabian Socialists” have encouraged marital strife and intersexual hostility. Not that he literally meant someone had told her that she should poison her husband.
Honestly, the most unusual part of his comment is who he ascribes it to. If you rewrite it as “feminist influence” rather than “Fabian Socialist,” (or “Jews,” or “Communists,” or “China”) you could use it as a pretty standard talking point for various sections of the right.
The key difference is the legacy of Fabian socialism in America is the 19th amendment.
That narrative would have made more sense as well. It was so vague that it came across like ranting about flat earth or some shit to me.