Getting To Know Pete Seeger

[PoliticalChic]

I love these types of slanders. First, the dude was a private citizen. He did not hold any public office or even attempt to do so. If you really think that trying to tie Pete Seeger to politics is going to make him look bad, you clearly spend far too much time consumed by politics. He wasn't into politics. He was an artist and an all around nice guy. That he flirted with communism via the communist party says nothing of his character or his acomplishments.

"...you clearly spend far too much time consumed by politics. He wasn't into politics."

On the contrary.

If you miss the point of his message, you have your eyes closed.

 

[edthecynic]

Newspapers at the time quoted Shaw as endorsing Hitler, Mussolini, and eugenics.

There are letters between Shaw and Margaret Sanger agreeing with the progressive views on extermination of 'undesirables.'


Just lucky for you that you didn't live under Shaw's purview.
You're exactly who he had in mind.....

Yeah, newspapers, like you, pretended he wasn't satirizing Eugenicists, but honest people knew he was. Shaw used satiric irony in order to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes, similar to Jonathan Swift making his proposal that babies of the poor could be used as food, and some commentators have deliberately failed to take this into account. Regarding the quote the dishonest CON$ cite, that you parroted, it was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the non-Shavian eugenicists' wilder dreams. Many in the Right-Wing press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone wrote: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognized the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture."

So you think I'm the type of man a woman would choose to mate with in order to produce the Superman. I'm flattered, but you are not my type. Thank you anyway for the high compliment. In 1910, he wrote that natural attraction, rather than consideration of wealth or social class, should govern selection of marriage partners, hardly the same as the eugenics adopted by the National Socialists of Germany that the GOP hate mongers try to brand him with. Anyone who ever read his works would know better.
In An Unsocial Socialist he condemned the democratic system of his time, saying that workers, ruthlessly exploited by greedy employers, lived in abject poverty and were too ignorant and apathetic to vote intelligently. In the first act of Buoyant Billions his protagonist asks:
"Why appeal to the mob when ninety-five per cent of them do not understand politics, and can do nothing but mischief without leaders? And what sort of leaders do they vote for? For Titus Oates and Lord George Gordon with their Popish plots, for Hitlers who call on them to exterminate Jews, for Mussolinis who rally them to nationalist dreams of glory and empire in which all foreigners are enemies to be subjugated.
In Man and Superman he argued that this deficiency would ultimately be corrected by the emergence of long-lived supermen with experience and intelligence enough to govern properly. He called the developmental process elective breeding, referred to as Shavian Eugenics, because he thought it was driven by a "Life Force" that led women—subconsciously—to select the mates most likely to give them superior children. The outcome Shaw envisioned is dramatized in Back to Methuselah, a play depicting human development from its beginning in the Garden of Eden until the distant future.

OTOH, you are probably too illiterate and ignorant to know you were giving me a compliment having never read "Man And Superman" or anything else by Shaw.

"After visiting the USSR in 1931 and meeting Joseph Stalin, Shaw became a supporter of the Stalinist USSR."
George Bernard Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"In this Shaw was managing to synthesize eugenics with socialism, his best-loved political doctrine."
Ibid.


You're a dunce.

You're just jealous!

From your own link:

Eugenics

Shaw delivered speeches on the theory of eugenics and he became a noted figure in the movement in England.[79]
Shaw's play Man and Superman (1903) has been said to be "invested with eugenic doctrines" and "an ironic reworking" of Nietzsche's concept of Übermensch.[79][80] The main character in the play, John Tanner, is the author of "The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion", which Shaw published along with his play. The Revolutionist's Handbook includes chapters on "Good Breeding" and "Property and Marriage". In the "Property and Marriage" section Tanner writes:

To cut humanity up into small cliques, and effectively limit the selection of the individual to his own clique, is to postpone the Superman for eons, if not for ever. Not only should every person be nourished and trained as a possible parent, but there should be no possibility of such an obstacle to natural selection as the objection of a countess to a navvy or of a duke to a charwoman. Equality is essential to good breeding; and equality, as all economists know, is incompatible with property.
​

In this Shaw was managing to synthesize eugenics with socialism, his best-loved political doctrine. This was a popular concept at the time.[81]

Shaw in 1905


When, in 1910, Shaw wrote that natural attraction rather than wealth or social class should govern selection of marriage partners, the concept of eugenics did not have the negative connotations it later acquired after having been adopted by the Nazis of Germany.[82] Shaw sometimes treated the topic in a light-hearted way, pointing out that if eugenics had been thought about some generations previously, he himself may not have been born, so depriving humanity of his great contributions.[83] He seems to have maintained his opinion throughout his life.[82]
As with many of the topics that Shaw addressed, but particularly so in his examination of the "social purity" movement, he used irony, misdirection and satire to make his point.[74][84][85] At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he suggested the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve their problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment ..." Shaw also called for the development of a "deadly" but "humane" gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live.[86]
In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says

You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.[87][88]
​

Shaw, however, often used satiric irony in order to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account.[79][89] Some noticed that this was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder aspirations: The Globe and The Evening News recognised it as a skit on the dreams of the eugenicists, though many others in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone of Liverpool University writes: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture".[89][90]


And




Legacy


A statue of Shaw in Niagara-on-the-Lake


In his old age, Shaw was a household name in English-speaking countries, and was famed throughout the world. His ironic wit endowed English with the adjective "Shavian", used to characterize observations such as: "My way of joking is to tell the truth. It's the funniest joke in the world." Concerned about the vagaries of English spelling, Shaw willed a portion of his wealth (probated at £367,233 13s)[92] to fund the creation of a new phonemic alphabet for the English language.[93] However, the money available was insufficient to support the project, so it was neglected for a time. This changed when his estate began earning significant royalties from the rights to Pygmalion after My Fair Lady—the musical adapted from Pygmalion by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe—became a hit. However, the Public Trustee found the intended trust to be invalid because its intent was to serve a private interest instead of a charitable purpose, and as a non-charitable purpose trust, it could not be enforced because it failed to satisfy the beneficiary principle.[94] In the end an out-of-court settlement granted only £8600 for promoting the new alphabet, which is now called the Shavian alphabet. The National Gallery of Ireland, RADA and the British Museum all received substantial bequests.
Shaw's home, now called Shaw's Corner, in the small village of Ayot St Lawrence, Hertfordshire is a National Trust property, open to the public.[95] The Shaw Theatre, Euston Road, London, opened in 1971, was named in his honour.[96] Near its entrance, opposite the new British Library, a contemporary statue of Saint Joan commemorates Shaw as author of that play.
The Shaw Festival, an annual theater festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada began as an eight-week run of Don Juan in Hell (as the long third act dream sequence of Man And Superman is called when staged alone) and Candida in 1962, and has grown into an annual festival with over 800 performances a year, dedicated to producing the works of Shaw and his contemporaries. The portrait of George Bernard Shaw located at Niagara-on-the-Lake was commissioned by hotelier Si Wai Lai and sculpted by Dr. Elizabeth Bradford Holbrook, CM (1913–2009).[97][98]
He is also remembered as one of the pivotal founders of the London School of Economics, whose library is now called the British Library of Political and Economic Science. The Fabian Window, designed by Shaw, hangs in the Shaw Library in the main building of the LSE.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, newspapers, like you, pretended he wasn't satirizing Eugenicists, but honest people knew he was. Shaw used satiric irony in order to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes, similar to Jonathan Swift making his proposal that babies of the poor could be used as food, and some commentators have deliberately failed to take this into account. Regarding the quote the dishonest CON$ cite, that you parroted, it was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the non-Shavian eugenicists' wilder dreams. Many in the Right-Wing press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone wrote: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognized the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture."

So you think I'm the type of man a woman would choose to mate with in order to produce the Superman. I'm flattered, but you are not my type. Thank you anyway for the high compliment. In 1910, he wrote that natural attraction, rather than consideration of wealth or social class, should govern selection of marriage partners, hardly the same as the eugenics adopted by the National Socialists of Germany that the GOP hate mongers try to brand him with. Anyone who ever read his works would know better.
In An Unsocial Socialist he condemned the democratic system of his time, saying that workers, ruthlessly exploited by greedy employers, lived in abject poverty and were too ignorant and apathetic to vote intelligently. In the first act of Buoyant Billions his protagonist asks:
"Why appeal to the mob when ninety-five per cent of them do not understand politics, and can do nothing but mischief without leaders? And what sort of leaders do they vote for? For Titus Oates and Lord George Gordon with their Popish plots, for Hitlers who call on them to exterminate Jews, for Mussolinis who rally them to nationalist dreams of glory and empire in which all foreigners are enemies to be subjugated.
In Man and Superman he argued that this deficiency would ultimately be corrected by the emergence of long-lived supermen with experience and intelligence enough to govern properly. He called the developmental process elective breeding, referred to as Shavian Eugenics, because he thought it was driven by a "Life Force" that led women—subconsciously—to select the mates most likely to give them superior children. The outcome Shaw envisioned is dramatized in Back to Methuselah, a play depicting human development from its beginning in the Garden of Eden until the distant future.

OTOH, you are probably too illiterate and ignorant to know you were giving me a compliment having never read "Man And Superman" or anything else by Shaw.

"After visiting the USSR in 1931 and meeting Joseph Stalin, Shaw became a supporter of the Stalinist USSR."
George Bernard Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"In this Shaw was managing to synthesize eugenics with socialism, his best-loved political doctrine."
Ibid.


You're a dunce.

You're just jealous!

From your own link:

Eugenics

Shaw delivered speeches on the theory of eugenics and he became a noted figure in the movement in England.[79]
Shaw's play Man and Superman (1903) has been said to be "invested with eugenic doctrines" and "an ironic reworking" of Nietzsche's concept of Übermensch.[79][80] The main character in the play, John Tanner, is the author of "The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion", which Shaw published along with his play. The Revolutionist's Handbook includes chapters on "Good Breeding" and "Property and Marriage". In the "Property and Marriage" section Tanner writes:

To cut humanity up into small cliques, and effectively limit the selection of the individual to his own clique, is to postpone the Superman for eons, if not for ever. Not only should every person be nourished and trained as a possible parent, but there should be no possibility of such an obstacle to natural selection as the objection of a countess to a navvy or of a duke to a charwoman. Equality is essential to good breeding; and equality, as all economists know, is incompatible with property.
​

In this Shaw was managing to synthesize eugenics with socialism, his best-loved political doctrine. This was a popular concept at the time.[81]

Shaw in 1905


When, in 1910, Shaw wrote that natural attraction rather than wealth or social class should govern selection of marriage partners, the concept of eugenics did not have the negative connotations it later acquired after having been adopted by the Nazis of Germany.[82] Shaw sometimes treated the topic in a light-hearted way, pointing out that if eugenics had been thought about some generations previously, he himself may not have been born, so depriving humanity of his great contributions.[83] He seems to have maintained his opinion throughout his life.[82]
As with many of the topics that Shaw addressed, but particularly so in his examination of the "social purity" movement, he used irony, misdirection and satire to make his point.[74][84][85] At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he suggested the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve their problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment ..." Shaw also called for the development of a "deadly" but "humane" gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live.[86]
In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says

You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.[87][88]
​

Shaw, however, often used satiric irony in order to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account.[79][89] Some noticed that this was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder aspirations: The Globe and The Evening News recognised it as a skit on the dreams of the eugenicists, though many others in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone of Liverpool University writes: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture".[89][90]


And




Legacy


A statue of Shaw in Niagara-on-the-Lake


In his old age, Shaw was a household name in English-speaking countries, and was famed throughout the world. His ironic wit endowed English with the adjective "Shavian", used to characterize observations such as: "My way of joking is to tell the truth. It's the funniest joke in the world." Concerned about the vagaries of English spelling, Shaw willed a portion of his wealth (probated at £367,233 13s)[92] to fund the creation of a new phonemic alphabet for the English language.[93] However, the money available was insufficient to support the project, so it was neglected for a time. This changed when his estate began earning significant royalties from the rights to Pygmalion after My Fair Lady—the musical adapted from Pygmalion by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe—became a hit. However, the Public Trustee found the intended trust to be invalid because its intent was to serve a private interest instead of a charitable purpose, and as a non-charitable purpose trust, it could not be enforced because it failed to satisfy the beneficiary principle.[94] In the end an out-of-court settlement granted only £8600 for promoting the new alphabet, which is now called the Shavian alphabet. The National Gallery of Ireland, RADA and the British Museum all received substantial bequests.
Shaw's home, now called Shaw's Corner, in the small village of Ayot St Lawrence, Hertfordshire is a National Trust property, open to the public.[95] The Shaw Theatre, Euston Road, London, opened in 1971, was named in his honour.[96] Near its entrance, opposite the new British Library, a contemporary statue of Saint Joan commemorates Shaw as author of that play.
The Shaw Festival, an annual theater festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada began as an eight-week run of Don Juan in Hell (as the long third act dream sequence of Man And Superman is called when staged alone) and Candida in 1962, and has grown into an annual festival with over 800 performances a year, dedicated to producing the works of Shaw and his contemporaries. The portrait of George Bernard Shaw located at Niagara-on-the-Lake was commissioned by hotelier Si Wai Lai and sculpted by Dr. Elizabeth Bradford Holbrook, CM (1913–2009).[97][98]
He is also remembered as one of the pivotal founders of the London School of Economics, whose library is now called the British Library of Political and Economic Science. The Fabian Window, designed by Shaw, hangs in the Shaw Library in the main building of the LSE.

The plan to kill all those with whom one finds some problem is an essential characteristic of Liberal, progressive, socialist, communist regimes throughout modern times.

The first modern public political philosopher to suggest genocide was Karl Marx, communist.

1. The Communists and their Marxist cousins, the Socialists,
have worked for revolution since the advent of the New Deal
twenty-one years ago by infiltrating government offices, labor
unions, schools and colleges, churches, radio and television,
the movies, the publishing business.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution."


Now, why mention 'Communists and their Marxist cousins, the Socialists'?
Because they are one in the same.

Nazism originated with Marxism, so let's include it.

See where this is going?



2. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica,
Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of
the British Labor Party, declares:

The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels stated that
communist ends can be attained "only by the forcible overthrow
of all existing social conditions."



So....whether one designates George Bernard Shaw as a socialist, communist, Nazi, progressive, eugenicist,....whatever.....

....he believed in wholesale slaughter of those with whom he disagreed.

Pete Seeger.....the same.

Anyone who subscribes to the political philosophies listed above is an enemy of mankind, no matter how they rationalize said beliefs.
The march is not to Utopia....it is to mass graves.


And you remain a dolt.

 

[edthecynic]

"After visiting the USSR in 1931 and meeting Joseph Stalin, Shaw became a supporter of the Stalinist USSR."
George Bernard Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"In this Shaw was managing to synthesize eugenics with socialism, his best-loved political doctrine."
Ibid.


You're a dunce.

You're just jealous!

From your own link:

Eugenics

Shaw delivered speeches on the theory of eugenics and he became a noted figure in the movement in England.[79]
Shaw's play Man and Superman (1903) has been said to be "invested with eugenic doctrines" and "an ironic reworking" of Nietzsche's concept of Übermensch.[79][80] The main character in the play, John Tanner, is the author of "The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion", which Shaw published along with his play. The Revolutionist's Handbook includes chapters on "Good Breeding" and "Property and Marriage". In the "Property and Marriage" section Tanner writes:

To cut humanity up into small cliques, and effectively limit the selection of the individual to his own clique, is to postpone the Superman for eons, if not for ever. Not only should every person be nourished and trained as a possible parent, but there should be no possibility of such an obstacle to natural selection as the objection of a countess to a navvy or of a duke to a charwoman. Equality is essential to good breeding; and equality, as all economists know, is incompatible with property.
​

In this Shaw was managing to synthesize eugenics with socialism, his best-loved political doctrine. This was a popular concept at the time.[81]

Shaw in 1905


When, in 1910, Shaw wrote that natural attraction rather than wealth or social class should govern selection of marriage partners, the concept of eugenics did not have the negative connotations it later acquired after having been adopted by the Nazis of Germany.[82] Shaw sometimes treated the topic in a light-hearted way, pointing out that if eugenics had been thought about some generations previously, he himself may not have been born, so depriving humanity of his great contributions.[83] He seems to have maintained his opinion throughout his life.[82]
As with many of the topics that Shaw addressed, but particularly so in his examination of the "social purity" movement, he used irony, misdirection and satire to make his point.[74][84][85] At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he suggested the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve their problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment ..." Shaw also called for the development of a "deadly" but "humane" gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live.[86]
In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says

You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.[87][88]
​

Shaw, however, often used satiric irony in order to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account.[79][89] Some noticed that this was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder aspirations: The Globe and The Evening News recognised it as a skit on the dreams of the eugenicists, though many others in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone of Liverpool University writes: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture".[89][90]


And




Legacy


A statue of Shaw in Niagara-on-the-Lake


In his old age, Shaw was a household name in English-speaking countries, and was famed throughout the world. His ironic wit endowed English with the adjective "Shavian", used to characterize observations such as: "My way of joking is to tell the truth. It's the funniest joke in the world." Concerned about the vagaries of English spelling, Shaw willed a portion of his wealth (probated at £367,233 13s)[92] to fund the creation of a new phonemic alphabet for the English language.[93] However, the money available was insufficient to support the project, so it was neglected for a time. This changed when his estate began earning significant royalties from the rights to Pygmalion after My Fair Lady—the musical adapted from Pygmalion by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe—became a hit. However, the Public Trustee found the intended trust to be invalid because its intent was to serve a private interest instead of a charitable purpose, and as a non-charitable purpose trust, it could not be enforced because it failed to satisfy the beneficiary principle.[94] In the end an out-of-court settlement granted only £8600 for promoting the new alphabet, which is now called the Shavian alphabet. The National Gallery of Ireland, RADA and the British Museum all received substantial bequests.
Shaw's home, now called Shaw's Corner, in the small village of Ayot St Lawrence, Hertfordshire is a National Trust property, open to the public.[95] The Shaw Theatre, Euston Road, London, opened in 1971, was named in his honour.[96] Near its entrance, opposite the new British Library, a contemporary statue of Saint Joan commemorates Shaw as author of that play.
The Shaw Festival, an annual theater festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada began as an eight-week run of Don Juan in Hell (as the long third act dream sequence of Man And Superman is called when staged alone) and Candida in 1962, and has grown into an annual festival with over 800 performances a year, dedicated to producing the works of Shaw and his contemporaries. The portrait of George Bernard Shaw located at Niagara-on-the-Lake was commissioned by hotelier Si Wai Lai and sculpted by Dr. Elizabeth Bradford Holbrook, CM (1913–2009).[97][98]
He is also remembered as one of the pivotal founders of the London School of Economics, whose library is now called the British Library of Political and Economic Science. The Fabian Window, designed by Shaw, hangs in the Shaw Library in the main building of the LSE.

The plan to kill all those with whom one finds some problem is an essential characteristic of Liberal, progressive, socialist, communist regimes throughout modern times.

The first modern public political philosopher to suggest genocide was Karl Marx, communist.

1. The Communists and their Marxist cousins, the Socialists,
have worked for revolution since the advent of the New Deal
twenty-one years ago by infiltrating government offices, labor
unions, schools and colleges, churches, radio and television,
the movies, the publishing business.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution."


Now, why mention 'Communists and their Marxist cousins, the Socialists'?
Because they are one in the same.

Nazism originated with Marxism, so let's include it.

See where this is going?



2. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica,
Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of
the British Labor Party, declares:

The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels stated that
communist ends can be attained "only by the forcible overthrow
of all existing social conditions."



So....whether one designates George Bernard Shaw as a socialist, communist, Nazi, progressive, eugenicist,....whatever.....

....he believed in wholesale slaughter of those with whom he disagreed.

Pete Seeger.....the same.

Anyone who subscribes to the political philosophies listed above is an enemy of mankind, no matter how they rationalize said beliefs.
The march is not to Utopia....it is to mass graves.


And you remain a dolt.

And you remain a LIAR!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're just jealous!

From your own link:

Eugenics

Shaw delivered speeches on the theory of eugenics and he became a noted figure in the movement in England.[79]
Shaw's play Man and Superman (1903) has been said to be "invested with eugenic doctrines" and "an ironic reworking" of Nietzsche's concept of Übermensch.[79][80] The main character in the play, John Tanner, is the author of "The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion", which Shaw published along with his play. The Revolutionist's Handbook includes chapters on "Good Breeding" and "Property and Marriage". In the "Property and Marriage" section Tanner writes:

To cut humanity up into small cliques, and effectively limit the selection of the individual to his own clique, is to postpone the Superman for eons, if not for ever. Not only should every person be nourished and trained as a possible parent, but there should be no possibility of such an obstacle to natural selection as the objection of a countess to a navvy or of a duke to a charwoman. Equality is essential to good breeding; and equality, as all economists know, is incompatible with property.
​

In this Shaw was managing to synthesize eugenics with socialism, his best-loved political doctrine. This was a popular concept at the time.[81]

Shaw in 1905


When, in 1910, Shaw wrote that natural attraction rather than wealth or social class should govern selection of marriage partners, the concept of eugenics did not have the negative connotations it later acquired after having been adopted by the Nazis of Germany.[82] Shaw sometimes treated the topic in a light-hearted way, pointing out that if eugenics had been thought about some generations previously, he himself may not have been born, so depriving humanity of his great contributions.[83] He seems to have maintained his opinion throughout his life.[82]
As with many of the topics that Shaw addressed, but particularly so in his examination of the "social purity" movement, he used irony, misdirection and satire to make his point.[74][84][85] At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he suggested the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve their problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment ..." Shaw also called for the development of a "deadly" but "humane" gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live.[86]
In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says

You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.[87][88]
​

Shaw, however, often used satiric irony in order to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account.[79][89] Some noticed that this was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder aspirations: The Globe and The Evening News recognised it as a skit on the dreams of the eugenicists, though many others in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone of Liverpool University writes: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture".[89][90]


And




Legacy


A statue of Shaw in Niagara-on-the-Lake


In his old age, Shaw was a household name in English-speaking countries, and was famed throughout the world. His ironic wit endowed English with the adjective "Shavian", used to characterize observations such as: "My way of joking is to tell the truth. It's the funniest joke in the world." Concerned about the vagaries of English spelling, Shaw willed a portion of his wealth (probated at £367,233 13s)[92] to fund the creation of a new phonemic alphabet for the English language.[93] However, the money available was insufficient to support the project, so it was neglected for a time. This changed when his estate began earning significant royalties from the rights to Pygmalion after My Fair Lady—the musical adapted from Pygmalion by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe—became a hit. However, the Public Trustee found the intended trust to be invalid because its intent was to serve a private interest instead of a charitable purpose, and as a non-charitable purpose trust, it could not be enforced because it failed to satisfy the beneficiary principle.[94] In the end an out-of-court settlement granted only £8600 for promoting the new alphabet, which is now called the Shavian alphabet. The National Gallery of Ireland, RADA and the British Museum all received substantial bequests.
Shaw's home, now called Shaw's Corner, in the small village of Ayot St Lawrence, Hertfordshire is a National Trust property, open to the public.[95] The Shaw Theatre, Euston Road, London, opened in 1971, was named in his honour.[96] Near its entrance, opposite the new British Library, a contemporary statue of Saint Joan commemorates Shaw as author of that play.
The Shaw Festival, an annual theater festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada began as an eight-week run of Don Juan in Hell (as the long third act dream sequence of Man And Superman is called when staged alone) and Candida in 1962, and has grown into an annual festival with over 800 performances a year, dedicated to producing the works of Shaw and his contemporaries. The portrait of George Bernard Shaw located at Niagara-on-the-Lake was commissioned by hotelier Si Wai Lai and sculpted by Dr. Elizabeth Bradford Holbrook, CM (1913–2009).[97][98]
He is also remembered as one of the pivotal founders of the London School of Economics, whose library is now called the British Library of Political and Economic Science. The Fabian Window, designed by Shaw, hangs in the Shaw Library in the main building of the LSE.

The plan to kill all those with whom one finds some problem is an essential characteristic of Liberal, progressive, socialist, communist regimes throughout modern times.

The first modern public political philosopher to suggest genocide was Karl Marx, communist.

1. The Communists and their Marxist cousins, the Socialists,
have worked for revolution since the advent of the New Deal
twenty-one years ago by infiltrating government offices, labor
unions, schools and colleges, churches, radio and television,
the movies, the publishing business.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution."


Now, why mention 'Communists and their Marxist cousins, the Socialists'?
Because they are one in the same.

Nazism originated with Marxism, so let's include it.

See where this is going?



2. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica,
Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of
the British Labor Party, declares:

The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels stated that
communist ends can be attained "only by the forcible overthrow
of all existing social conditions."



So....whether one designates George Bernard Shaw as a socialist, communist, Nazi, progressive, eugenicist,....whatever.....

....he believed in wholesale slaughter of those with whom he disagreed.

Pete Seeger.....the same.

Anyone who subscribes to the political philosophies listed above is an enemy of mankind, no matter how they rationalize said beliefs.
The march is not to Utopia....it is to mass graves.


And you remain a dolt.

And you remain a LIAR!

I never lie, and you never learn.

 

[editec]

Not a big fan but I am thankful for his work in saving the HUDSON RIVER.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not a big fan but I am thankful for his work in saving the HUDSON RIVER.

Yeah....I see the point....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6llaZefJDc]The Producers -- Hitler...there was a painter - YouTube[/ame]