I'm convinced Shakespeare was a Jew which is why he’s so heavily forced on school kids rather than far superior contemporaries like Webster.
Schools force this shit on you. Shakespeare was boring and shit while Webster was awesome and created great characters that had sometimes conflicting character traits. Shakespeare plays had characters with about as much dimension as a Lifetime/Reel One Entertainment movie.
However, shakespeare plays advocate Jewish anti white positions which is why schools force him. Oy vey this nasty white soldier doesn’t like being shoved aside for some nepotistic rich kid to replace him because the black guy prefers the brat. This is clearly evil and psychopathic. Oy vey this man doesn’t want to have to pay so,e Jewish money lender an extortionate amount of interest. This is very bad. Has a Jew not ears? Does a Jew not bleed when you cut us? Why are you persecuting the Jews? Clearly a woman dressed as a man must save the day goyim! Oy vey!
You sound like a faggot.
If Shakespeare was Jewish, they wouldn't let you forget that he is Jewish.
Shakespeare was a faggot, wasn't he? I always thought he was meant to turn students gay.
Webster only wrote 5 plays, only two of which gained any popularity, compared to Shakespeare's 39 and his poetry even less voluminous.
It's nothing to do with Jewery
You should try reading Shakespeare before criticizing it.
If you did read it, you need to try harder at understanding it.
Both the jew and the moor are presented as villains. You're not intended to approve of or agree with them.
Shakespeare was firmly established as a pillar of English literature long before Jews had any influence on curriculum choices.
The villain in Othello presented as Iago who drives Othello to madness. While othello murders his wife after Iago has driven him mad, the only reason it happens is because a White guy who’s angry he didn’t get selected for promotion is driving him crazy. Iago murders three people including a guy he’s scamming and his own wife too. Shakespeare clearly intends for the White guy to be the villain and the nigger to be a tragic antihero.
Shylock the Jew is presented as being scammed when the Whites don’t want to pay the exorbitant interest he charges them. The Whites then need a woman dressed as a man to save them. The Whites spit on Shylock, taunt him, abuse him and then finally use a cross dresser to use loopholes to get them out of it when he wants the money back. The Whites, and not Shylock, are presented as the villains. Shylock is allowed a three minute monologue to decry antisemitism.
This isn’t pro White. This, especially Shylock, is the use of ‘victim villains’, that is people who have been seriously wronged (or presented as seriously wronged) getting revenge through extreme measures. Modern day examples would be the rape victim in the dirty harry movies murdering the men who gang raped her, the crew on the orient express mirdering the guy that raped and murdered a child, or the woman in the last 300 movie who waged war on Athens killing innocent athenians because other athenians had killed her family and had her on a slave ship. If Shylock was intended to be a pure villain we wouldn’t have had a three minute monologue decrying antisemitism. The only reason Shylock doesn’t get the money is not because he’s a corrupt moneylender charging money, or because he’s demanding the flesh of the White guys. It’s because a cross dressing woman reminds the court that he is a Jew and as a Jew he isn’t entitled to anything. This is before the three minute monologue about ‘has a Jew not eyes has a jew not ears, if you cut us do we not bleed like you’ etc. This is intended to make you question antisemitism.
a) The harder one tries to understand, the harder it becomes to grow out from those who one "stands under"...
b) Does it really matter how soft or hard one summits to others, when those others only require ones consent to submission?
c) What's the difference between understanding suggested and comprehending perceivable?
Francis Bacon and his odd fellow buds penned "Shakespeare'
Shakespeare wasn’t even Shakespeare....
And the real Shakespeare also spearheaded the writing of the King James Bible
Give this a read:
https://sirbacon.org/francis-bacon-and-the-kjv-bible/
a) William (will I am) Shakespeare (shake spear) aka masturbation; self-stimulation; defilement by hand etc.
b) Bard (to favor) of Avon (water) aka praising fluid (inception towards death) over solid (life).
c) Suggested "to be or not to be" tempts one to ignore "being within", while "not to be" implies suggested nihilism (Latin nihilo; nothing); which tempts others to consent to denial of everything perceivable. Nothing towards being also implies creationism aka something out of nothing.
d) Only within drama (inception towards death) can comedy (life) make errors, hence "comedy of errors". Error; to err; to mistake implies taking suggested misses perceivable.