[TVOW]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[rerevisionist]

No, not Marlowe. The front runner in the Shakespeare dispute is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. The idea of the illiterate Shaksper being able to write Shakespeare's plays and sonnets is absurd; he seems to have been something like a war profiteer, making money from food hoarding during the English war with Spain, when there was something approaching famine. All myths have unexpected side-effects; one of the side-effects of the Shaxper myth is on modern education. If you seriously believe an illiterate could write material embracing legal theory, the classics (in the process of rediscovery at the time), the preoccupations of English Royal court life at the time, you're in a fantasy world in which education is not needed and insight can come to anyone. This is of course part of modern educational theory, carefully fostered by people who want to ruin the world.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

In India, they defficate in the streets, and throw their dead relatives into the Ganges River. In Europe, those actions would be considered taboo. Which of the two, Europe or India, would you say had a higher level of civilization?

To maintain the fabric of social structure, some restraint and decorum is necessary. Some things must be taboo.

One major problem with graduates of the public school system today is an inability to communicate, and to articulate ideas. Vulgar words usually only express emotion. Vulgur words lead to vulgar thinking, and not to critical thinking.

[mooninquirer]

rerevisionist ---- thank you for the succinct description of why Shakespeare could not have written "Shakespeare's " plays. I didn't know he was a war profiteer. I did know from my high school English classes that Shakespeare's education consisted of " a little Latin, and less Greek" ---- in other words, it was not much. Somehow, my English teachers did not make the very logical assertion that it was implausible that Shakespeare wrote those plays. I do not NOT think they would have been offended had a student proposed that, but I guess their concern was it might lessen the student's respect for the plays themselves, and the teachers have to do anything they can to encourage the students.

I already was a fan of Edward de Vere having been the author. It seems that a friend of his family was Jew, and this might have been the inspiration for Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice." That play gives a VERY sympathetic portrayal of Jewish bankers. Shyklock does not lie or steal ---- his only problem is he does not show mercy, and is vindicative. Very importantly, this play does NOT illustrate the severe problem of fractional reserve banking, or worse, in our modern times, of Jewish control of the currency which everyone must accept as legal tender. The entire Federal Reserve and banking system is a welfare system for Zionist Jews, and they can just print up ( or fund any Zionist Jew's account ) with ANY amount of money whatsoever, so they can lobby politicians, and buy up mainstream media and spread propaganda.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

My only exposure to 'Shakespere', or whoever it was, was from watching Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in the movie The Taming of the Shrew.

Lenard Bernstein, the homosexual, and I guess, jew, corrupted Romeo and Juliet to make his play West Side Story. And having heard a little of West Side Story, I can see that it added nothing to western culture. Though at some times and place, expletives may serve a purpose, when they can be directed at a specific ear that needs to hear some, I don't think recording them on a public electronic bulletin board is a good idea.