RSS
“For sufferance is the badge of all our tribe.”
Shylock, The Merchant of Venice, Act 1 Scene 3.
The lives of William Shakespeare and Sir Oswald Mosley are separated by more than three centuries, but they exist simultaneously in those corners of the Jewish mind where time, fact, and fiction are entirely relative. The Jews, it must be admitted, are a talented people. The strangest of these talents is the capacity to engrave into shared cultural memory a pantheon of grievances against individuals and events, many of which never existed. These shared fictions encourage ethnocentrism, tribal affiliation, and aggression towards perceived enemies. Take the Exodus story, for example. There is absolutely no evidence for any such event taking place in Egyptian history, and yet as the historian Paul Johnson remarked, Exodus, a kind of proto-victimhood narrative, “became an overwhelming memory” and “gradually replaced the creation itself as the central, determining event in Jewish history.”[1]P. Johnson, A History of the Jews (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1987), p.26. Now, just in time for Purim, a festival celebrating victimhood under, and victory over, Haman, yet another imaginary enemy, a new production of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice will be set in 1930s London. What has been revealed about the play thus far suggests that it will be staged in such a fashion as to represent a revenge on both Shakespeare and Sir Oswald Mosley, Englishmen who stand side by side in the burgeoning pantheon of Jewish hatred.
The Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) isn’t what it used to be. This year it plans to stage a play “exposing the blithe injustice of empire,” while another, Cowbois, promises a “rollicking queer cowboy show” and “a western like you’ve never seen it before”. It’s about a bandit whose arrival in a sleepy frontier town “inspires a gender revolution and starts a fire under the petticoat of every one of its repressed inhabitants.”
As well as producing such stunning and brave works as this, the RSC has helped produce The Merchant of Venice 1936. In this iteration of Shakespeare’s classic, the Jewish actress Tracy-Ann Oberman plays Shylock, “a widowed survivor of antisemitic pogroms in Russia,” who runs a pawnbroking business in London’s Cable Street, where Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists plans to march. Antonio, the merchant, and Portia, are British aristocratic followers of Mosley. The official advertisement for the play explains:
It is London in 1936 — fascism is sweeping across Europe, and Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists is threatening to march through the Jewish East End. Shylock (Tracy-Ann Oberman) is a survivor of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia. A widow, she runs a small business from her dark and cramped terraced house in Cable Street, hoping to give daughter Jessica a better future. When aristocratic anti-semite Antonio desperately needs a loan, he makes a dangerous bargain with this woman he has spat on in the street. Will Shylock, bitter from a life plagued by racism and abuse, take her revenge? A vivid evocation of our history, and a warning for our times.
Note: This is an adaptation of the original text, which contains themes of racism, including anti-Semitism.
Framed in this way, the play acts as a salvo against two of the primary Jewish obsessions in the British context — the presence of perceived anti-Semitism in the English literary canon, and the largely mythical Jewish understanding of an event in English history known as the Battle of Cable Street.
The Merchant of Venice
It’s now ten years since I explored Anthony Julius’s Trials of the Diaspora, a huge and deeply compromised text exploring the history of a putative English anti-Semitism. For Julius, a literary scholar, English literature poses a special challenge for Jews, and Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice occupies a particularly heinous role in the origins of English anti-Semitism. For Julius, and many other Jewish literary scholars, representations of Jews in English literature are unique because they represent part of a “persecutory discourse” which “puts Jews on trial” and fosters a “predisposition to think ill of Jews.” Julius complained that English “literary anti-Semitism has its own mode of existence. It has its own internal history…its own inner laws, its own distinct properties.” Julius blamed English works of literature, in particular Chaucer’s The Prioress’s Tale, Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, and Dickens’ Oliver Twist, for the very fact that “literary anti-Semitism came into existence.”
Julius’s analysis of Shakespeare’s play is worth briefly considering again, in light of the new ‘1936’ production, because it encapsulates the way in which Jews ignore certain aspects of the play in order to maintain that it’s inherently prejudiced and anti-Semitic. Having done so, Jews are then forced to ‘deal’ with the play, normally through unconventional methods of staging it or by clever additions which cultivate more sympathy for Shylock (the 2004 movie starring Al Pacino is a good example).
Julius states that the play has been used through the centuries “to promote ignoble elation at the spectacle of a Jew’s humiliation.” The play is said to “show a bad Jew; it encourages us to think badly of him; it encourages us to regard him as broadly representative of all Jews, it encourages us therefore to think badly of all Jews; further, it encourages us to think badly of Judaism.” Julius doesn’t elaborate upon or justify this logically tendentious syllogism. Instead, in a section intended to enlighten us on the English reception of the play, he quotes a German, August Wilhelm von Schlegel, as saying that he could detect “a light touch of Judaism” in everything Shylock says and does. Hardly damning.
The problem with this citation isn’t limited to the referencing of a German who never set foot in England. In fact, that is the least of the problems. More serious is the fact Julius deliberately misleads his readers by selecting and cropping quotes. The quote in question is derived and cited as being from Jonathan Bate’s The Romantics on Shakespeare. I own the book, and the reference to “a light touch of Judaism” is only the latter part of a full sentence, the former being at odds with Julius’ thesis that the character is meant to be broadly representative of all Jews. It reads: “Shylock, however, is everything but a common Jew: he possesses a strongly-marked and original individuality.”
The slippery Mr Julius doesn’t quote the English Romantics whose comments on The Merchant of Venice are freely available in the same chapter because his thesis stands condemned by their analysis. William Hazlitt pronounced that Shakespeare’s “Jew is more than half Christian. Certainly our sympathies are much oftener with him than with his enemies.” Heinrich Heine, who watched a performance in London, had this to say: “When I saw the play acted at Drury Lane, a beautiful pale Englishwoman standing beside me burst into tears at the end of the fourth act, crying out several times, ‘the poor man is wronged.’ She had a classical face and large dark eyes which I could not forget, for they had wept for Shylock.”
Shakespeare’s play is in fact a complex work with much to say about morality and revenge. To reduce it to the level of simply being about, or against, Jews, is to ignore much of its worthwhile content. And yet Jews, for a number of reasons, have approached it purely as a kind of ur-text of anti-Semitism.
Jews only really discovered Shakespeare, in any significant way, in the 1890s, following the large-scale westward migration from Russia and other areas of eastern Europe. The first Yiddish translation of the play appears in 1894, in New York. From the beginning, Shylock was staged by Jews as a kind of Jewish hero, and the first Yiddish translation isn’t titled The Merchant of Venice, but rather, in Yiddish, Shylock the Moneylender.
After deeper study, the second, English-speaking, generation of Jews in the West began to realize the subtle implications of the play. They worried about its capacity for shaping ‘ways of seeing,’ and the cultural knowledge it imparted about Jews (involvement in finance, tribal affiliation, and concepts of tribal revenge). There’s an argument to be made that the play was the first subject of a ‘cancel culture.’ The first major censorship efforts began in the 1920s in the United States, then spread to the UK. This persisted through the 1980s, when the ADL started to peak in its power, with a rash of activity to ban it in schools across the United States. It was banned in schools in Midland, Michigan in 1980. In Canada it was banned in several schools in Ontario in 1986. And in 1988 it was banned in several school districts in New York. The play continues to be subject to strategic omission. For example, Michael Morpurgo, one of the most successful children’s authors of Britain, recently released a collection of Shakespeare’s plays rewritten for a nine- or ten-year old audience. The only play that was left out was The Merchant of Venice. Morpurgo, who claims a Jewish step-father, explained his reasons as being that the play was anti-Semitic.
What is the Play Really About?
The Merchant of Venice actually falls within the category of comedy. It does have tragic elements, but it’s predominantly a comedy. It’s an example of what’s called “New Comedy.” In ancient Greek times they had a form of play known as “Old Comedy,” for example the plays by Aristophanes, and these were satirical and heavily political. Aristophanes is understood to have been succeeded by a playwright called Menander. Menander initiates “New Comedy,” which orbits a fixed set of tropes. One of these tropes is the idea of young lovers outwitting their parents, and seeking “a happily ever after.” New comedy is something that Shakespeare was particularly attracted to. We see it most clearly in Romeo and Juliet, but we see it also in The Merchant of Venice. Although there is the antagonism between Antonio and Shylock, the primary narrative aside from this is a love story. It’s a love story between Bassanio who is Antonio’s friend, and Portia, a wealthy heiress, or princess, that Bassanio is desperate to be able to become a suitor for. In order to be a suitor, he requires funds from Antonio, his best friend.
Antonio is a wealthy and successful merchant, but all of his ships are out at sea. And when they’re out at sea they’re vulnerable. As Shylock himself ponders in the play, they’re vulnerable to storms that may destroy the vessels, and to rats that may devour their cargo. Of course, the play opens with Antonio himself sitting in church brooding over his wealth and its vulnerability, and although The Merchant of Venice has been viewed and decried by Jews as a riff on ‘Jewish greed,’ the play is a much broader meditation on avarice.
Since ‘New Comedy’ plays always have a ‘bad guy’ and in this case that person is a Jewish moneylender, this creative choice alone seems sufficient to trigger centuries of Jewish antagonism towards Shakespeare’s work. Primarily, the problem with Shylock is that he’s a Jew portrayed in a massively popular example of literary genius, as a villain and a moneylender. Moneylending is a huge part of the socio-economic history of the Jews that Jewish intellectuals have invested a lot of energy into rewriting. Furthermore, the play is understood by Jews to offer echoes of the so-called Blood Libel. The locus here is Shylock’s demand that the loan offered to Antonio will be secured with a pound of Antonio’s own flesh. And yet the apparently bloodthirsty pledge is not what it first appears. When Antonio asks for the loan, Shylock replies,
“O father Abram, what these Christians are.
Whose own hard dealings teaches them suspect the thoughts of others!
Pray you tell me this; If he should break his day what should I gain by the exaction of the forfeiture.
A pound of man’s flesh taken from a man is not so estimable, profitable neither.
As flesh of muttons, beefs, or goats. I say to buy his favour I extend this friendship.
If he will not take it so; if not, adieu;
And for my love, I pray you wrong me not.”
Even within the creative confines of the play it’s a purposefully unrealistic request, at least at first. Shylock only becomes obsessive about getting the pound of flesh once he realizes that Antonio has definitely defaulted. At that point he’s become so embittered that his daughter, Jessica, seems to have eloped with a Christian boy that he falls into a blood frenzy. At first, however, it seems that Shylock sets the bar so high because it’s a kind of hyperbolic peace offering. Even Antonio seems to perceive it that way, because he replies, “Hie thee gentle jew.” And once Shylock leaves, he says: “The Hebrew will turn Christian: He grows kind.” Antonio clearly interprets the demand for a pound of flesh not as a Jewish lust for blood, but as an olive branch in the conflict between the two. Later, of course, this is utterly destroyed, because after an important sequence of events Shylock reveals himself to be bloodthirsty. He reveals himself to be greedy for revenge, more so than for money. And this issue of revenge comes to the fore in the most famous speech in the play. Setting it up, Antonio confronts Shylock and asks him why he wants the pound of flesh. Shylock replies:
If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge.
He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what’s his reason?
I am a Jew.
Hath not a Jew eyes?
Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge.
If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example?
Why, revenge.
The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
What Shylock is essentially saying here is: “There’s an antagonism that’s mutual between Jews and Christians, and for every time a Christian comes against me, I, the Jew, will pay him back even harder.”
In my view, this monologue encapsulates much of the dynamic of the Jewish-European interaction for the last 1,000 years, because it’s a pendulum. There’s Jewish action, followed by a European reaction, and so on. There is a constant to and fro between the two populations, even if it is rarely acknowledged, or permitted to be acknowledged, today.
Shakespeare is of course also saying here that Jews are human, and that their humanity does not detract from the fact that they can be at fault for their wrongs. This contrasts with Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta, where Barabas the villain is a kind of two-dimensional, cartoonish, evil Jew. What Shakespeare is doing here, possibly as a direct response to Marlowe’s work, is saying that a caricature like that does not really have much moral agency or responsibility. You can impart more moral responsibility and agency to someone when you acknowledge their humanity. In other words, we understand that they have the same faculties as us, and yet have chosen, as an act of their own corrupt will, to undertake negative actions.
The fuel for this pendulum-like dynamic is a sense of tribal hurt and a consequent hunger for vengeance. Shylock uses the terms “my tribe” or “my nation” on several occasions to discuss the offense that he feels that Antonio has caused. Shylock’s tribe has been offended, and, nominated by fate as their representative, he will have his revenge on one of the city’s most prominent Christians on their behalf. He wants it to be painful, and he wants to literally take a piece of the man who slighted his people.
In Jewish understandings and stagings of the play, this pendulum dynamic is entirely lost. Shylock exists only as the passive victim of Christian aggression, forced into bitterness by relentless, unprovoked, and unfair persecution. Consider again the description of the upcoming staging of The Merchant of Venice 1936. Shylock is “a survivor of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia. A widow, she runs a small business from her dark and cramped terraced house in Cable Street, hoping to give daughter Jessica a better future. When aristocratic anti-Semite Antonio desperately needs a loan, he makes a dangerous bargain with this woman he has spat on in the street. Will Shylock, bitter from a life plagued by racism and abuse, take her revenge?” [emphasis added]
This is the reverse of Marlowe’s Barabas. Whereas Barabas is cartoonishly evil, we now have cartoonish innocence: a survivor of unprovoked pogroms; a widow; the operator of a small business; living in humble surroundings; who just wants to provide for her child; and who has led a life “plagued” by “racism and abuse.” The three-dimensional character created by Shakespeare in completely lost, replaced by pure propaganda.
The Battle of Cable Street
Matching this new, false, Shylock is the equally neurotic staging of the play in the context of the so-called “Battle of Cable Street.” The Battle of Cable Street was a series of clashes that took place at several locations in the inner East End of London on October 4th, 1936. It was a clash between the Metropolitan Police, sent to protect a march by members of the British Union of Fascists (BUF) led by Oswald Mosley, and a motley group of anti-fascist demonstrators, including local trade unionists, communists, anarchists, Jews, and socialists. Mosley’s march had been publicly advertised, prompting the Jewish People’s Council to organize a petition objecting to it. The petition was then forwarded to the Home Secretary, John Simon, who declined to ban the march. In the build-up to October 4th, there was a blanket of propaganda depicting the BUF as violent terrorists. The anti-Fascist demonstration was sufficiently large, and the ensuing chaos so great, that the march was abandoned. The event has since gone down in anti-fascist and Jewish memory as a great triumph over a dangerous enemy. It’s use as the context for the latest staging of The Merchant of Venice is therefore full of political and cultural meaning.
In recent years, however, scholarship has revised the idea of the BUF as violent thugs who preyed on innocent minorities. If anything, the BUF has emerged as having been consistently victimized by Jewish-Communist violence and public relations tactics. Nigel Copsey, the foremost British expert on British anti-fascism, points out that “violence was instigated more frequently by anti-fascists than fascists.” Jews and Communists used the BUF’s reactive violence as a method of “denying the BUF political and social respectability.” In other words, simply by attacking BUF members and their demonstrations, anti-fascists were attaching violence to the BUF in the public mind, even if none of it was caused or initiated by the BUF themselves. This process was furthered by “deliberately overstating the extent of BUF violence.” Copsey explains:
Stephen Cullen has argued that one such occasion was the response to Mosley’s meeting at Oxford Town Hall in November 1933. At a protest meeting called by prominent Oxford dons to expose the violence used by the Blackshirts at Oxford Town Hall, anti-fascists alleged that fascist stewards thrust fingers up noses wearing gloves with metal rings and knuckledusters. There were also, as David Shermer notes, stories ‘told of needles being driven into the testicles of hecklers and of castor oil being forced down recalcitrant throats.’ As Cullen points out however, a local police report in the Home Office files makes no mention of any fascist stewards wearing knuckledusters, and where this report remained private, the anti-fascist version of events was heard publicly in a crowded meeting and was reported in the press.[2]N. Copsey, Anti-Fascism in Britain (London: Routledge, 2017), 15.
The Battle of Cable Street, of course, wasn’t a battle between anti-fascists and fascists, but between anti-fascists and the police. The riot resulted in 73 injured police officers, and 80 arrested anti-fascists. Nor was it a triumph over the BUF, who very quickly returned to the area within days and held a number of successful mass gatherings. As one article in Haaretz concedes, “The Battle of Cable Street was not the great victory over British fascism as left mythologizers portrayed it. Membership of the BUF in London nearly doubled afterwards and a week later 200 black-shirts attacked Jews and burnt shops not far from Cable Street in what became known as the ‘Mile End Pogrom.’”
*****
It’s difficult to see The Merchant of Venice 1936 as anything other than a crude expression of Jewish neuroticism and propaganda directed against those who, as Shylock exclaims, have “scorned my nation.” Shakespeare’s crime was to paint a portrait of a Jewish character using negative colors, sufficient in itself, in Jewish eyes, to place the text on a par with Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. What we’re seeing is a kind of revenge upon the play. And since the play is fundamentally about unhinged tribal vengeance, I think if Shakespeare could see this production, he’d smirk at the propensity for life to imitate art.
Notes
[1] P. Johnson, A History of the Jews (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1987), p.26.
[2] N. Copsey, Anti-Fascism in Britain (London: Routledge, 2017), 15.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Apparently all playwrights have been put on notice: all villains must henceforth be goyim.
I looove poetry, so I oftentimes search for it on YouTube – I continue to, even nowadays…
Many years ago, I found this video.¹ On the Description, we read:
“For a long time Shylock was played without any sympathy for his situation. Then Edmund Kean (1789-1833) started to play him with compassion and that is now the accepted way.”
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtwsck3z6yk
Video Link
Great article. All obviously true.
Theater tends to be dominated by a radically left wing contingent, often becoming a seething testing ground for Jews and gays to experiment with their ideas, some of which go on to become films people are more familiar with.
At the same time a general leftist realigning/deconstruction of Shakespeare is now a norm. I don’t know when that started exactly, but it’s being going on a while with gender swapped roles, ridiculous poc castings and so on.
I imagine with all these forms of censorship/subversion/deconstruction of prior European works the goal is not just to inflict Jewish changes upon some specific thing, but to be seen doing so. The exercise becomes another advert for their sensibilities, this insistence that the world observe these special sensibilities – generating a mix of a walking-on-eggshells atmosphere and some new anti-Jewish feeling among others to carry on the cycle.
A while back I got the impression that the The Jew of Malta is sometimes performed occasionally.
The 1 min video below is called ‘The Battle of Cable Street: Britain’s fight against fascism’:
Video Link
The following 28 min interview of Sir Oswald Mosley is a must watch. Mosley was around 80 years old at the time but was nevertheless as sharp as a tack, despite the efforts of the Zio influenced MSM (and this interviewer) to portray him in an unflattering way. Enjoy:
Video Link
Having served in the first World War, Mosley knew first hand about the horrors of war, unlike that coward and perpetual warmonger Winston Churchill.
Had Mosley been Britain’s Prime Minister, he would for certain have kept Britain out of a war with Germany (and indeed may well have allied with the righteous Germans to rid the world of ZOG).
With Mosley as Prime Minister, instead of that drunkard and puppet of Zionism (Churchill), we would’ve seen an infinitely more tranquil and prosperous world in the post war period.
Importantly also, the lives of countless millions would have been spared.
Oh, and did I mention that Mosley had impeccable taste in women ?
He married the timeless beauty Diana Mitford in secret in Nazi Germany on 6 October 1936 in the Berlin home of Germany’s Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. Adolf Hitler was their guest of honour.
Diana Mitford pictured below:
Sir Oswald Mosley was a great and wise man – arguably the greatest Prime Minister that Britain was never fortunate enough to have.
Great article!
Which is a specific instance of a more general attack on high culture.
Anyone interested in finding out more regarding the term high culture and why Supremacy Inc. is attacking it can check out #341 in the comment section of Andrew’s article on corruption in the Ukraine. https://www.unz.com/article/jewish-corruption-in-ukraine/#comments
Video Link
Where Britain decided to dismantle and deprive its own people. Houses, cars, airports, roads in Britain…No! Bridges over the Zambezi and Bicycles for niggers in Tanzania.
For example, snakes had a good reputation before the Jews put a snake in Genesis. Most likely they put it there because the Egyptian Pharaohs had snakes on their hats.
Then of course we go immediately off the rails. Yes, if the Jujews didn’t exist we would all be ethnocentric like the Jujews.
It’s been true for a century, and not just plays but books, movies, television, what have you.
It’s a full-court press–a war really; and only one side’s been fighting.
At this point they pretty much own everything that matters, yet still they play victim.
As always, it’s envy.
When you haven’t produce great works of human achievement ( by achievements I don’t mean elaborate ponzi shemes or Pseudo- science like Woke culture ), you degrade.
There is also the will to eradicate all that could be” harmful ” for ((them)), but at first it’s envy.
I too have often mentioned the anti-civilizational force of Judaism and its inability to produce a high culture. But this often falls on deaf ears…
As for the destruction of education, I had read an article by Israel Shamir in which he describes the Jewish custom of destroying the transmission of knowledge, and the spirituality of the goyim among whom ((they)) are found.
And, in my opinion, it’s more instinctive than deliberate.
The advantages are obvious: without knowledge and or high ideals the other becomes an easy prey, without any ability to defend himself. Even with the most powerful weapons in the world.
Unfortunately I cannot remember the title of this article by Israël Shamir.
Obviously, Unz and Shamir are no longer part of this anti civilizational force.
What do these people have to be vengeful about? Mostly because they are untalented, and they know it. Hateful whenever they encounter an example of transcendent Beauty, living their miserable life obsessed with a grotesque and degenerate desire to tear down what they cannot comprehend.
Excellence is their enemy.
I don’t know if it is the worst of the bunch; Shakespeare is quite inspired. But what these worms have done at Bayreuth is a crime. Having no artistic ability, they can only spew venom towards Richard Wagner, a man they despise. Unable to sully his music, they wrap it in ugliness, which is all they know.
Typical example: Even a rag like The Guardian was scratching their heads.
https://www.wagneropera.net/articles/articles-bayreuth-2022-valentin-schwarz-berry-gotterdammerung.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/aug/01/das-rheingold-review-bayreuth-festival-valentin-schwarz
Ugliness, depravity and an envy so consuming that it brings forth viciously destructive rages are their stock in trade.
Shakespeare also met Mosley in the movie Richard III (1995), an adaptation of Shakespeare’s play in which Ian McKellen portrays the baddie as a fascist plotting to usurp the throne in 1930s Britain. Not bad, as I recall.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6caaDPFAgbQp74uYTDQimEM9wBHa_Yc7sBw&usqp=CAU
I saw that, because a girlfriend insisted that it was eye-opening. Found it a mix of heavy-handed, bizarre, oddly compelling, and disjointed. I’ll stick with Laurence Olivier’s version myself.
Politics and controversy aside, not long ago I re-read Merchant of Venice, and I was totally struck by how modern much of the writing is. It really reads like it was written in the 20th century. It could have been a 1930s screwball comedy with a spooky undertone. And the courtroom scene remains one of the great masterpieces of controlled tension.
This “1936” production sounds like a bad parody of some woke moron with a musty old concept: Hey, I’ve got an idea! Let’s stage Romeo and Juliet, and… GET THIS: Romeo will be BLACK, and Juliet will be WHITE! That’ll rile the bastards up!
My feeling about Merchant being staged is the same as Taming of the Shrew: if the thematic aspects bother you, then *don’t do the play*. Do Tamerlane the Great or something, where I don’t know, Tamerlane is FDR or whatever your sour little hearts desire.
Richard III is Shakespeare’s worst play in many ways. Heavy handed, off the mark with far too many historical facts.
Richard didn’t plot against anyone until the chance coincidence of his brother dropping dead. He was always the loyal little brother. When Edward died only then he did act quick and quite rationally. I understand that if his own son had not died young, as a King with an heir Richard would have been able to bargain a marriage with the daughter of another monarch or rival magnate like Stanley.
Henry’s bid for the crown would have been difficult/impossible without the death of Richard’s own son:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_of_Middleham,_Prince_of_Wales
Good jew, bad jew.
Neither descriptive may fit;..
jew, others whom ‘see’ themselves as special, which in of itself carries an immeasurable burden of responsibility, some guilt, exposure(this article) to confrontational risks.
Inbreeding(law of return), murdering Palestinians, perpetual atrocities; “To be, or not to be” ??
Couldn’t agree more. Especially about Wagner. And thanks for the links.
Thank you, Andrew Joyce.
Your account of Cable st. is 100% accurate as Ha’aretz (“The Land”) admits.
This Jewish newspaper is more honest than our own disgraces.
Joining others in signalling deepest respect for Sir Oswald Mosley, Diana Mitford and all members of BUF. A rejected opportunity indeed.
One such member was your own namesake, William Joyce, who wrote “Twilight Over England” which is strongly recommended to all here.
Made available by our own gracious host. Thank you, Mr Unz.
Judging by your account of the latest offerings by the RSC, that twilight has since progressed to deepest stygian darkness.
Worms do turn, though.
https://www.unz.com/book/william_joyce__twilight-over-england/
When I was in high school, my classmates and I read both The Merchant of Venice and The Taming of the Shrew. I have no doubt whatever that both those plays are off limits to today’s students. We were fortunate to make their acquaintance.
What is never admitted, but can be inferred by history is why is this one group of followers of this ideology hated (thats what all religions are, an ideology) wherever they go in the world?
Is it because they never intend to become part of a society but to pull it apart and cause mayhem because it is easier to control and exploit a people if you get them at each others throat?
I see the biggest problem not the Jew but those “do gooders” in the native population who have to much time and money…and need to “save” humanity…these are the “thin edge of the wedge” that gets a Jewish diaspora going in a nation.
Anyway multiculturalism ,a Jewish project, has done so much damage to the West there is no prospect for the future for white people unless they break up a country and make an exclusive white state…then the do-gooder will return as the black states decend into anarchy.
Enoch Powell and Oswald Mosley were the last of the true Britons.
I have an idea: we could get the Feminista and the LBGTXYZ into the fight and stage a new, mondernist, postmodern “comedy of the woke”!
Portia, in order to defend Antonio in Shakespeare’s play, had to dress as a man. Of course in Shakepeare’s time, Portia was actually played by a man dressed as a woman, who dressed as a man for the court scene, due to contemporary sensibilities re female lawyers and actors, respectively.
It is she, Portia, the cross-dressed (or not, depending how you see it) wo-man, who saves the day by insisting that not one drop of Antonio’s blood be spilt in the extraction of Shylock, the perenial-victim-jew’s penalty (a pound of flesh).
Genius, certainly, but whose? The woman’s? The not-quite-exactly-“man’s”? The man-woman-man’s? – Certainly not racist anti-shamite Shakespeare’s, that’s for sure (unless*)!
So, the scene is set for… The Battle of the Woke!
Who will win the prize for most convincing victim of Christian Patriachy?
Will it be the trannies who successfully claim supremacy because Portia is a double cross-dresser?
Will the Feminista outwit the trannies in claiming the patriarchy forced her into double-drag?
Or will the worlds foremost victims win through in their struggle to portray The Merchant of Venice as an anti-semitic trope and blood-libel combined, whilst re-writing Shylock as a woe-be-tired widow-woman seeking sanctuary in a cruel, unsafe for jews world?
Gripping stuff, sure. But truly, the original play in all of its unadulterated glory takes first prize, along with whoever wrote it… Which brings me to the next controversy: *Who really wrote Shakespeare’s plays???
Please forgive my silliness.
With love,
Kali.
An erudite, well-written, and informative piece from Dr. Joyce, as always. But I have one nit to pick — the author’s narrative frame. He takes the long-discredited, intrinsically semitic supremacist construct of so-called “anti-semitism” seriously, and tries to prove that the topic of the first part of his essay is somehow not “anti-semiticist.”
Dr. Joyce is far from a fool, but this is a fool’s errand. Inherent in the structures of systemic tribalism is the expectation that the goyim must always praise and glorify People of Semitism. When the level of this glorification is judged to be in any way “inadequate” in a particular instance, this constitutes so-called “anti-semitism.” Who gets to judge this adequacy? MOTs — and only MOTs. You can’t win when you choose to play on the other side’s field, by their rules, letting them be the referees. All you’re doing is implicitly endorsing/ reinforcing the semitic supremacist canard of so-called “anti-semitism”… and the narrative frame that it sets.*
Looking at it from a slightly different perspective, Dr. Joyce makes a penetrating observation here:
Shylock’s tribe has been offended, and, nominated by fate as their representative, he will have his revenge on one of the city’s most prominent Christians on their behalf. He wants it to be painful, and he wants to literally take a piece of the man who slighted his people.
In Jewish understandings and stagings of the play, this pendulum dynamic is entirely lost. Shylock exists only as the passive victim of Christian aggression, forced into bitterness by relentless, unprovoked, and unfair persecution.
But this is precisely the core narrative purpose of the long-debunked “anti-semitism” trope — to obscure and deny that intergroup pendulum dynamic, while promoting semitic supreme victimhood. Anyone who deploys the term unironically is implicitly endorsing that denial. The reigning dogma in the current year is that any and all conflict between the Tribe and gentiles must be portrayed as resulting from this putative irrational, insane hatred which all Gentiles harbor toward the self-chosen people… for no reason at all. Any discussion of history of conflict over resources, territory, customs, or any differing collective interests whatsoever between the Tribe and the goy Other is entirely irrelevant from their standpoint** — that’s what the falsely-reified semantic construct of “anti-semitism” means. As antitribalism experts have long noted, extreme moral particularism is a fundamental characteristic of toxic semitism.
*See also “I’m not ‘racist’!”
**It goes without saying that the facts of a particular situation are also entirely irrelevant to the promotion and enforcement of this hegemonic semitic narrative frame.
Really.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201106231143/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63619-y
Snakes elicit specific neural responses in the human infant brain
Similar findings in other primates:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33841110/
Preferential Neuronal Responses to Snakes in the Monkey Medial Prefrontal Cortex Support an Evolutionary Origin for Ophidiophobia
” The Jews, it must be admitted, are a talented people.”
The innate talent to destroy everything that is good.
At nearly 80, Mosley was still a first rate mind, just compare him to the bumbling old clown Biden at the same age who can barely string two words together despite modern drugs and medical devices. Had Mosley become the British Prime Minister and had not been assassinated by the usual parties, would’ve kept Britain out of WW2 and saved millions of European lives.
Thanks.
Those of us on the Right can say:
We will always have Sir Oswald Mosley.
Wtf…..He’s the father of Max Mosley! Max was the president of the FIA which governed Formula 1(lovely sport). I heard a lot of Max back in the early 2000s. He was always in the news.
Man, the world is so convoluted. Churchill is hated by minorities today, he’s seen as the face of the mighty Brits, beloved by the conservatives and yet this is the real truth- that even he was a Jew servant in reality. And that indirectly he might have harmed his nation and the white race! Mind boggles. The world is convoluted.
on Broadway Leo Frank is now a victim
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parade_(musical)#:~:text=Parade%20is%20a%20musical%20with,American%20Leo%20Frank%20in%20Georgia.
Try to wrap your mind around the fact that Jews have decided to put “everyone throughout history has hated us, including celebrated geniuses” at the top of their collective resume.
Now try to wrap your mind around the fact that most western goyim see this at the top of the Jewish resume and consider it a reason to “hire” Jews.
Sometimes I can’t tell which group is more fucked in the head.
“BARABAS: As for myself, I walk abroad a-nights,
And kill sick people groaning under walls.
Sometimes I go about and poison wells;
And now and then, to cherish Christian thieves,
I am content to lose some of my crowns,
That I may, walking in my gallery,
See ’em go pinion’d along by my door.
Being young, I studied physic, and began
To practice first upon the Italian;
There I enrich’d the priests with burials,
And always kept the sexton’s arms in ure
With digging graves and ringing dead men’s knells.
And, after that, was I an engineer,
And in the wars ‘twixt France and Germany,
Under pretence of helping Charles the Fifth,
Slew friend and enemy with my stratagems:
Then, after that, was I an usurer,
And with extorting, cozening, forfeiting,
And tricks belonging unto brokery,
I fill’d the gaols with bankrupts in a year,
And with young orphans planted hospitals;
And every moon made some or other mad,
And now and then one hang himself for grief,
Pinning upon his breast a long great scroll
How I with interest tormented him.
But mark how I am blest for plaguing them:
I have as much coin as will buy the town.”
― Christopher Marlowe, The Jew of Malta
The Merchant of Venice was assigned reading in my high school English class in California decades ago. I think it was during junior year.
lll
The real problem of this version of the play is having a bitch as Shylock, which doesn’t make any sense, even when changing the date to 1936. Women do not work generally as moneylenders in judaism. Although we do have Janet Yellen, so there’s that.
I’ve read The Merchant of Venice eons ago, and don’t remember everything, but Shylock doesn’t come out neither as a complete villain but neither as a good guy. However, I cannot see the happy ending with conversion to Christianity as anything other than “anti-semitic” in Jewish eyes.
“Slowly, I began to hate them …”
You aren’t kidding about his excellent taste in women. Wow, what a Beauty !
I have to confess, I knew about Max Mosley before I knew the significance of his father – courtesy of my appreciation of F1 motorsports (in the days when real racing drivers like Ayrton Senna ruled the roost).
In other words, drivers that actually knew how to drive (when race cars had clutch pedals and they shifted with a conventional gear lever).
Note – I always thought the villains in Charles Dickens stories all seem to be thinly disguised members of one ethnic group.
I’ve always been partial to the theory that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, was the author known to us as William Shakespeare. Here is one citation; there are many others.
In fact, there are many other such hypotheses, and I don’t think the subject has been settled.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/20/max-mosley-news-world
In the UK in 2009, there was a lawsuit brought by former president of the FIA (Federation Internationale d’Automobile), Max Mosley – son of “that” Mosley and famous mother Diana Mitford – against the newspaper company Axel Springer’s The News of the World. The case was about the publication by the newspaper of photos and videos from a sex party, in which Mr. Mosley allegedly appeared dressed as a concentration camp guard and the non-prudish ladies who accompanied him in the game were said to be dressed as concentration camp prisoners. The whole thing was said to have taken place in a “sadomasochistic” atmosphere. Mosley won the lawsuit and received a hefty compensation, and copies of the infamous The News of the World were also pursued in France, where the newspaper is also published. But he also said that “his life had been devastated”.
Mosley’s lawyer, Mr. Philippe Ouakrat, told the court that the editor of The News of the World belongs to a group of newspapers referred to as the “gutter press” in the Anglo-Saxon world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Thurlbeck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosley_v_News_Group_Newspapers_Ltd
On 12 April 2013 Thurlbeck launched TalentGB, which specialises in hosting the showreels of artistes of every genre. The company also acts as a PR adviser to several bands and singers. The company website is talentgb.com. Thurlbeck’s role can be viewed at http://www.talentgb.com/content/team-talentgb Archived 20 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine
In December 2014 Thurlbeck was made a director of The Retail Ombudsman. This decision was criticised in the Ombudsman Omnishambles report.[18]
In 2014, he became Managing Director of PR company Clear Vista Media.[17]
In 2016, he was appointed a director of the International Fur Federation, with responsibility for global communications for 39 member countries.[19]
Thurlbeck’s memoir, Tabloid Secrets: The Stories Behind the Headlines at the World’s Most Famous Newspaper was published in May 2015
In London, a member of the highest social and political circles of interwar Great Britain, Sir Oswald Mosley, lived and operated. He was a cousin (through his father) of the 14th Duke of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and therefore a cousin of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the wife of King George VI and Queen of the Empire, as well as the mother of Queen of the Empire, Elizabeth II.
Sir Oswald Mosley was born into privilege and married well. First, in 1920, he married the daughter of the Viceroy of India, “that” Lord Curzon’s daughter, which was “the event of 1920”, attended by King George V and Queen Mary.
His second marriage took place after the death of his first wife to Diana Mitford, primo voto Guinnes. Sir Oswald Mosley, a member of the British Parliament and founder of the British Union of Fascists in 1926, which was allowed to operate for a full 14 years until 1940 and had as many as 20,000 members, married for the second time on December 6, 1936, at the private estate of the then Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment of Germany, Gauleiter of Berlin from 1926-1945, Josef Goebbels. So, in Berlin.
Among the guests was the leader of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) and Chancellor of Germany, Comrade Adolf Hitler. Lady Mitford Mosley was a friend of Magda Goebbels but also a close cousin of Clementine Ogilvy Spencer-Churchill, the wife of Winston Churchill himself.
How to put it. These Hitler admirers had a nice foothold in Great Britain, especially in London. Not that they were “Nazis,” but rather “fascists,” but they worshiped the swastika in much better circumstances than, let’s say, the Italians.
Her sister, Unity Mitford, was so close to Adolf Hitler’s inner circle that when he celebrated the Anschluss of Austria in 1938, she reportedly stood with him on the balcony in Vienna during the most important speech.
Moreover, as a hospitable host, Hitler offered Lady Unity Mitford from British aristocracy a luxury apartment in Munich, and she toured the apartment before deciding to move in. Not to mention that she and her sister attended various Nazi mass rallies as honored guests, and Unity even spoke at some.
As the British Consul General wrote in an official report about her in 1936, “she is more Nazi than the Nazis, greeted the British Ambassador with the Nazi salute…”.
https://gab.com/wiktor20/posts/106750219708969971
Ass bandits, eh?
Oh, it was Churchill who took a loan from the Jews and look what that led to.
Superb essay, true Andrew Joyce vintage. I do, however, fault his criticism of Julius here:
“The play is said to “show a bad Jew; it encourages us to think badly of him; it encourages us to regard him as broadly representative of all Jews, it encourages us therefore to think badly of all Jews; further, it encourages us to think badly of Judaism.” Julius doesn’t elaborate upon or justify this logically tendentious syllogism.”
I don’t care if Julius’ syllogism is ‘tendentious’ if it happens to be correct, supported by observation, experience and data. Julius unintentionally pays tribute to the play’s pedagogical merit (“Cave judeum”).
No generalization excludes the possibility of exceptions. At the same time it is unacceptable to deny the veracity of a generalization on the argument that… there are exceptions.
Wasnt Marlowe mysteriously stabbed in a brawl in a tavern?
Odd to think about that in the light of writing such an anti Jewish passage.
Crook and corrupter of children, Fagin, of Oliver Twist was referred to as “the Jew” in the text over and over, until the Jews made public complaints. The novel was serialized– released in chapters in a magazine. Dickens capitulated. From about halfway through the novel as we know it, Fagin is no longer “the Jew”.
Harold Bloom argued he was killed by the Crown because he was a spy who had outlived his usefulness. Yours is an interesting question.
The Merchant of Venice 1936-Twisted Sister.
The Jews twist truth like their twisted little minds. Pretzels.
Female Shylock?
Maybe she will do as good as Al Jolson did negroes.
Video Link
Probably not.
“Oure firste foo, the serpent Sathanas,
That hath in Jues herte his waspes nest,”
From The Prioress’ Tale, one of the great lines of all literature
Just read as far as the new RSC plays … ughhhh.
Yes, thanks.
Your outline of Mosley’s background and marriage connections is accurate.
One might argue that he was an example of the “Vertue” type of English nobility, long since extinct, in that the cause of Fascism was strongly pro-worker and -middle class.
Mosley continued his pro-Europe campaign after WW2, during which BUF was broken up and its members imprisoned by the govt of Jewish nominated Man of the Century, Sir Winston Churchill.
Possible that the Zionist masonic bloodbath (another in a very long series, incl today) of WW2 might have been avoided, some 60 million European lives saved.
Probably the Danzig dispute settled amicably, as far as that might be possible with Smigly Rizd Hyena and the clash been vs judeo bolshevism.
Which would have been vanquished.
No Cold War. No Jewish torture Chambers. No gulag. No “Israel”. Etc.
A different world than the one we have now.
The CEO of LAD, Mr Jonatan Greenbarf, has issued a decree as follows:
-All plays and other entertainment will be written and produced by Joos
-These will be promoted, critiqued and cheered on by other Joos and the Joo MSM
-Plays and entertainment will be about sleaze, perversion, bestiality and degeneracy
-The Goyim are required to attend and pay
-Cheering is mandatory
-Front row seats are reserved for Joos only
-Dress code for front row seats is trench coats
Note: Joos are not to blame. If the Goyim did not pay to attend these incredible works of Art, said works would not be produced and the Goy would be deprived of familiarity with Jooish culture.
I hope you will be attending this joyous Jewish jewell of a production. Some old Jew might need your expertise. You are Woke and you can Choke a Jewish Johnson LMAO !
I highly recommend the American comedy musical “Kiss Me Kate” which was a modern adaptation of the “Taming of the Shrew” of a play within a play – American Broadway at it’s best!
The music is fun, the action and chemistry between the fighting actor actress couple and yes, the spanking – beautiful!
Well, at any rate, Jews are now in full control of England, along with the rest of the Western world.
As to the story of Exodus (which may or may not be true) it sounds exactly like what Jews have done to hundreds of other wealthy countries in robbing them of their wealth prior to being driven out.
From Wikipedia: The writer Evelyn Waugh exclaimed that her beauty “ran through the room like a peal of bells.”
Sixty million pure English versus fifteen million assorted Jews: surely, the nation that ruled a quarter of the globe can take care of the rag merchants before the literature of the British isles has been turned into a joke or can’t they?
Well?
Who is the worst criminal?
Jew who is giving the bribe or the Goy who accepts the bribe. (In Government environment)
That is todays question.
Any predictions who will be the President who grants a posthumous pardon to Leo Frank?
Jewish power and achievement in the west has been declining for decades.
The last Shakespeare play I experienced, half the actors were black, the other half gay, that was enough for me. Imagine the pain and suffering listening to apes and lisping fags recite Shakespeare for two hours? Out of respect, I made an excuse of stomach illness to leave at intermission.
My only conclusion for this DIE (((Diversity-Inclusion-Equity))) bs is to rub whitey’s nose in it as they rewrite, recast every work of white authors, composers and historical figures with new improved versions that make good on Jews, Blacks and Faggots.
They feel if they can get away with a fake Exodus from Egypt and a fake Holocaust in WWII, and still control media, banking, and industry, they can get away with anything, and so far, that seems to be the case.
A major violent extinction event and grassroots pushback is forthcoming, it’s not a question of if, but when.
A major Jewish, church of England RSC etc power base failing in Africa.
Vice anglais under renewed scrutiny.
“The ayes have it,” Parliamentary Speaker Anita Annet Among said after the final vote, adding that the “bill passed in record time”.
Law could be the first to criminalise identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer …
Whereas in the west queers are officially encouraged to bugger your children, elsewhere these abominations are actively discouraged.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/22/uganda-passes-tough-antigay-law-bans-identification-as-lgbtq
The ‘RSC” performing an ‘adaptation’ of the text??!! Ye gods and little fishes! In my opinion the real reason that SOME Jews detest the play is that it portrays Shylock as human, not a ‘God Upon the Earth’, in the really preferred conception of the Jews’ existence. I’ve seen Julius and read some of his tracts, and I believe that he is simply driven by Judaic xenophobia and hatred, which is NOT universal among Jews. Unfortunately the Jews who are not so motivated are never presented to public opinion, or are vilified for their sympathies (‘self-hating Jews’), like the numerous Jewish supporters of Jeremy Corbyn.
In the following video it is claimed that Edward de Vere who was extremely pious, was really upset with Marlowe when he found out that Marlowe was or had become an atheist. Highly recommended viewing:
Alexander Waugh: Edward de Vere & Marlowe, Lyly, Kyd. ‘BAND OF BROTHERS’ ZOOM Webinar. 12 Dec, 2020
Video Link
Video Source: https://www.unz.com/jcook/the-queen-and-her-legacy-21st-century-britain-has-never-looked-so-medieval/?showcomments#comment-5547727
I saw John Bell do Richard once, shamelessly aping Olivier. But he was very good, although I reckon that his Vanya and Arturo Ui were even better.
It is ironic that Moseley left Labour because he saw them as not in favour of British workers. Fast forward to Tony BLiar’s New Labour which demonstrated it hated the British working class and brought truth to Enoch Powell’s “In the end, the Labour party could cease to represent labour. Stranger historic ironies have happened than that.”
As for Shylock, it’s been close to 60 years since studying it in high school, but I recall the interpretation as his being blinded by his insistence on the pound of flesh rather than accept a more generous repayment of 6,000 ducats, merely to prove a point, then losing more due to the flesh but no blood declaration. A more recent version might be: Be careful what you wish for.
“What Shylock is essentially saying here is: “There’s an antagonism that’s mutual between Jews and Christians, and for every time a Christian comes against me, I, the Jew, will pay him back even harder.””
I would make these additions
“There’s an antagonism that’s mutual between Jews (Talmudists) and Christians, and every time a Christian comes against me (disapproves of my greed), I, the Jew, pay him back even harder.”
Merchant of Venice 1936. Sounds as if Shakespeare’s play has been “jewed” down to a poor porridge of woke propaganda. At least Shakespeare’s Shylock had balls.
I’ve never heard of any Italians protesting the portrayal of Iago. Do the Danes protest the character of Claudius? Are the Scots forever getting revenge for Lady MacBeth? Why this one ethnicity?
A Jewish coworker was once complaining about discrimination of his mother’s people and I asked him how they were discriminated against. He said they couldn’t get into certain country clubs, and then joined in the laughter of the rest of the crew. Of course he was only half-Jewish and married to a pretty Italian girl so he was a little different, I guess
People talk about “The Merchant of Venice” having more “nuance”, which is true, but the Jew of Malta was pretty good too, despite being more, well, “anti-semitic.”
Too bad Marlowe got stabbed in some tavern when still young. They say he influenced Shakespeare. But did Shakespeare even exist? Did Marlowe? Are the Oxfordians still at it? Lots of murky biographies in that period.
Well, gay actors are not that unusual, and if they are not flaming homos they may play hetero characters believably, but the multicultural cast… I remember one Shakespeare play I watched (Maybe Love’s Labour Lost? That was over a decade ago) where one very fat Black woman played the Queen of France, and some Asian dude played a Spanish nobleman, and it was just… Let’s say, I could not concentrate on the story at all.
I recall reading that, at the outbreak of WWII, many members of the British Union of Fascists immediately rushed to join the British Army. Many of them fought in the vicious battle of Calais in 1940 and were killed or wounded.
Churchill later reportedly said that, were it not for the bravery of the men at Calais, Dunkirk would have fallen much sooner and the British Army in France would have been lost.
I saw that version as well. God awful and deranged.
No, dear. Shakespeare and Marlowe did not existeth. They were designed by Q. Follow thy plan.
I’d actually like to see this play. I think it’s going to be hilarious! I am not wealthy. I wish I have enough money to fly to the JewK to attend a performance. I’d totally may the global news.
Opinions about Richard 3 vary.
Thanks for not repeating the nonsense that Margaret Beaufort or anyone and everyone but Richard 3 murdered 12 year old Edward 5 and Edward 5’s brother.
The latest ridiculous defense of Richard 3 is that he spirited Edward 5 and his brother to a remote castle in Yorkshire where they lived happily ever after.
Back in the 1480s Sir James Tyrell claimed he smothered Edward 5 and his brother Richard with feather mattresses and pillows. And he, Tyrell, and some workmen buried the bodies in a stair case.
lol and behold, some 150 years later the bodies of two males, age 12 and 10 were found buried in the same staircase Tyrell described.
Yes families of Tower of London lived on the premises. In those days many children who lived in the Tower precincts died young. But they were buried in the cemetery around the church built for the people who lived in the Tower.
Henry 7 and Margaret Beaufort were bloodthirsty vicious warlords that’s very true. But so was every noble and gentry family in Britain. Schemers plotters back stabbers connivers traitors turncoats murderers everyone of them. Plantagenets, Tudors Nevilles Howards Boleyns Seymours Warwicks men or women.
It’s unlikely given the demographics in England at the time but writing “The Jew of Malta” would get you killed today.
I’m a great fan of the beautiful Mitford sisters.
Except Jessica the communist witch. Who moved to the United States and married a CPUSA bigshot Bob Truehaft. And moved to Berkeley Ca in the early 1950s. To provide housing for scumbag commie AllenGinsberg And join with Jew Faye Stender and other commies to start the free speech movement black panthers civil rights hippie close down the university of California by communists liberals and mobs.
I’ve read all their books and biographies. And seen the movies and TV series made from the books. And seen hundreds of pictures of them. Jessica was average Probably one of the reasons she became a communist. The rest of the sisters were dazzling drop dead beauties. Dianna and Deborah the most stunning.
There’s a Merchant of Venice on YouTube. I watched the first few minutes. Began with scenes of Venice. Harbor streets canals gorgeous buildings people walking about. And a voiceover narration about the Jews of Europe were the most abused murdered people in the world. Chased hither and yon all over Europe for no reason but religious hatred. Some Jewish men in the crowd wore distinctive red hats and incredibly over the top luxurious clothes. And then a lynch mob grabbed a Jewish man and threw him over a bridge into the canal. A passing boatman banged an oar over his head to drown him.
At which point I clicked on the don’t like box and turned it off.
The juice rises at the prospect of playing Shylock. I recall friend R using a cane in gestures just short of alarming. But the moment to whiten the hair comes when Shylock learns of the loss of his daughter. That would be the moment that unites the audience with the character, willingly or not. Up till that point it’s just … business.
Sex role swapping in theater, with a sub textual undercurrent of homosexuality.
This link is to a Jewish radio drama called The Tale of the Giant Rat of Sumatra. It is a Sherlock Holmes story with copyright protected rewrite.
Notice the female voice is male, and the ‘fair haired hero’ may be homosexual.
Enjoy.
i was going to give a ‘huzzah’ to the puncturing of the shakespeare balloon, but the gratuitous, control-freak, self-important, snarky warning of “Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone.”, pissed my aspie ass off so much i now just want to point out how much of an ass ‘our’ host is, and ever shall be…
jerk
Well there may be something in that in modern times with Jewish influence.
But I was thinking more of a feminist angle. I’ve actually (with great pain) attended a Shakespeare production put on by feminists where roles are gender swapped to prove some useless point and I believe they are fairly common now.
But also consider the way theater was performed in Shakespeare’s day. It was very different to today’s theater. All actors – including those portraying women were men, usually prepubescent boys. It wasn’t Jews making that happen but because the idea of women doing that in those days was the same as being a street hooker.
I believe it was later French influence, that reached post-Restoration England when women eventually came to perform.
Ackshully I’m not totally sure they were prepubescent boys, these males could well be quite young though I believe if portraying women. Then actors would also have had multiple roles in the same play which is something you still see today sometimes.
My money’s on Biden.
Wha.a.a?
Worse screeds appear at .unz on a daily basis.
The Jews find revenge by other means.
The death of Richard’s boy with the Neville girl is overlooked in the Shakespeare play. Without that death he’d have not faced such a serious attack on his crown.
Fagin: How I stopped being a Jew and Loving it!
it’s funny to read the book as you pointed out. His Yiddishness vanishes.
I recently read a suggestion Shylock intended the flesh be Antonio’s manhood. I prefer this interpretation as it paints Shylock as a monster, a vampire. This goes along with modern jewish monster themes. Themes like Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein. I understand the Wolfman also had jewish roots.
A pound of flesh. Ouch!
I’m thinking of Julius Streicher here. “Purimfest 45!”
Apparently, the Europeans of those times did not take the claim of Jews being the Chosen People seriously.
There is no mention in the RSC’s press release that they intend to portray Shylock’s daughter Jessica as a transgender dwarf. Surely this must be an oversight.
I’d like to understand how Jews fit into the current epidemic of white women having sex with dogs? This trend has blown to stratospheric levels in the past few years. I’m a young male, frankly any woman walking around with a dog that isn’t a toy dog is utterly suspect. I see them as disgusting subhumans. Why do they need dogs in the first place? I see a lot of fairly weak males with dogs as well and they might be having sex with them as well. Dogs aren’t pets for any cosmopolitan, live on the farm with a dog or live a normal life in the city. Dogs stink up homes and their shit is everywhere on the side walks. White women having sex with their dogs might be a result of brainwashing from their childhood years in the same manner as homosexuals being homosexuals is a result of either being molested or being brainwashed from currently homophaggtory propaganda.
You fester in a sewer which thankfully has a single resident.
Non sequitur. Thou fool, the identity of Shakespeare is one of the oldest “conspiracy theories” that exist, with the Edward De Vere theory, the Francis Bacon theory, etc. Not saying I agree with any of them.
Excellent critique of what is simply just more Jew whining.
This man writes well.
I agree.
Women and their weak , fey, Bearded Beta pets are a disgrace to my race. Dogs, dildoes….anything but intercourse with their faggotized idolizers.
And why is suffereance the badge of all their tribe?
Because they make others suffer. But, by making others feel sorry for them they can turn the tables and train those others that suffering, not the infliction of suffering, was the true way, thus increasing their harvest of pain.
Enter Christianity as interpreted by Paul (Saul).
Obviously, that tradition continues today with Identity Politics/Woke-Cancel Culture.
The joke about Identity Politics is that it is now the dominant explanatory system of the entire Western world. Thereby undermining the Oppressor/Oppressed argument upon which it is based and revealing it for the complete sham that it is.
Hardly a recipe for long-term success. More like a Pyrrhic Victory.
No.
The plays and poetry of William Shakespeare were written by William Shakespeare.
Soon to re-re-imagined as “Crookback Mountin’ “
“about a
banditpretender whose arrival in a sleepyfrontiermediaeval town “inspires a gender revolution and starts a fire under the petticoat of every one of its repressed inhabitants.”Hie thee hence, thou Moor, thou Mussulman! Thou dogges dicke!
Your obsession suggests to me that you are an oddly and comically-hued immigrant to .. Canada.
My condolences.
Cutting off a Thigh is a euphemism for castration.
Insufferableness more like.
“What Shakespeare is doing here, possibly as a direct response to Marlowe’s work”–Or what Marlowe was doing as a response to his own work, if you believe “Shakespeare” was really Marlowe. See Calvin Hoffman’s THE MURDER OF THE MAN WHO WAS SHAKESPEARE, Daryl Pinksen’s MARLOWE’S GHOST. (Apologies if someone else already mentioned this.)
You mention the lack of evidence for the Exodus. I too found this strange studying the same for my M.Div. at Wycliffe College in Canada. Indirectly a friend put me on to the perspectives of Immanuel Velikovsky who through some brilliant multi field study, realigns history with some powerful, and to my mind conclusive, evidence. The realignment shifts Egyptian/Israeli history by some 600 years dropping the Exodus into the end of the Middle Kingdom (the greatest) in Egypt. When I looked to my Egyptian history textbook it shockingly stated the cause of the fall of this kingdom, which built the pyramids, is a mystery. A mystery indeed! I ran this by my Old Testament professor, a one R.K.Harrison, who simply dismissed the entire idea out of hand. This was a seminal moment in my education; life education. I thought Velikovsky’s work would create an entirely new strain of corroborative evidence that validates the Old Testament documents, seeing as their cultural interactions are numerous. Another example Velikovsky reinforces is the visit of the Queen of Sheba (from Egypt) to Solomon. The provided evidence is heavily corroborative and a joy to read I might add. (Being so used to endless narrative) Unfortunately this exploration of the enormous implications never trickled down to the common man. Of course many, like Mr. Harrison’s renown work ‘Introduction to the Old Testament’, would need to be retracted and necessarily require a revision.
Does anybody have the foggiest idea of what happened to Mr Joyce ?
Thanks in advance