The thing about christianity is that it's a immense body of rules and it's complex with a lot of basis on interpretation of passages that change with times. In the middle ages the jews were the pharisees, the guys that rejected jesus. What all jews were supposed to do was to accept the word of the son of their God who also broke the oath(with the hebrew people or israel). But they didn't all do that. Those who didn't are the jews of today. So the middle ages had a huge defense and mistrust against them. You see a cycle of accepting and expelling in many countries much like grasshoppers. Even (THE) martin luther liked then at first but came to hate them eventually. But then illuminism came and all this idea of separation of church and state and the jews were just another religion under protection of the state able to get full citizenship in many countries and leave their ghettos a la rothschild. That's when it went wrong. But again is christianity bad? Well the roman empire ended up accepting christian germanics with no loyalty to it because of 'christian values'. And they dismembered it and made germanic kingdoms like the franks. But by that time the empire was already a rotten corpse (with or without christianity). Other point, in the book rules for radicals where the jewish saul alinsky teaches you how to be an organizer (subvert host society) he says that no one, even more an institution, is able to live to their own rules. Like the catholic church has gay/pedo priests in it. So you have to criticize and make them live to it whenever it's convenient to us. Like aren't you a christian? You should love the refugees who raped your daughter and let them live in your house. Btw you aren't a racist nazi aren't you. I have many doubts about this religion but I believe this gives a fair account in contrast to typical pol vision. What I believe in whatever saves the white race without it losing it's soul nor it's virtue

>>3737 >forcing the removal of "The Merchant of Venice" from public schools I am a high school teacher. Public schools love The Merchant of Venice now, because they teach it completely backwards, and many teachers basically force kids to say the exact opposite of what the story teaches. I work at several schools, and at one, I don't get to make my own lessons. It's online and they're all pre-recorded, and I just do discussion and marking. It's actually much easier for both me and the students, but there's one problem. If the teacher that made the lessons is an SJW, I don't get to change it. Sometimes it so happens that I made the lessons for that class, but other times I get a class that someone else made. In one class we do a whole unit on The Merchant of Venice, and the teacher that made the lessons teaches that Shylock is a victim, and that he deserved to literally take his pound of flesh. I do my best when talking with the students to get them to think more critically about this once they get to me, but I can only do so much, because the actual lesson is already fucked up. Some of them take a step back and realize how absurd it is to think that it's "anti-semitic" to not like a loan shark cut a man's skin off, but most don't, and then write essays about how Shylock is a victim of racism, just like Tom Robinson from To Kill a Mockingbird (the novel we spend another unit on), who is falsely accused of a rape he was physically incapable of committing. A loan shark who happens to be jewish not being allowed to cut a pound of flesh off of a guy who didn't pay his loans is exactly the same as a black guy being jailed for a rape he is physically incapable of committing. Sorry for being sort of off topic, but I rarely have the chance to point out that students are literally being taught that it's okay for jews to cut your skin off if you owe them money. Also, even though it's SJW as fuck, the school recently changed the novel unit so now it isn't about To Kill a Mockingbird, because the word Nigger is all over that book, and even though it's all about how racism is bad (but at least it had broader applications, with how the kids were prejudiced against the white Boo Radley), that isn't enough to satisfy the SJWs. This completely fucked up all the students who were halfway through completing that unit, and now they all have to just start over with another novel. The novels they get to choose from are all modern feminist trash, and even you guys would kill to take To Kill a Mockingbird over anything that is still allowed. For the record, I try to do better stories in the classes I do get to design. (((They))) haven't realized that One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is basically all about "toxic femininity," and I can sneak in some discussions that otherwise wouldn't be allowed by doing Tolkien. We're also still currently allowed to do Lord of the Flies, though I have had a few parents complain. Of course, those last two examples are both about the underlying theme of how important Christianity is, so maybe people in this thread wouldn't like them. I'm atheist and very against theism, but I'll tell you right now that Christians write better books than feminists. Also, to get back on topic... Tolkien, whose works were, to an autistic degree, all about how christianity is great and necessary and true, (as in he made it so pretty much all of his massive invented mythology can slot into christian mythology, so that christianity can still be canon to Lord of the Rings,) was a major jew lover, with him admitting in letters that the dwarves are basically jews. Lord of the Rings is largely about multiculturalism. Everyone keeps their own culture, but they should work and live together. Elrond, basically king of the elves, isn't even a real elf, but a dirty half-breed. At least Tolkien does say that dwarves (jews), even the protagonists of The Hobbit, are too self centered and not courageous enough to be heroes, like hobbits (Englishmen) can be. Still, these are some of the last stories I'm allowed to teach that at least have elements of courage and heroism, instead of just white guilt and feminism. Also pretty much the only stories I'm allowed to teach that aren't aimed directly at girls, and at making boys both bored and guilty.

>>10395 At least you're not teaching those straight pornographic and negrified books I've been seeing parents complaining about at public meetings, the ones with long passages explicitly describing sexual conduct with groids. As for Merchant of Venice, it's part of the Marxist programming to indoctrinate people with contradictory messages, to get them to believe contradictory statements like "there's no such thing as race" and also "white people are literal devils that need to be eradicated"; or to get them to believe things that contradict their senses and experience, like "covid is a plague" when for most people they just aren't seeing it through their own experiences, and this latter one applies to the teaching of MoV. If you accept all these contradictions then eventually you will break mentally, and your capacity to reason, infer and judge will be broken for ever; then you will only rely on what the authorities tell you: this is the major theme of "1984", which the globohomo-kikes are enacting now. Somehow I hope you can push back anon; you always have to refer back to reality, logic, reason and the scientific method.

>>10395 Out of curiosity, why not just pull one of the dozens of other classics to replace the books you can't talk about? For example, here's a soft list of "classic" Western literature: https://infogalactic.com/info/100_Classic_Book_Collection Surely there's something there that can parallel or replace TMoV, TKaM, and LotF. Also, you could add stories like Tarzan, John Carter, Conan, Peter Pan, and loads of other works. >>10409 >At least you're not teaching those straight pornographic Outside of Fanny Hill, all "classic" examples of porn all come from the Asia. Like The Kama Sutra, One Thousand and One Nights, and The Tale of Genji.

>>10421 >Out of curiosity, why not just pull one of the dozens of other classics to replace the books you can't talk about? For example, here's a soft list of "classic" Western literature: Because I have to pick based on age group and academic level. So for a class full of smart Grade 12 kids, I can pick basically whatever. For a class full of dumb Grade 7 kids, I'm much more limited. Students get to self select if they want a course that is meant to prepare them for university, or college (like trade schools), or just the bare minimum to graduate. The ones that pick the latter are almost all (figuratively) retarded. They don't try and never tried in their lives. The kids who try but have a hard time pick the college or university preparation level classes, because they know the "regular" classes are full of awful disruptive (figurative) retards. Actual legitimate medical retards usually actually pick the harder classes, because they don't have the disruption, so it's much easier to actually learn there. I mention all this because even though we're not allowed to say it, all the staff knows which classes are preferred to teach, so newer/less senior people (like me) usually get assigned to the shitty classes. The other factor, which I've alluded to, is that you have to be careful to not piss off SJWs, because any administrators that aren't SJWs will kowtow to them out of fear, and teachers will get fired. For an example of a novel I almost used last year, because I figured it would get enough SJW points to be allowed, while still being legitimately good, and for an easy enough reading level, was Flowers for Algernon. Then I realized that most of the students in my class had even worse reading/writing skills than Charlie does at the beginning of the novel, when he's literally retarded. There's no way most of them would understand it, and a bunch would fail, and I'd get fired. This was a Grade 10 class, by the way. I went with The Hobbit, instead. Tarzan and Peter Pan are definitely off the table because they get accused of racism. Conan would probably get accused of toxic masculinity or whatever. John Carter might be a good idea that I haven't thought about. I haven't read it myself, but I'll look into it. I'm suspicious that it will likely have something to set SJWs off, but we'll see. Also, anything that's too obviously aimed at boys will raise eyebrows. Things that are obviously 100% aimed at girls are fine, but things boys might like are "problematic." I'm sure there are more examples I could actually use in classes, and your site might be useful, but you'd be shocked at just how much is censored. They don't have to ban from the library in order to ban teachers from using it in class. >all "classic" examples of porn He's probably not talking about classics. All the classics are basically banned. Even since I was a kid, a majority of stuff we read in school was modern holocaust porn or feminist rape scare tactics. If they don't accuse a good novel of being "problematic," they accuse it of being too difficult. Just for reference, I once had one of those not-college or university classes, grade 12, they were about to graduate. I was told not to assign any readings more than 7 pages. I straight up couldn't assign a novel, or a project where they pick their own novel. I ended up doing units on short stories (only very short ones), poetry, multimedia stuff (where basically I showed episodes of The Twilight Zone, since at least some of them are pretty legit), and the closest I could get to assigning a book was when I assigned the 50 page Batman comic, The Killing Joke (which is basically the one The Dark Knight is loosely based on). That 50 page Batman comic took them like a week to read and do a short assignment on. And even that was an ordeal, since even most comics are too much for them. Watchmen is too long (only like 300 pages of pictures, but that's too long for them) and has a rape in it, so it's off the table. I could probably assign Maus since it's holocaust porn, but these retards wouldn't get why the people are animals. If I tried to assign some capeshit the kids might actually like, the administrators wouldn't get it and would say I'm just teaching trash, because the administration is made up of stacies that don't understand the concepts behind science fiction or fantasy, and the only reason I'm able to assign The Hobbit is because it's regarded as a classic now. The Killing Joke is "edgy" though so they can believe it's "real literature" even though it's frankly one of the writers' lesser works. But if I tried to assign Saga of the Swamp Thing, the administrators would say it's trash, while the kids would find it too complex to understand. >tl;dr: most of the classics are banned for being too difficult and/or not SJW enough. They encourage assigning comics, but those are also too difficult and/or not SJW enough, and also if you try to assign anything the students might actually like (ie: not modern SJW trash or Maus) then the administrators think it's trash with no value. But I'm not allowed to do novels with value, so it's a double bind.

>>10424 > For a class full of dumb Grade 7 kids, I'm much more limited. From what I remember of my Middle School English class, what drove me up the walls was the teacher being busy by pushing her political views on us students by forcing us to read The Light in the Forest, meanwhile I had an absolute blast reading Stephen Kings The Running Man on my own time. In fact, middle school and high school did more to kill my interest in reading than anything else. And, part of that had to do with how they demanded that we deconstruct every single word in the damn book to have some sort of symbolism instead of allowing to just read the fucking book. > For an example of a novel I almost used last year, because I figured it would get enough SJW points to be allowed, while still being legitimately good, and for an easy enough reading level, was Flowers for Algernon. I read the short story back in middle school as that was actually in our textbook. Still need to see about picking up the full book. > This was a Grade 10 class, by the way. WHAT?!? They had us reading Animal Farm, The Odyssey, and Huckleberry Finn in my 10th grade class. But, then again, I was, somehow, in the "advanced English" class. > John Carter might be a good idea that I haven't thought about. I haven't read it myself, but I'll look into it. I'm suspicious that it will likely have something to set SJWs off, but we'll see. John Carter is a disgraced Confederate soldier, the book opens with American-Indians scalping his friend, and Dejah Thoris is a "submissive" woman. You may by able to slip it buy them, however, because it's so unknown by modern society despite influencing just about every sci-fi work in existence. If that still doesn't work, you can try looking for other pulp series and finding more obscure works. > I was told not to assign any readings more than 7 pages. Are you the same instructor who posted that long-ass rant in the GG bread about how pozzed the curricula is, and (Ironically) the most politically incorrect teacher at the school was the fat black lady? > I straight up couldn't assign a novel, or a project where they pick their own novel. I ended up doing units on short stories (only very short ones), poetry, multimedia stuff (where basically I showed episodes of The Twilight Zone, since at least some of them are pretty legit), and the closest I could get to assigning a book was when I assigned the 50 page Batman comic, The Killing Joke (which is basically the one The Dark Knight is loosely based on). Find stories from pulp magazines and assign those. They're in the public domain and available on several different sites. > They encourage assigning comics, but those are also too difficult and/or not SJW enough, and also if you try to assign anything the students might actually like (ie: not modern SJW trash or Maus) then the administrators think it's trash with no value. There's more than enough pre-CCA comics on Internet Archive as well.

>>10426 >From what I remember of my Middle School English class, what drove me up the walls was the teacher being busy by pushing her political views on us students by forcing us to read The Light in the Forest, meanwhile I had an absolute blast reading Stephen Kings The Running Man on my own time. In fact, middle school and high school did more to kill my interest in reading than anything else. I agree entirely with all of this, and do my best to avoid it. When I'm in control, I don't do that shit at all, but usually I don't get to pick the books. >And, part of that had to do with how they demanded that we deconstruct every single word in the damn book to have some sort of symbolism instead of allowing to just read the fucking book. I actually don't think this is inherently a problem, but it can be done very badly, especially when the teacher has an agenda to push. When I was on my internship, I once did this with a grade 7 class using The Plane Scene from The Dark Knight Rises. Make fun of baneposters if you like, but some of the things they say are actually correct. >No one cared who I was 'til I put on the mask. >If I pull that off will you die? The mask is very obviously given the significance of mirroring Batman's mask and alternate identity, and it's a major theme throughout the entire trilogy, and specifically this movie, that Bruce Wayne is trying to create Batman as separate from himself because Batman is more than a man. Bruce Wayne isn't important, there's no reason to care who he is without the mask Or at least Bruce seems to think so, and while his actions have importance, his biggest success is the ripple effects he has into the future by passing the mantle onto Robin at the end of the film, so that Batman will live on and continue to make a difference, maybe forever. And if you pulled off the mask, and revealed that Batman was Bruce Wayne, would the legend of the Batman die? Would Batman lose his power? Again, this question is a major theme through the entire franchise, and especially in the movie this scene is from. >It would be extremely painful. >You're a big guy. >For you. If you pulled off the mask and thus killed The Batman, it would be extremely painful. But for Bruce Wayne? Well that isn't important. It would be extremely painful for regular people, because The Batman wouldn't be there to protect them anymore. CIA is essentially a cop, and the cops obviously have an uneasy relationship with Batman. They're supposed to be against him, and supposed to be chasing him for the death of Harvey Dent at this point in time. But we know that if they ever actually caught Batman, and thus killed his legend, it would only make things worse for them. It would be extremely painful. For them. Of course I don't think this sort of analysis can be done as effectively unless you've already watched the whole movie/read the whole book, and stopping at every moment to dissect things without the context of things that happen after is not going to work as well. And the other type off Baneposting, where Bane is a big guy for CIA and in love with him is a great parody of this. >You're a big guy. CIA is encouraging Bane that he does have the strength to take his mask off, even though Bane fears that it will be extremely painful. CIA is encouraging Bane to reveal his true self, despite his fears that this will leave him vulnerable. Is that not a fear we all have? >For you. Bane admits that CIA is the one that gives him strength and makes him a big guy. Truly they are meant for each other. True love. >They had us reading Animal Farm, The Odyssey, and Huckleberry Finn in my 10th grade class. Huckleberry Finn is widely banned even in school libraries, let alone from being assigned reading. Animal Farm is getting close to the point of being banned since it's anti-communist, though right now they just use the excuse of it being "too difficult." "Too difficult" is also the excuse they use for The Odyssey. Granted, this does depend on the specific school to a degree, but it's been pretty similar at several schools I've worked at. >John Carter Oh that shit is definitely off the table. Nobody would know enough to stop me from assigning it, but if a single parent complained about those things in particular, which would be likely, I'd get fucking lynched. >Are you the same instructor who posted that long-ass rant in the GG bread about how pozzed the curricula is, and (Ironically) the most politically incorrect teacher at the school was the fat black lady? Yes. >Find stories from pulp magazines and assign those. They're in the public domain and available on several different sites. Yeah, I did do that. The trick though is that the administration and most other teachers look down upon "pulp fiction," which they define as basically anything that isn't holocaust porn or feminist indoctrination. To use actual pulp stories for very much would get heavy criticism, as they would say I'm not doing my job, and if I argued about how these are legitimate works of art, they would then switch to the exact opposite argument, and say that they're too difficult for students to understand. I'm not just saying this. It's exactly what happens whenever I try to assign anything that boys might like. Also, surprisingly copyright has not been a problem. Teachers by and large, at least english teachers, have no idea how to use computers, so if I can provide my whole class with pirated books, they don't know enough to care. They're fine with it. >There's more than enough pre-CCA comics on Internet Archive as well. Pre-CCA comics are especially off-limits, because the CCA were just a mid-20th century version of SJWs. Outside of a few examples that push the right agenda (and thus they hold up as examples to say that they dislike the CCA, even though they do the same thing), I could never assign those stories. They'd say they're worthless at best and racist/sexist at worst. Because all those comics about fighting the nazis? Only nazis would like those.

>>10428 >they would then switch to the exact opposite argument, and say that they're too difficult for students to understand Could you answer me something, because you keep bringing up that they throw this excuse out there as a reason for disqualifying works. If it was easy to learn material, why would schools even need to exist? They'd be out of business because everyone could learn to get by just on common sense alone. Isn't the point of the schools suppose to be about pushing what the students are capable of accomplishing? If the students don't encounter difficult works, how can one expect them to be able to fully comprehend even the subtleties found in simple readings? In addition to that, how can you actually know what limits the students are capable of actually comprehending unless you have them read the more difficult material, and be there as a teacher to help answer their questions if they're confused about what it is that they read? The only reason why I know that I wasn't ready for understand Russian literature was when I dove head-first into The Idiot after ending my reading hiatus the year prior, only to spend the next couple months confused out of my skull as to why it was considered a "classic". And, it wasn't until the end of the work that things finally started to "click", and I understand a lot of the meanings and subtleties behind it better. >It's exactly what happens whenever I try to assign anything that boys might like. Can you assign reading non-fiction material? I bring that up because studies have shown that boys are actually interested in non-fiction works. And, it gets by the issue of having the school disallowing fictional books that men like. A couple examples of classic works could be something like The Compleat Angler, which caused a "fishing craze" to arrive back in the 17th and 18th century. Works such as that could be worth studying for no other reason than just showing how pure romanticism influenced society. Irving's The Sketch Book accomplished a similar influence for Anglophilia and Christmas. In addition to that, you could bring up "people skill" books like Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People or Napoleon Hill's Think And Grow Rich for study and to help the students in their communications (Because, ironically, the one skill I never learned in English class was how to actually speak and communicate English in while in public). Or, you could bring up simpler philosophical stories from the classic Utopia to the more recent The Richest Man in Babylon. Simply put, it sounds like the battle is lost for attempting to teach them "fictional culture" through the schools, so why not provide them with material that will make them desire to improve their skills and experience culture for themselves. Hell, have them read Paul Getty's How To Be Rich just to analyze the difference between the mindset of a millionaire and the mindset of the average individual. In fact, how could the schools possibly be opposed to allowing the students to read how they can improve their lives?

>>10432 >Hell, have them read Paul Getty's How To Be Rich Couldn't post that file, so you can pull it from here: >>232 >>7644

>>10432 >If it was easy to learn material, why would schools even need to exist? The real answer is babysitting and indoctrination. The answer they would give is that they do want to challenge the students, but that you can only challenge them so much at a time. Which does make sense, but they just use it as a bullshit excuse, usually because the stacy teachers saying it are the ones that don't understand the works being discussed (basically anything they deem "pulp fiction," which includes basically all sci-fi, fantasy, actual pulp stories, detective stories, or anything else that would appeal to boys). And sometimes it isn't actually bullshit. Sometimes the problem is that the students have never learned anything, and they get to Grade 12 and the entire class can barely read. The Killing Joke really is pushing the limits of how much they can understand. That doesn't apply to all classes, but it does apply to some. Another factor is the simple amount of time involved, combined with the fact that I really would like to assign things that kids would like, and if I assign things they don't like, things they aren't already interested in, they're likely not to read it, and then they fail, and then I get fired. Kids would like Lord of the Rings, and I'd like to assign it, but it would be absurd to expect them to read that entire book for a single unit of a single course. It would legitimately be much too time consuming to be fair to assign it to them. Same goes for a lot of comics. The sheer autism and required reading needed to understand a lot of the best capeshit stories is just absurd. I could assign the first few Harry Potter novels, but at this point so many teachers have tried that that it's looked down upon as being too damn common. I could assign The Hunger Games or other garbage like that, but fuck that, I'm not assigning that. So I'm left trying to assign legitimate classics that have influenced the culture, so that way I can explain that even if they don't like the novel, at least they will now understand how much it is referenced by wider culture. But then administration says that basically any novel from before the 1950s has language that is "too difficult" for them, if they don't admit that they just hate it for being "racist" or "sexist" or mentioning christianity too overtly. >Can you assign reading non-fiction material? They do reference how boys tend to be more interested in non-fiction, but we're supposed to discuss novels, and those are higher priority. Usually we do one unit on non-fiction works, with a bunch of different (shorter) works of different non-fiction genres, but then we do a whole unit just on one novel. And I sort of get why, as with novels you get to discuss things like theme and extended metaphors and deeper symbolism that you don't usually get from non-fiction (though there are examples that have them). And again, many of the specific works you just mentioned would be deemed "too difficult" because they're old and feature some antiquated language. Also, they would bore girls, so I'd get told off for being biased in favor of boys. All that said, I don't know all of the examples you listed, so I'll note them down and look into them. If they're too long though, I probably simply won't have the time, unless they're formatted like a non-fiction novel and can give it as an option in a novel unit. >Simply put, it sounds like the battle is lost for attempting to teach them "fictional culture" through the schools Not 100% lost, but it's definitely an uphill battle. I can subtly drop the occasional redpill with Cuckoo's Nest, or get a 15 year old to finally realize reading can be fun by assigning The Hobbit. But yes, they're squeezing the limitations tighter every day. What I'm doing now is just trying to keep things tolerable for as many students as possible until the entire school system just collapses as more parents see what the schools are doing, and realize that they need to be home-schooling anyway. >so why not provide them with material that will make them desire to improve their skills and experience culture for themselves. Because the schools are run by literal commies, and that's the last thing they want. But the excuse they'd use is that it lacks literary value. The non-fiction unit is for teaching about different genres, but with little insight into specific works.

>>10434 >Also, they would bore girls, so I'd get told off for being biased in favor of boys. Do your female students actually express any distaste over some of the material, or does the school just outright tell you to assign something else? Also, in the classes where you're not as restrictive with the level of the reading material, couldn't you put it to a vote where you have a grand list of material that can be read, with some material that fulfil similar functions, and have the students vote on which books the entire class will read? Also, do they even reject classic comedic pulp stories like The Thin Man, which had a large female following, too? >All that said, I don't know all of the examples you listed, so I'll note them down and look into them. If they're too long though, I probably simply won't have the time, unless they're formatted like a non-fiction novel and can give it as an option in a novel unit. Here are some more books that I have seen recommended that could be useful for teaching people skills, and possibly helpful for reading (A few of these are fiction, and most have been published in the past couple decades): <The Power of the Other (Henry Cloud) <The Greatest Salesman in the World (Og Mandino) <Grit (Angela Duckworth) <The Traveler's Gift (Andy Andrews) <Switch on Your Brain (Caroline Leaf) <Extreme Ownership (Jocko Willink & Leif Babin) <Everyone Communicates Few Connect (John Maxwell) <Daring Greatly (Brene Brown) <Miraculous Pencil (Connor Boyack) <8 Attributes of Great Achievers (Cameron Taylor) <Fields to Freedom (Frank Morales) <The Go-Giver (Bob Burg & John David Mann) <Who Moved My Cheese (Spencer Johnson) <Am I Making Myself Clear? (Terry Felber) <The Legend of the Monk & the Merchant (Terry Felber) <The Go Getter (Peter Kyne) <Hung by the Tongue (Francis Martin) <The Tongue - a Creative Force (Charles Capps)

>>10436 >Do your female students actually express any distaste over some of the material, or does the school just outright tell you to assign something else? Sometimes it's one, sometimes the other. But usually if given a book they don't like, the female students will just react with the same boredom that the male students have when they get a book they don't like. But the girls are more likely to be SJW and complain about something being "offensive" or whatever. But no, usually what is more common is the school, or the department head, telling me off for using the book. It would be too late to change, but I better change it next time or I'm in trouble. >Also, in the classes where you're not as restrictive with the level of the reading material, couldn't you put it to a vote where you have a grand list of material that can be read, with some material that fulfil similar functions, and have the students vote on which books the entire class will read? I'm more encouraged to just design assignments which let students pick their own books, sometimes from a list that I design. I don't think it's as effective, and it is a little more work for me, but I do think allowing them to choose is a good thing. But they can't just choose whatever they want, I'm not allowed to let them do that. If a student wanted to pick Huckleberry Finn, I'd be obligated to put a stop to it. >Also, do they even reject classic comedic pulp stories like The Thin Man, which had a large female following, too? The stacies I'm complaining about wouldn't be aware of it, and thus would dismiss it. If it's not something they personally like, or if it isn't obvious holocaust porn or feminist trash, it's dismissed, unless it's such a classic that it's too hard to fight, and even then, they'll try to fight it. The only reason I'm allowed to do Cuckoo's Nest is because they think it's about "mental health" and they don't realize it's actually about tyrannical femininity and the virtues of masculinity. Lord of the Flies was a cliche assignment for decades until the stacies finally realized it was about christianity. >those recommendations Thanks. I'll save these and look into them.

>>10437 Hmm I had a philosophy teacher who told us the last white person would disappear in 200 years in iceland and he was so glad. He also married a nigger and was complaining how his mother commented she was too dark. Is the typical teacher like that nowadays? Because this one helped swing me to the other side

>>10635 >Is the typical teacher like that nowadays? They might not be the majority, but they are the ones in control, so all of the normal people, and especially anyone who would post here, would not be allowed to speak up, or else they'd get fired, and if not fired, bullied and given the shittiest jobs in an attempt to make them quit. The principals and department heads are largely SJWs (maybe not the department heads in math and science) and they, and the school boards and governments above them, force everyone else to do SJW shit. Right now, individual teachers still sort of have enough power to ignore a lot of the SJW shit that they are told to do, but I expect that to change if SJWs don't lose an enormous amount of cultural capital in the next few years. I have hope that that might happen due to parents seeing what is being taught in online classes, and rightfully throwing fits when they find out.

>>10635 Racemixing is not the norm no matter where you are. Not Iceland, not Africa, not Sweden and not Brazil. So that alone makes them outside the norm.

>>10635 crackah