Of parts three this post be. First, the 1896 Victoria, British Columbia street car disaster, and its associated strange coincidences. Second, more thoughts on cat-like human females wanting to feel hate while feeling love, and how evil nasty cat impostors possibly misrepresent both the significance of this tendency and also the associated proper morals, in order to get superstitious people to kill over strange coincidences. Third, more strange coincidences surrounding the PS General Slocum, etc., disasters. Consider looking, too, at my immediately preceding post concerning the JFK assassination even if you have already done so, since today I have about doubled its length by appending significant new discoveries to it.
Now on to the somewhat strange case of the 1896 Victoria, BC, streetcar disaster.
What's to this day the deadliest North American streetcar disaster happened 26 May 1896 as a streetcar overladen with belated celebrants of Queen Victoria's birthday crashed through the Point Ellice bridge, in Victoria, British Columbia, killing 55. The St. Louis/E. St. Louis tornado of 27 May 1896 happened the next day, killing about 255. The day of the streetcar disaster was an especially important day historically, because it was also the day the last emperor (tsar) of Russia, namely Nicholas II, who was married to the granddaughter Alix of Queen Victoria from (n.s.) 26 November 1894, was crowned in a lavish coronation ceremony. And the coronation festivities are forever associated with another disaster, what since on 30 May 1896, as part of the continuing coronation festivities, about 1389 people were crushed to death in a stampede to receive baskets of gifts that were given away by the Romanovs as part of the celebration. This tragedy, usually referred to as the Khodynka tragedy, is commonly partly blamed for helping to cause Nicholas' later troubles, the event apparently having been interpreted by many as a bad omen that reduced his support. (His brother Grand Duke Sergei, who was more directly involved with the planning, was also greatly blamed, perhaps leading to sentiment encouraging his assassination on (n.s.) 17 February 1905.)
There was another horrific streetcar disaster in the Pacific Northwest during the same time period, that also involved a celebration and a heavily loaded streetcar. Independence Day (4 July) 1900 it was in Tacoma, Washington, and there was too much speed and too many occupants for the brakes of the streetcar to keep the trolley from uncontrollably gaining speed on a downgrade—the car derailed upon entering the turn onto a trestle at the bottom of the hill, killing about 43. Fiftieth anniversary it was of President Zachary Taylor eating the sketchy cherries with ice milk believed to have caused his death. Not to leave New Jersey out of it: around midnight ending the day of the Tacoma disaster, the Standard Oil Refinery in Bayonne caught fire (most places indicate the fire started very late on 4 July, but a few say it started very early on 5 July), causing what in today's money would be about one billion dollars of damage, and only four days earlier, on 30 June 1900, was the horrific Hoboken, New Jersey, docks fire that killed about 300 at the German Lloyd docks (the same docks, recall, where in 1910, NYC Mayor Gaynor would be shot). The day after the Hoboken docks fire was 1 July 1900, the day of the wedding between Franz Ferdinand and Sophie Chotek, a union viewed as disastrous by the reigning emperor Franz Josef and by almost all the higher Austro-Hungarian nobility, supposedly on account of the union being insufficiently royal. Their issue was prohibited from ever having claim on the throne. As Franz Ferdinand put it , “When people like us care for someone, there is sure to be some little detail in their family tree that prohibits the marriage, and thus it is that in our family man and wife are related to each other twenty times over. The result is that half of the children are idiots and epileptics.” (Good for Franz Ferdinand, maybe it partly makes up for his having shot over the years for “sport” about 275,000 animals while hunting.)
Recall that on 30 May 1915, the anniversary of the Khodynka Tragedy in Moscow, Russia, a barge carrying dynamite was blown up in Seattle, Washington, at about 2am. The barge was to have been towed later that day to the Northern Pacific Docks in Tacoma and placed on a ship destined for Vladivostok, Russia. One of the plotters, Louis J. Smith, was renting a place in Tacoma (where the bomb was originally to have been blown up) and had on 22 May 1915 (the same day as the Quintinshill rail disaster) used arson at the Northern Pacific docks in Tacoma to destroy two armored vehicles and damage a rail car. It was believed the bomb was placed on the barge by Emil Marksz. As a British agent was about to confront him, Marksz is believed to have shot himself where he was staying in Seattle on 4 July 1915, the fifteenth anniversary of the Tacoma streetcar disaster.
Go back one day from the Seattle explosion to 29 May 1915, the day the bomb was placed on the barge, and you are at the one year anniversary of the Empress of Ireland disaster, which when it happened was exceeded only by the Titanic in so far as death tolls on ocean liners are concerned (on 7 May 1915 Lusitania's death toll also exceeded it).
Go back one day more to 28 May 1915, and you're at the tenth anniversary of the loss of Russia's Baltic Fleet at the Battle of Tsushima during the Russo-Japanese War, another severe loss for Russia often blamed for Nicholas' downfall.
Back one day more to 27 May 1915 and you are not only at the anniversary of the St. Louis/E. St. Louis tornado, but also at the actual day of the mysterious catastrophic explosion (352 dead) of HMS Princess Irene, an ocean liner built for the Victoria/Vancouver/Seattle route but converted for World War I to a mine layer by the Royal Navy.
Back one day more to 26 May 1915 and you are at the anniversary of Victoria's streetcar disaster the same day as the 1896 coronation of Nicholas II. As I mentioned in the post before last, in the early hours of 26 May 1918 someone tried to burn up the Delphi, Indiana, Wabash Railroad bridge over Deer Creek. On 26 May 1917 was the tornado that devastated Mattoon and Charleston, Illinois—at the time the second deadliest tornado in Illinois history, killing over 100. Last May, i.e., May 2021, on the 125th anniversary of the Victoria streetcar disaster (to this day North America's deadliest trolley disaster) there was in California a mass shooting at a streetcar maintenance and storage facility.
Looking at circumstances of the Mattoon tornado, the important thing to notice is what happened in the subsequent days. The tornado was part of a week of high tornadic activity thereabouts. Besides 26 May, the deadliest days were 27 May, when over 143 were killed (especially in Kentucky), and 30 May, when 65 were killed in southeastern Missouri. The Mattoon tornado wasn't just a disaster—it was a disaster followed by other horrible disasters a few days later on 27 May and 30 May, just like the 26 May 1896 trolley disaster would be followed a few days later by horrific 27 May and 30 May disasters, namely the 27 May 1896 tornado in St. Louis/E. St. Louis and the 30 May 1896 Khodynka tragedy in Moscow. But that's not the end of it. On 28 May 1917 there was a race riot in E. St. Louis. “White attackers first descended upon black people waiting for or disembarking from streetcars in the downtown district”[Lumpkin]. The race riot fizzled out, fortunately, before any were killed; however, several were shot and seriously wounded. But on 2 July 1917, the anniversary of President Garfield's assassination, the deadliest US race riot during World War I—more properly called a massacre—occurred in E. St. Louis, killing anywhere from 40 to 200, almost all of whom were African-American. In both riots, white prostitutes especially displayed singular cruelty. German spies of the time were known to choose brothels as (supposedly) meeting places, e.g., the German agent “safehouse” at 123 W. Fifteenth Street in New York City was a bordello run by Martha Held.
Recall that the Slocum, TX, massacre of African-Americans on 29 July 1910 shared a name with the General Slocum ferry disaster and that six years to the day later Canada's deadliest forest fire happened and perhaps the bomb was placed on a barge causing what is commonly considered Germany's most successful act of sabotage against the US, the explosion at 2:08 am on 30 July 1916 at Black Tom in Jersey City, New Jersey. So there is some suggestion that before the E. St. Louis massacre, racial massacres may have been at least partially products of aligner activity.
Last spring was the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa massacre that started 31 May 1921 and ended the next day, probably the most infamous of the massacres of African-Americans in our history. The day before the massacre started, 30 May 1921, the 25th anniversary of the Khodynka tragedy, a young black man likely lost his balance entering an elevator and his hands fell on a shoulder of a young white female elevator operator, slightly ripping her dress and sufficing to ignite the following days' slaughter of African Americans and the burning of their part of town. The deadliest man-made American disaster was the 31 May 1889 Johnstown flood (2209 dead)—still is if you don't count the deliberate acts of violence that were Pearl Harbor and 9-11. The rather epic naval battle of Jutland, a tactical German victory, was 31 May 1916.
It's quite possible that the Slocum, East St. Louis, and Tulsa massacres were started by evil men sodomizing others while going on about the mystical importance of increasing the number of killings with particulars that are aligned with those of disasters. In particular, one can imagine that the E. St. Louis Massacre was ignited by some German or pro-German individual or individuals sodomizing the prostitutes (male and female), clients (e.g., those clients seeking to be sodomized by male prostitutes) and racists at brothels in E. St. Louis while glorifying and demanding the massacre of blacks so as to increase the alignment between mass death and the tornadoes and the Pacific Northwest streetcar disasters, which may well have been made out to have already had some sort of mystical alignment between themselves and (perhaps) the coronation of the last tsar, the Khodynka tragedy, and the 1915 explosion of the barge in Seattle. And of course, racial unrest in the United States would make the US a less effective opponent in war.
The motives of any actual branch of weirdo murderers may seem too extremely weird to be believed, but there's a reason people call weirdos, weirdos, and I daresay it's not because their motives at first glance seem normal, but because they seem, well, weird, at least until by exhaustive study one comes to realize that they are almost exactly the same motives used by an entire branch of weirdos that seems to kill for the same or almost exactly the same weirdo reason, making them (by definition, more-or-less) at least in one sense not weird at all but quite common. What I call the Aligners, namely those who kill so that the particulars of their murders will align with the particulars of mass death, are weirdos, but unfortunately they seem to be much more common and less weird than anyone who hasn't looked for them would ever expect, and indeed have been thus common at least since the 1910s, it seems. Though obviously the particulars of the motives of any particular group of weirdos if known will seem at first weird, it should not be surprising if others, perhaps many others, share the same bizarre motives. Weirdos aren't like the (typically underappreciated) weirds who are strange because they try to be themselves, e.g., because they believe in falling or rising according to their own natures or because they are good at being themselves and have beautiful natural tendencies or because good people demanding authenticity will love them better for it—no. Forcible sodomy, rape, murder—those are not activities that very many people engage in. You can't just be normal and be into those activities. And it's not like you can put a want ad in the neighborhood newspaper asking for the standard training in forcible sodomy, rape, or more generally, the using of violence to get what one wants. One option for the disgusting evil person is to try to be himself—that is a fallback option, but one thing weirdos probably are typically very unskilled at is in being themselves. Indeed, when it comes to males whose natural tendency is to use disgusting violent behavior to attempt to control females, mostly the only sort of female such a male will successfully tend to delude into relationships for his pleasure is the female whose sense of self is easily warped from what it naturally would be. I'd say that no one naturally wants to be sodomized (to have semen in his or her digestive system)—someone who feels otherwise has become dominated or warped, in my opinion. Weirdos strongly tend to have a superfluity of female ancestors whose natural sense of self is easily warped, manipulated, or made subordinate to warping influences, and presumably they inherit this tendency to become easily warped from their pliant female ancestors. In other words, it is clear that weirdos tend to suck at being themselves. Weirdos may have a very hard time finding a similarly evil person to copy, but when they find one who has much appeal or seems successful, by golly, they'll copy him like they be medieval monks reproducing an ancient manuscript (only for perverse rather than sacred reasons), because they will likely feel it is in their selfish interest to do so. True, part of the reason the Aligners during World War I may have had an outsized influence on future depraved murders, assassinations, and mass killings, may have had little to do with sodomy. During World War I, it wasn't just sodomizers copying sodomizers—there was an actual significant conspiracy then, presumably orchestrated by sodomizing elements associated with or actually in the German General Staff. (Perhaps Austrian journalists were being enlightened taking such a strong interest in the Eulenburg Affair before the war.) If in America during World War I you helped blow up munitions or cause a race riot under instructions from Germans, you very well might get paid a great deal of money for your services. Not only could you increase the Alignment, you could get paid for increasing the Alignment, thereby making you successful in one of the ordinary senses that could make you seem more worthy of being copied.
It's hard to say whether the Germans might have intentionally caused the Khodynka Tragedy, say by hiring pushers or by spreading rumors that the favor baskets being given away were better or less numerous than they were, and if so whether they did so merely to make it seem like destiny was against Nicholas II (in order to weaken Russia, say) or whether also an element of Alignism was already involved, e.g., wanting another mass disaster to be aligned with the Victoria Streetcar disaster and the St. Louis/E. St. Louis tornado. Suggestions of German 1915 interest in the 1896 coincidences, for instance, does make one wonder whether the Germans had something to do with Khodynka, but it's convenient when trying to make mummery by intentionally causing non-random coincidences to build on preexistent random coincidences, and so it's hard to say one way or the other.
Whenever there is associated with evil acts a long-standing ostensibly pointless pattern that is hidden from the mass of humanity, I think sodomy is almost certainly going to be involved. The point is that if it were a simple matter of conspiracy, it would be quite extraordinary that something so evil, harmful, and pointless could be done by so many people without people in general realizing the motive for what was going on. The truth would leak from whatever groups or organizations were orchestrating the evil. But if it is essentially just a matter of the sodomized copying the sodomizer who sodomized him, then it makes sense. Those who create the pattern don't associate with many who create the evil. Sodomy is very top down. If a sodomizer sodomizes a bunch of people while trying to get people to kill to increase the Alignment, the people whom he sodomizes may know very little or nothing about one another. And if you kill to cause alignment with disasters, and you first thought of such bizarre behavior while being sodomized by someone telling you about some mystical importance of doing so, that doesn't strike me as being the sort of thing you would want to talk about over much. People (at least people who you or others haven't sodomized using the same method) would rightly think that you are that way from some effect of the abuse that was inflicted upon you by the sodomizer, and you may well understand that non-sodomized people will view your behavior as unnatural in that sense and so (in your opinion) wouldn't understand. Not to mention you would likely be very embarrassed to talk about it (and embarrassment tends to be excessively derided by ardent sodomizers as by anyone who is stubborn to maintain addiction).
To be more certain the pattern is not coincidental one may look for the pattern later on. Let us consider in particular James Earl Ray, the most infamous evil racist who grew up in the St. Louis/ East St. Louis area, to see if reflections from the disaster patterns in the East St. Louis Massacre are visible.
In LA Ray stayed at the St. Francis Hotel, whose name is reminiscent of the St. Francis Dam disaster that happened two days before he was born. This hotel was located at the northeast corner of Garfield Place and Hollywood Boulevard. That he was fleeing to Rhodesia and had Sharon Ardelle Rhoads as a dance instructor while in LA are both suggestive of Rhodes Tavern in DC, where the weapon used to kill Garfield was bought. He bought the gun in Birmingham, Alabama, while the gun used to assassinate Garfield was made in Birmingham, England. It would seem Ray may have had a superstitious obsession with Garfield, an obsession that could be connected with the E. St. Louis Massacre happening on the anniversary of Garfield being shot.
The employees familiar with Ray's lessons at the National Dance Studio in Long Beach, where Sharon Rhoads worked, were pretty much in agreement that Ray was a poor dancer. Moreover, even when the horrible LA traffic is light, Long Beach is a thirty minute drive from where Ray lived in Los Angeles. Surely there would have been acceptable dance studios closer to where he lived in LA at the Serrano Apartments and (later) the St. Francis Hotel. What could have caused Ray to repeatedly endure this laborious drive to Long Beach to engage in an activity he didn't even seem to have much aptitude for? It's hard to say exactly what Ray's motivation was exactly, but if one considers Ray an Alignist, a simple explanation becomes available. It doesn't take much imagination or understanding to realize that in a dance studio one may expect to find a “whole lotta shaking going on”. On account of having been born on 10 March, James Earl Ray may have considered it propitious to take part in some of this “whole lotta shaking” occurring in Long Beach as a way of paying homage of sorts to the spirits causing the Long Beach Earthquake (115 dead) of 10 March 1933, which to this day is the deadliest earthquake in the lower 48 states since the Great San Francisco earthquake of 1906 (cf. Herbert Mullin), and which also had done a (much more powerful) “whole lotta shaking” in Long Beach. I suppose Ray thought a natural kinship already existed between him and the quake spirits on account of the alignment of its date with that of his fifth birthday and that somehow the kinship suggested the appropriateness of increasing the alignment between the particulars of his life and the particulars of this disaster in order that he could partake of the awesome deadly power that he believed the spirits of the disaster would bestow somehow to those who live their lives with particulars aligned with the particulars of its disaster. After the dance lessons, Ray knew first hand by experience what “a whole lot of shaking” in Long Beach felt like, just like I suppose any particular 1933 Long Beach sentient earthquake spirits learned more forcefully in 1933 when they did their (much more powerful) “whole lotta shaking”--you can sort of see how Ray may have anticipated that the dance lessons might increase the harmony between him and the spirits of the Long Beach quake, the spirits he probably most had hopes of being aligned with on account of the quake happening on his fifth birthday, suggesting a preexistent natural alignment between him and those quake spirits on the zodiac plane or whatever malarkey he (or whomever he was trying to dupe) was foolish enough to believe in. The most popular version of “A Whole Lotta Shaking Going On” was the 1957 version by Jerry Lee Lewis, recorded at Sun Studios in Memphis, just a two mile drive from the Lorraine Motel where MLK would be shot.
Ray left the St. Francis Hotel on the anniversary of the deadliest US tornado—the Tri-State—that is also the deadliest Illinois tornado. Ray escaped from Missouri prison just two days after the Belvidere tornado that is the fourth deadliest Illinois tornado. It's not hard to imagine these coincidences are connected with the aforementioned coincidences between the E. St. Louis Massacre and both the E. St. Louis tornado and the Mattoon tornado (the second and third deadliest Illinois tornadoes).
Ray killed Martin Luther King, Jr., on the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the only lynching of a German-American during WWI that is believed to have been caused by anti-German sentiment. (True, Robert Prager was apparently lynched very early on the morning of 5 April 1918, but the same mob that did the lynching had forcibly removed him from police custody in jail on the evening of 4 April 1918.) Prager was hanged by the mob just outside Collinsville, Illinois, which is only a twelve mile drive from East St. Louis.
True, with respect to any particular evil weirdo, you can't be sure whether his obsessions reflect obsessions of evil weirdos from previous ages descending via chains of abuse existing between the original weirdo and the later weirdo, or via actual genetic descent from ancestral evil weirdo. But when the weirdo behavior is long lasting and unnoticed by most, one can say that generally speaking, the weirdo tendencies descend mostly from chains of abuse (or the secret motives would have leaked out). But James Earl Ray did a particularly evil thing even for an Aligner weirdo, and so I am hesitant to apply generalizations to him arising merely because he was an Aligner weirdo. Besides from possibly naturally having evil natures, mostly Aligner weirdos become as evil as they are from copying abusers who abuse them, but occasionally, especially with unusual Aligner weirdos, the evil may have descended via copying ancestors who also were weirdos. Or at least that's what I think. Anyway, Ray's superstitious obsessions relating to his 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., seem to have high overlap with those that may have helped ignite the East St. Louis Massacre back in 1917.
Not that there is necessarily something wrong with being German. During the Civil War in Missouri, for instance, it was the German-Americans especially who were against slavery and who supported General Lyon and the Union cause; the 1865 Army Transport General Lyon disaster off Hatteras and the 1863 Fort Lyon explosion near Huntington, VA, were two prominent disasters during the Civil War, both involving assets named after this General Lyon. Many German-Americans tended to be especially for freedom and democracy because so many of them were fleeing repression following the failed revolutions of 1848. In particular, “As President, [Zachary] Taylor looked kindly upon the immigration of German intellectuals and liberal reformers to America following the collapse of the German revolutions of 1848.” But George Atzerodt, hanged for his role in the successful conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln, was so German he could barely speak English.
The Point Ellice Bridge streetcar disaster in Victoria by no means was the first disaster to afflict Canada during celebrations of Victoria day that referenced “Victoria” in some other way, making what amounted to a double “Victoria” reference. On 24 May 1881, Queen Victoria's actual (62nd) birthday, the sternwheel steamship Victoria broke apart and sank on the River Thames in London, Ontario, killing about 182. Supposedly, between 1959 and 1984, London, Ontario, was home to the largest concentration of serial killers anywhere in the world.
Perhaps it's worth pointing out other prominent disasters that reference a “Victoria” (typically in only one way). The non-Canadian 16 June 1883 Victoria Hall stampede in Sunderland, Tyne-and-Wear, England, that killed 183 children, though it would seem just a single-Victoria disaster, is nevertheless especially worth noting because it killed just children and because it occurred next to Mowbray Park, as in the Mowbray Apartments across from where Kitty Genovese was first stabbed the night she was murdered. It's also somewhat suggestive that the battleship HMS Victoria sank 22 June 1893 (358 dead) in a presumably accidental collision (with HMS Camperdown), 25 years to the day before the Hammond Circus train collision in Gary, IN. The fault of the HMS Victoria collision principally lay at the feet of Vice Admiral Sir George Tryon, who had ordered excessively dangerous maneuvers (something similar happened with the destroyer USS Hobson on 26 April 1952, an anniversary of Lincoln's assassin being shot dead). On September 11, 1974, Flight 212 crashed near South Tryon Road in Charlotte, NC, killing 72 (it is well to notice all 9-11 coincidences, far-fetched though the significance of them may be). Stephen Colbert lost his father and two brothers in this crash. Those familiar with the Battle of Oriskany (Mayor Gaynor was from Oriskany) will be familiar with the Tryon County Militia. Oriskany is near Marcy, named after the same individual as Mount Marcy. September 11, 1901, was a day of misplaced optimism—the day doctors were most optimistic about McKinley's recovery and the day the yachts of the Kaiser and the Czar made rendezvous. According to Wikipedia, The New York Tribune would write that "As a result of the meeting between the Czar and the Kaiser one feels confident that the peace of Europe is assured as long as the Czar lives." On September 11, 1901, Theodore Roosevelt went through Marcy on the train on the New York Central on his way to the Adirondacks, in his confidence that McKinley would recover. The day before McKinley's death on the 14th he had to be fetched from Mount Marcy, and after being fetched he returned to Buffalo later on the 14th, taking the oath at the house of his friend, Ansley Wilcox.
Another prominent “Victoria” disaster is the sinking (135 dead) of the ferry MV Princess Victoria on January 31, 1953, during the storm that produced the Great North Sea Flood of 1953. MV Princess Victoria was not named after Queen Victoria, but rather (I guess ) Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, a daughter of Queen Victoria's daughter Princess Alice of the United Kingdom. But as it turns out there is a weird coincidence of this disaster with yet another Princess Victoria, making again a double Victoria reference of sorts, as shall take me afield slightly to give context to this and a few other coincidences with ship disasters.
Princess Alice of the UK in many ways had a tragic life. Her father, Prince Albert, died in 1861 of some sort of stomach ailment at the age of only 42. Her oldest child, Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine married Prince Louis of Battenberg (they Anglicized their name to Mountbatten in 1917, much as George V did when he changed his royal name to Windsor), and is an ancestor of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (the late husband of Queen Elizabeth II) among other royalty; but her son the Admiral of the Fleet and Earl (Louis) Mountbatten died a violent death 27 August 1979 when blown up by elements of the Provisional IRA. His mother Victoria, a lifelong smoker, came down with bronchitis in the summer of 1950 while living with her son in Broadlands, Hampshire; wanting to die at home, she moved to Kensington palace where she died 24 September 1950. As mentioned, MV Princess Victoria may be named after her. Alice's second child, Elisabeth, married the Grand Duke Sergei who recall was especially blamed for the Khodynka stampede and was assassinated in 1905; Elisabeth would be murdered by the Bolsheviks 18 July 1918, the day after they murdered the tsar and his immediate family. The next oldest child was Irene, who carried the hemophilia gene like her sister Alix, and had two male children with the condition; recall the 27 May 1915 explosion of HMS Princess Irene, which I believe was named after her. The next oldest child was Ernest Louis, Alice's only male child to live to adulthood; he lost his Grand Duchy of Hesse and by Rhine as a result of WWI; apparently Ernest was close friends with Karl August Ligner, a mouthwash magnate who according to Wikipedia was rumored to be bisexual and who died in Berlin 5 June 1916, the same day the armoured cruiser HMS Hampshire was lost in a probable German submarine attack, resulting in the death of Lord Kitchener and 736 others (52 years to the day later, RFK would be shot). Weeks after Ernest's death on 9 October 1937, while traveling to the wedding of his son Louis, Ernest's child Georg Donatus, his only child to have children, died in an air crash in Ostend, Belgium, on 16 November 1937, along with his wife, all their sons, and Ernest's second wife, the mother of Ernest's children. By 1939, all of Georg's children would be dead. Ernest's last surviving descendant, his son Louis, was buried 6 June 1968, the day RFK died. The next oldest child of Princess Alice was Friedrich, who inherited hemophelia before reaching age 3 and bled to death after falling from a window while playing with his brother Ernest. Next was Alix, who did marry the last czar but was murdered by the Bolsheviks along with him and all their children on 17 July 1918. Finally was Marie or May, who died at age four on 16 November 1878 from diphtheria; the same outbreak infected her father and all her siblings save Elisabeth. Alice herself would catch the disease from her son Ernest and die of it 14 December 1878, the anniversary of her father's death, at age 35, the first of Queen Victoria's children to die. A few months before Alice's death, on the River Thames, the excursion steamer SS Princess Alice collided with SS Bywell Castle on 3 September 1878, resulting in the death of 600 to 700 people on Princess Alice. Princess Alice raised her family mostly in the New Palace, which was built for her in Darmstadt, Germany, in 1866. This palace was obliterated 11 September 1944 (September 11 again) when Darmstadt was cruelly bombed by 240 British bombers, creating as planned a firestorm that killed 12,300 and destroyed the central areas of the town.
Queen Victoria herself had a child named Victoria, namely Victoria the Princess Royal. The latter Victoria married the future German emperor Frederick III. Unfortunately, Frederick died 15 June 1888 (sixteen years to the day before the General Slocum disaster) only about three months after becoming emperor, succeeded by their obnoxious son Wilhelm II. Another child of Victoria the Princess Royal and of her husband Frederick was Princess Sophia, presumably the namesake of SS Princess Sophia, which struck Vanderbilt Reef in heavy weather on 24 October 1918 in the Lynn Canal near Juneau, Alaska, and sank the following day with the death of all 364 persons on board. Kaiser Wilhelm II also had a child named Victoria, namely Princess Victoria Louise of Prussia, who died 11 December 1980. She married Ernest Augustus Duke of Brunswick on 24 May 1914 (which would have been Queen Victoria's 95th birthday and thus the 33 rd anniversary of the sinking of SS Victoria in London, Ontario), a few months before the First World War began, in one of the last events that brought the royalty of Europe together before the war. Princess Victoria's husband, Ernest Augustus, died the day before MV Princess Victoria sank (which was also the fifth anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi). According to Wikipedia, MV Princess Victoria was christened 27 August 1946. There were lots of Princess Victorias that are descendants of Queen Victoria, but I'm guessing that MV Princess Victoria was named after the Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, the mother of Lord Mountbatten. (Another good candidate would be the Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom, who was the daughter of Edward VII, but she died in 1935, before the ferry was built.) Notice Lord Mountbatten was assassinated by a bomb in his fishing boat in Mullaghmore, Ireland, not too far from Northern Ireland, 33 years to the day after MV Princess Victoria was christened after (possibly) his mother, and that MV Princess Victoria also sank near Northern Ireland (near a totally different part, though). Bloody Sunday was 30 January 1972, the 19th anniversary of the death of Ernest Augustus (and the anniversary of Wilhelm Gustloff sinking from a torpedo fired from a Soviet submarine).
I should point out that I totally don't think there was anything preplanned causing the death of the husband of Princess Victoria Louise and the sinking of MV Princess Victoria to be on consecutive days—they probably were both unintentional events. After all, Victoria Louise's husband died before Princess Victoria sank, and there is a very obvious accidental reason for Princess Victoria to have sunk, namely that she became caught up in a very significant storm that killed 2500+ (mostly in the Netherlands and the eastern coast of England). I don't even know if I'd go so far as to say that the sinking of MV Princess Victoria probably at least somewhat motivated the decision to assassinate Lord Mountbatten rather than someone else or to kill him the day they did kill him—but given that so many other assassinations have even stronger weird coincidences with the particulars of disasters, I do think it sufficiently probable for it to be worthwhile to note the coincidences. And, yes, I suppose the date of Bloody Sunday could (though I suppose it rather doubtful) be a sign of aligner infiltration on the British side. Aligners are weirdos—they often really care more about aligning than politics, and may encourage aligned killings by infiltrating both sides of a conflict. Once a weirdo stays in one place too long, the locals figure out he's a weirdo, but then if he goes to another country, people may think he's weird just because he's a foreigner—there may tend be a kind of superficial cosmopolitan quality to 'em.
After Armistice Day (11 November 1918) ended the war you might think that the killings would have stopped, what since the war being over removed the military value any such killing might have. But perhaps the killing was never mostly about military benefit, at least not to those with strong feelings in favor of it. There's a mystique in having those intimate with you hating others, because they can. If those who feel they love you feel so merely because you are sodomizing them and your semen is a love potion that chemically makes those you sodomize feel artificial love, they can't well hate others while loving you—the skanky love feeling induced by your nasty semen chemicals would make it impossible. Make those intimate with you start a war or kill from superstition or otherwise than from the hate that your sodomizing makes difficult in those you sodomize, maybe you'll look like you're the clean fluffy tom cat loved by all the fluffy kitties in the back of the yard who like to lick fur awful lots because they're so clean they enjoy hating and wanting to kill what they hate about while having sex with you.
Young women, girls—they can be pleased by hating others while having sex with someone they love. Males are more sexually pleasant who have the ability to attract a female cleanly by having sex appeal that is natural, not caused by sodomy having introduced love-potion and rape-drug semen chemicals into the female digestive system so as to warp her feelings from their natural state.
Hate is something of a catch-all term. One can to various degrees wish someone hurt or dead, but there's a vast difference between wishing him thus because he is naturally selfish and morally bad and wishing him thus because he gets in the way of one's own selfish needs. The latter sort of hate is obviously not a beautiful thing that a good person would want to feel; so as not to conflate notions I will not use the word “hate” in this context, but tend henceforth to reserve the word “hate” for that which is motivated by a sense of (natural) moral wickedness. But some say that it is wrong to judge people quite generally and that it is wrong quite generally to hate, even when one hates someone because he is bad. In practice, however, people do judge others. It's widely acknowledged that people should exercise discretion in choosing mates and in deciding to care for others as in marriage. And it's also widely acknowledged that those who do reprehensible things should be punished by juries and judges in our court system, or people won't be sufficiently protected from evil.
That's not to say even good people tend to punish evil people in their daily lives: People seldom act on their hate. To prosper, we all have to get along with others of all stripes, even people who are not particularly moral. In particular, though it may technically advance beauty to destroy evil people when one can get away with it, it is not likely good to be the sort of person who would do such a thing (except for the occasional sanctioned exceptions, e.g., when one judges a murderer to be guilty when serving on a jury—but even then one punishes the evil-doer not because he is evil or even because he has done something evil, but because he has done something reprehensible and illegal). Good people are people who advance beauty, and the sort of people who consider themselves worthy of hurting people they consider evil when they can get away with it do not advance beauty as much as the people who are more concerned with doing the right thing, which includes being mostly civil. Sure, when a person hurts or destroys what he considers an evil, beauty-destroying person, he may well advance beauty, but it's not like he can do such a thing unless he is the sort of person who would do such a thing, and if he is the sort of person who would do such a thing, he couldn't get along well in society because people in general would likely sense his tendencies and be so highly suspicious of him as to not want anything to do with him. Good people don't tend to do what one might call the good thing, i.e., what most advances beauty, they tend to do what I call the right thing, i.e., they do the behavior which the beautiful people, i.e., the people who most advance beauty, do, and not the behavior that they feel most advances beauty. If a behavior feels beautiful, the feeling should be taken more as a sign that you feel the behavior is right than as a sign that the behavior directly advances beauty—though when excluding destructive behaviors, I suppose there is not likely to be much if any difference. Good people in our present society don't have much occasion to act on hate in their everyday actions, because it is seldom right to hurt what one hates even when the hate is merely a feeling that the person considered is evil. A person would have to be an extremely evil, Hitler-type person for unauthorized murder of him to be right. (But there's no need to be black-and-white about judging; e.g., if one has a choice in a personal hiring decision that ends up rewarding one person much more than another and there is only a slight difference in the fitness of the individuals for the job, then I suppose the right thing to do would be to reward the person who seems morally better if the moral difference seems significant, thus punishing the other person for not seeming to have as good morals, notwithstanding consequential judging of others outside the mating and judicial sphere is something to be especially leery and hesitant about.)
Why is it that in the justice system it is better that punishments are expected to be meted out in accordance with whether laws have been broken? Since juries are expected to judge defendants according to whether the defendants broke laws as opposed to how much the jurors hate the defendant, if juries judge according to instructions, the jurors will use their abilities to judge what happened. Being able to judge what happened is a quite generally very useful trait in life in a great many situations. People may be supposed on average to be quite talented at judging what happened. Assuming criminal courts aren't too relied upon, being able to deceive about what one has done may well not be on average quite so generally useful to humans as the ability to judge what another has done, and so on average, juries may be expected to judge correctly or almost correctly at an acceptable rate, especially given lack of better alternatives.
Judging whether someone is worthy of hate is mostly of quite limited usefulness to individuals. But since in the mating sphere it is important and useful to judge whether someone is worthy of love, and since being worthy of hate basically amounts to having naturally very few good characteristics and naturally lots of morally bad characteristics that make him unlovable (even negatively lovable), the more good and beautiful sort of people might be able to judge fairly well whether someone is worthy of hate just by judging how bad it would feel to love him in the mating sphere. The more good and beautiful females, in particular, one would think would be pretty good at judging whether a male is worthy of hate by judging both how little he has good qualities that would help make him more sexually lovable and also how bad and evil it would naturally feel to have loving sex with him.
In a way, sexual hate is opposite sexual love, but not exactly I'd say, since talents not particularly related to morality can make you more beautiful and love worthy, but lack of talents not particularly related to morality aren't going to make you hate worthy, since it's strictly moral deficiencies that make someone hate worthy. Traits associated with deficiencies in talents not related to morality tend to die out naturally from natural selection—there is no need for people to hate such deficiencies in order for them to die out. More likely is feeling loving or charitable towards the unfortunate from the consideration that it seems excessively random and often pointless that some unfortunates could fail to prosper and die out along with any good traits they might have merely from some inherent deficiency or vulnerability not particularly related to lack of morality. The relevant hate should be caused by hatred toward the part of beauty that involves loving. Some people are so selfish and devoid of love of beauty that they are likely to destroy much that is beautiful in their quest for their selfish needs just because they don't care. These people are worthy of hate, especially if they also have tendencies that encourage particular evils along those lines that could cause them to specialize in profiting by engaging in those selfish ugly behaviors that are especially destructive of beauty.
Anyway, it is easy to imagine that to supplement the judicial system, a society could decide that some females are so beautiful in the right way that they should be allowed to choose up to a certain determined number of people they hate in the pure moral sense and kill them before they and their future spawn and later descendants can hurt others with their evil. If society expects you to destroy what you hate the most, it would seem not wrong to act on it, because the reason a behavior could be wrong notwithstanding it advances beauty is that it be too detrimental to be the sort of person who would do such a thing, but it wouldn't be detrimental to be the sort of person who acts on strong hate to the extent that's what society expects you to do or even rewards you to do. Why kill, one may ask? Why not be less drastic and have the females levy fines or otherwise limit those they sufficiently hate? The main point, I think, is that it is very important that such punishments that are meted out by the authorized punishers should be meted out by hate caused by perceived moral badness in the hated individual. And young females when making sexual love can very much enjoy simultaneously feeling a visceral sexual hate that is opposite to the sexual love she is feeling toward the male she is having loving sex with, because hate is not a feeling a female feeling fake love on account of an addiction to sodomy would be able to feel. Having sex that is incompatible with skanky sex and having her hate feelings concomitant with such sex visceral enough to affect intraejaculate sperm selection ensures that intraejaculate sperm selection selects against sperm coding diploidly in males for addicting sodomizer tendencies and for sperm whose ancestral DNA more tended to be in males whom females had sex with because they naturally loved the males enough to want naturally to have sex with them, or at least that's my theory. If select females should be authorized to act on a hate that ideally should be caused by the qualities in the hated male that would make it evil to have sex with him, then expecting the killer females to viscerally act on hate for the hated person when having loving sex with a loved person can make that particular kind of hate especially sexually amusing for her (as is preferable) because the punishment is visceral—and the most visceral obvious way to act on hate for a male is to torture him to death from hate. And the more amusing for the females the authorized actions from hate are, the more the actions are likely to be from hate as opposed to some less appropriate reason. Giving someone a right to kill people, even if only a low predetermined number of people, is a dangerous thing that explains, for instance, why present systems of laws make murder illegal. There are many bad reasons an authorized murderess might kill if the killing isn't a sexual-hate thing. She might kill to extort money or position. Or maybe she will become something of a contract killer, killing at the behest of whoever gives her the most money or other reward. Or maybe she will adopt killing as a punishment to gain inappropriate power by killing those who fail to obey her. Or she might kill for racist reasons. All these and other bad reasons become less likely when she is expected to kill from sexual hate. Notice that in a justice system, judges and jurors may also produce verdicts decided upon for reasons otherwise than what the evidence suggests and proves, sometimes for very bad reasons; that juries contain more than a few members helps reduce the danger, but it's not like it's particularly fun (sexually or otherwise) for jurors to produce verdicts properly as they're supposed to by judging evidence, while it is sexually fun for young females to judge from sexually pleasant hate during sex with someone they love.
Recall that one of the reasons people judge moral character fairly well is that in society most meaningful such judgments occur in the mating sphere. For this reason one sees that authorized murders by murderesses acting on sexual hate should be rare or else there would be significant selective pressures encouraging bad males to deceive as to their character (to avoid getting slaughtered), which could make excessively ill-directed not only the authorized hate but also the very important love females give as a result of judging character in prospective mates.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the tendency to want to feel cruelty while feeling love (for someone else) probably goes back a long ways. Fundamentally, the tendency, to the extent it exists, is a defense against conflating addiction with sexual love, since being able to feel hate while feeling love is a sign that love is real. Time was our ancestors had cloacas in which both the digestive system and the reproductive system terminated (along with the renal system). The only mammals with proper cloacas are the monotremes—“mono” is a prefix meaning one and “treme” comes from the Greek word for hole. But purportedly there are only five extant monotremes, namely the duck-billed platypus and four species of echidna. (I believe there are a few other mammals like the beaver and the marsupials that have openings that have various degrees of cloacal characteristics—I am not at all expert about it.) The non-monotreme mammals are presumably mostly protected from the addictive effects of sex by not having cloacas, which probably largely explains why they have done so well. Since the digestive system is good at absorbing things like addictive chemicals or love potions, it is better for the digestive and reproductive systems to be separate, by way of encouraging females to reproduce according to their own natural tendencies rather than from artificially introduced seminal chemicals having affected their brains after having been absorbed by the digestive system. It is important that females reproduce according to their own natural tendencies—for instance, that is why rape is so evil, and in particular rape mediated by rape drugs. Anyway, in the days of our cloacal ancestors, all sex potentially had the capacity to screw up the natural sensibilities of the female like a rape drug—not just sex that is concomitant with sodomy. In fact, I suppose only oral sodomy could have very well been defined back then because of the deficiency of external openings. Looking at komodo dragon videos, for instance, you can't help thinking they kill their prey like they love terrifying it before loving its pain and suffering as they are watching it die and later ripping it to pieces—no surprise really that cloacal predators should be more often into terror and cruelty than mammalian predators. One would really expect cruelty to be more useful and moral in (cloacal) lizards than in (non-cloacal) mammals.
So maybe females getting sexual kicks out of their own cruelty is just a primitive thing since it seems more extreme in komodo dragons and presumably in our distant ancestors (relative to their other traits) like our ancestral pelycosaurs? But you can look at it the other way as well, namely that since cruelty is a very old emotion it has had more time to evolve—one could view it more neutrally as primeval rather than primitive. One indeed might think that cruelty is largely an obsolete emotion to the extent sodomy doesn't, hasn't, and won't exist. But sodomy does exist. To the extent people are indiscriminate like lizards in distinguishing sex from sodomy, adopting defenses and morals proper to lizards could be a way of lessening the damage. Still, we aren't lizards, and so maybe not. But cats aren't lizards, and they are a mammal that often seems very fond at times of cruelty, and so maybe we should be like lizards or cats. But we aren't cats either, and so maybe we shouldn't be like lizards or cats. I don't really feel like taking a position one way or the other whether societies should tolerate democratically chosen authorized murderesses. Since there is very little if anything being written about the subject, people might take what I say seriously (to the extent they don't consider my considerations as pointless speculation). If I say that, yes, authorized murderesses are something that could work in a society if people understood the moral issues involved sufficiently, then people may feel like, well, he thinks that it is pretty much hopeless otherwise that in the future society will mostly succeed in overcoming the evil of sodomy, and so it looks like we need to be lizard people—and they will think this even perhaps if things don't look that way, pointlessly putting people at risk from the violence that comes from females behaving like komodo dragons in their sexual behavior. On the other hand, to the extent I criticize female primeval sexual cruelty, people may feel like, well, he thinks that future society will mostly be discriminate enough to overcome sodomy without it allowing authorized murderesses, whereas perhaps such authorized murderesses are or will be necessary to clean things up sufficiently to keep at bay the (also torturous) violence and greed of sodomizers, and even more dangerously, of nasty cat impostors who manipulate others to kill so they will falsely seem the fluffy cat that is loved cruelly by all the cruel kitties about. Maybe I don't even have an opinion or strongly decided opinion one way or the other. Understanding when a society should allow females to be cruel in their sexual morals is the sort of thing that might be useful in encouraging females to become sexually cruel—a kind of scheming that doesn't seem particularly non-disturbing. It's more relaxing to not have my thoughts overlap with those that would disturb me—I mostly would rather just think about what constitutes good cat morals—it's a sufficiently sufficient frame of mind less disturbing and easier to deal with and probably more like that of a wise person who wants his inner brain environment to be more akin to that of brains thinking about what good people more exclusively encounter, the environment in which good people have most evolved to succeed in obtaining wisdom when their thoughts be in it.
Nor particularly do I want to indicate at all the extent to which I think it likely or improbable that society may one day allow authorized murderesses who are expected to kill from sexual cruelty while having loving sex with someone else. About all I feel now like saying about the chances of such cruelty becoming accepted is that socially approved clean female sexual cruelty has in the past been a thing sufficiently that in the present time sufficiently many good people who would want to know about it should have a better understanding about it enough for me to write about it slowly and put it out there somewhat. Yeah, okay, it's hard to come up with examples of females loved widely and sufficiently enough that society might allow and encourage them to kill from sexual cruelty if that be what they could want someone to do. I suppose the late Audrey Hepburn would be the best example I could think of. She was well-loved and attractive, though I have no particular reason to think she thought especially about the morals of sexual cruelty. It would of course be preferable in an authorized murderess expected to kill from sexual cruelty for her to have thought significantly about morals related to such behaviors, especially while she has considered her observations of her own pure natural feelings about what is beautiful to her and about what natural traits she imagines would be sexually pleasant in a loved male she might have sex with while killing someone else she hates. I don't mean to put things so verbose, but females can be sexually attracted to traits in a male that make him behave in a way she might consider annoying—especially with a catlike female getting sexually off on cruelty, I believe it tends to be morally better for her in some ways to appreciate the sexiness of an innate trait in her lover than to be concerned that the trait could make him behave somewhat contrary to her wishes.
It seems pretty obvious that if some females were allowed to be authorized murderesses, killing what they hate the most while having sex with someone they loved, the authorized murderesses would tend to want to kill too much. Girls and young women are probably rather like Monty Python's mythic Rabbit of Caerbannog—they look peaceful enough to most people, but tend to have an underappreciated extremely catlike, incredibly cruel lethal potentiality about them. But it doesn't follow from girls wanting to kill people too much that girls too much want to kill people. If girls and young women don't hate a lot while killing, it makes them more like people who kill for selfish reasons or who can't hate evil because depravity screwed them up. The whole point of girls perhaps killing during sex is that it is then fun for them then to kill from hate as opposed to other often very wrong and selfish reasons people may kill for. Another phrase for “authorized murderess” that I considered using was “human sacrifice priestess”. (It's nonstandard for murder to denote something authorized.) And indeed, sacredness is a very proper emotion for those involved with such killings, and “priestess” tends to connote sacredness, but the term “sacrifice” is all wrong. Authorized killing has no chance of being right or even not particularly bad if the vi
