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”[Lumpkins]. 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 after 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. John Wilkes Booth grew up in Belair, Maryland, an outer suburb of Baltimore. It's worth noticing (according to Blanchard's list of American disasters) that the two deadliest manmade disasters in Baltimore City prior to Lincoln's assassination of 14 April 1865 were the 14 April 1842 explosion of the steamship Medora (28 dead) and the 14 April 1857, warehouse district fire (13 dead) near the Inner Harbor that started on Charles Street just north of Lombard Street. (On 14-15 June 1837, flooding at Jones' Falls occasioned 24-30 fatalities, the worst natural disaster in Baltimore City until Jones' Falls flooded again on 24 July 1868, occasioning 50 deaths. The 4 July 1854 train wreck (30 dead) in Riderwood was in Baltimore County, but not in Baltimore City.)
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. John Hinckley Jr.'s father, John Hinckley Sr., was born in Tryon, NC. 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 of the Mayerling Incident, of Hitler becoming Chancellor, and 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 victim is not evil—so evil that killing him is no sacrifice to humanity, but a blessing. It is also important, I'd say, for the term denoting the killer to have a female form, as with “murderess”. Indeed, it's females who are most often abused by sodomy, and they alone are the ones who can get pregnant from whatever sperm is positively altered by their hate. Both males and females, when they are feeling love for a male, may if not confident about whether their love is clean decide to see if they can simultaneously hate someone else while feeling such love, but if they can hate thus, this is not particularly a sign of strong love—that they were scared enough to resort to such a test perhaps says as much bad about the male tested as being able to hate while feeling love for him suggests good about him. The sort of hate girls really can enjoy sexually is the hate that doesn't seem necessary as a test of depravity, since the loved male is so charming, honest, and clean in his apparent character that the girl has no fear of him being depraved; moreover, that sort of hate is totally pointless for a male to possess while feeling love, since obviously males don't get pregnant. Being able to hate is a test of depravity, but it's a test whose positive result is enjoyable in females to the extent that merely as a test (as opposed to a tool to affect intraejaculate sperm selection) it is pointless. If a girl doesn't feel really cool when having sex with a loved male, and in particular if she doesn't feel really cool about his being right for her, it's not going to be especially fun for her sexually to simultaneously hate someone else (though it might turn her sexual misery into something more neutral, especially if she's not lustful and still enough to encourage intraejaculate sperm selection). There's no moral point in possibly allowing males to kill from sexual hate. That coolness is rather necessary for girls or young women to sexually enjoy hate is quite important at keeping them from murdering excessively, and probably helps explain why males murder here in the US over seven times as often as females do, despite (if my theories are right) females being latent homicidal savages when feeling love for someone they are having sex with during sex with him. In societies where it is universally illegal to murder, it is dangerous to kill and to be the sort of person who kills—such killing is not something one could be cool about, which would take away what could be her sexual fun of it. Even if she knew for sure she could get away with a killing, she would not be cool about it, because just being the sort of person who kills illicitly very well could hurt her by making others not want to associate with her (lest they get killed). When being the sort of person to do something has consequences, people tend to have the emotion appropriate for the consequences of being that sort of person rather than (or in addition to) the emotions corresponding to the consequences of the act, when deciding whether to do it—that's the easiest way to naturally be the sort of person who does what is right. Though a male being simultaneously sexually loved by a homicidal female should have veto power over her killing someone, it really is wrong for him to force a girl to kill—it's the very sort of wrongness that for instance, as I have suggested, quite possibly is behind the First World War, a plethora of assassination attempts, and also a great many serial sexual killings of especially young females. True, the problem in present society (and since at least the nasty pro-German warmongers started WWI) is more that of males using sodomy and superstition to force other males to kill—males tend to have weaker defenses against sodomy and they alone can sodomize, enabling the abused to imitate their abusers later so that the tendency to kill for some particular superstitious pointless reason can spread from generation to generation like a zombie contagion—and males don't care that their own hate be cool, which makes it easier for them that way. Females can be killer zombies too, but they can't spread the “contagion” since they can't sodomize. It's a common saying that you can't herd cats, and largely that results no doubt from the especial wrongness inherent in forcing a cat to kill, a wrongness that somewhat makes them especially leery of being forced to do most anything.
But that's not to say cat-like girls and young women aren't above being deferential at times. Good thing, too. For if catsy girls love killing people too much, and they aren't deferential to others, Why would they avoid scheming to try to get away with killing more than would be right? Fortunately, rather like a cat likes to be petted, catsy-girls are majorly into having their lovers having loving feelings for them. Good males tend to find young females more beautiful and sexually pleasant when the females aren't killing too many people. Males will tend to be afraid: afraid that if the females kill too much that society will punish them by forbidding the females to kill as much as otherwise or by doing something very punitive if the females murdering excessively is very extreme. Girls, too, will be discouraged somewhat from risky excess killing on account of sexual hate being more fun when meted out coolly--risking the ire of society is the sort of thing one would tend to be anxious about, which precludes coolness. Still, it is a somewhat risky thing in a society with authorized murderesses for that society to assume that prohibitions that it enacts against catsy girls killing too much will suffice to keep excess killing by catsy girls at bay. The catsy girls could conceivably use political cunning, etc., to gain power if only momentarily, which could tend to cause them quickly to change the rules and to commit a quite substantial slaughter more than is beautiful or sacred. At least after having daydreamed and thought about it for a while, people probably would tend to greatly prefer as authorized murderesses young females with lovers who can and (to all or most appearances) would force them to kill significantly less than they would want if given free rein. True, presumably, often males loved by catsy authorized murderesses would tend to want the authorized murderesses to be allowed to kill more, not only because they will tend to love their catsy lovers (as indeed society would also tend to do or else they would not have voted them to be authorized murderesses) but also because the more that catsy young females find having sex enjoyable with their lover the more that they and other catsy girls are likely to want to have sex with him (and males tend to find sex enjoyable). So there would likely be some tendency for a good male to want the catsy females having sex with him to be allowed in a moderation obedient to the will of the people to more murder what those catsy females hate, on account of catsy females tending to find sex more enjoyable when they are torturing to death what they hate, provided of course society approving allows them to be cool about it. But much of the clean sexual pleasure catsy girls could get from committing authorized murder they could get just by wanting to do the murder. If authorized murderesses are submissive to their lovers when it comes to not murdering as much, they will be restricted in their homicidal excesses not only by the dictates of society but also by their sexual need for their lover to find them beautiful, and yet they will still feel the level of hate associated with wanting to kill too much—the extreme hate will be there, just not the inappropriately extreme level of killing, ideally. It will just be much safer and more sacred and beautiful (on average) for catsy girls to be deferential to their lover when it comes specifically to not killing too much. In practice, the way this mostly should work I think is that a male should tend to love catsy authorized murderesses having sex with him more when the murderesses spend much time getting off sexually on torturing and terrifying their murder victims before killing them. The more time and energy the authorized murderesses spend on torturing and terrorizing their victims before murdering them, the fewer people they'll tend to kill. Probably, at least if the citizenry has examined their feelings about it, people as a whole will tend to feel much more comfortable having authorized murderesses who are obedient to lovers in torturing and terrifying their victims as they are killing them. Actually, authorized murderesses who have sex with males who (non-violently) force them to torture and terrify what they murder probably will be allowed on average by society to murder significantly more victims than otherwise—the more their lovers limit the amount of victims killed by the authorized murderesses, the less society will find it necessary to restrain the murderesses, which restraints of course might one day not work very well if (say) catsy girls succeed in using scheming, terror, violence, etc., to gain the power they need to kill without much of the societal restraint that would be all that keeps them from slaughtering excessively many people. Else it may even go opposite to the way it should, with females demanding of their lovers whatever help they need with their schemes of world domination (or at least whatever domination the females need in order to kill with more impunity and coolness). So really, there's nothing about a male forcing a female lover to torture and terrify what she is killing anyway that would make him sexually undesirable to catsy girls. On the contrary, it's very sexually advantageous for a male whom a killer female wants to have sex with while killing for such killing to be a slow drawn out affair: the longer the killing lasts, the more females will have the time to have sex with him when they find him sexiest, i.e., when the females are killing what they hate. True, females may get slightly frustrated at him at not being able to kill as many people as they want just on account of his misgivings and fear about their killing more than is right, but if he weren't that way, he wouldn't be sexy. All the relevant controlling he does makes him sexually desirable because the male who can do that can attract many killer females as opposed to just a few who murder quickly all they are allowed to, leaving no place for girls who otherwise would especially enjoy sex with him that occurs during the killing. And it's sexier for girls to have sex that selects for sperm with ancestral sperm that had sex with killer girls because the girls really loved their lovers (so much so that the lovers sought to reduce the killing so the many girls having sex with them wouldn't run out of for-sure evil people to kill while having sex with them) and not because they and their lovers took imprudent risks to wrest power they should have left to the people at large. It's like winning the lottery: Winning the lottery is not particularly impressive—the same risk taking that tends to produce winners also produces losers, and if you're related to winners who won by taking those risks, well, you're going to be related to losers who lost by taking those risks. And though it may be somewhat frustrating for a female to terrorize her victims as opposed to killing them right away and then, quick, moving on to the next victims, which may seem more fun to her, yet because her lover has forced her to terrify what she kills before torturing it to death, she can take great sexual comfort that her extreme sexual desire to torture to death what is pleading in terror for mercy shows she isn't like people forced to soothe their lovers' fears on account of nasty semen chemicals making them find it quite generally pleasant to soothe fears on account of semen chemicals' warping effects on the brain. And it's not like she doesn't feel the strong hate that makes her want to kill too much, it's just that she feels other wants (wanting to be loved with feeling by her lover and wanting him to get much sexual pleasure) that are more important. And it is sacred for catsy girls to terrorize because it takes time, thereby reducing the number of people killed by her when she chooses terrorizing her next victim while killing preceding victims by showing him what is going to happen to him as opposed to when she chooses killing him simultaneously with some or all of those preceding victims. Females are sexually pleased by males who are skilled at being successful when such success is beautiful—in particular they are sexually pleased by a male who is skilled at pleasing lots of females with beautiful sex. Not that males are cruelly indifferent to the enjoyment their lovers might get while killing things while having sex, notwithstanding they enjoy how soothing it is for females having sex with him not to kill too much. A catsy male too has a heart: it may well beat loudly when a victim of his lover is about to die so she can get more pleasure out of the kill by enjoying the contrast of his loved heartbeat with that of the fading hated heartbeat of her hated victim, but there's a kind of emotional fear in her lover's heartbeat, too. Even if rationally he figures his lover is too beautiful to enjoy killing so recklessly and without abandon that she would decide to submachine-gun down or whatever right away all the victims in queue (and then quickly find new victims), it's a kind of primeval fear his heart for humanity and sacredness as a whole may nevertheless greatly have, a fear that her torturing and terrifying may allay while simultaneously proving to herself that she can in fact be totally absolutely indifferent to such fears (in the males she is torturing from hate), which is just that much extra sexual amusement for her to the extent such proof was chosen more for its effect on intraejaculate sperm selection than from actual fears she may have of being inappropriately controlled by her lover (as opposed to appropriately controlled).
There's lots of things a male can try to force females to do in order to give the male more sexual pleasure. Typically, such controlling behavior is repulsive to females. True, it suggests a certain power that the male can force a female to do such a thing, but trying to attract females is harder when forcing them to behave against their wishes, and so it is seldom that it is even expedient for a male to try to force a female to give him sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure tends to be a selfish pleasure in males that better males don't strive for very much. The reason it tends to be selfish for males to want sexual pleasure much is that (to various degrees in different times of history) striving for more children by striving for more sex partners may get in the way of caring and making a livelihood, and trying to care more for children one has with one's wife benefits the (ideally) well-loved wife as well as one's self, whereas trying for more sex benefits largely oneself, because females typically have lots of at least fairly desirable males they may choose from for sex, probably, at least if they aren't too focused on wanting money and caring of the males. For the same reason, sexual pleasure tends to be a more unselfish pleasure for females to want, it being less selfish on average than the pleasure of marrying for money—assuming, of course, the sexual pleasure of the female is natural rather than the result of a screwed-up addiction, which it is unselfish to want to avoid inasmuch as such a screwed-up addiction likely especially benefits the likely bad male responsible for it, and it is unselfishly moral to make an extra effort to avoid benefiting the bad. But refinement demands one to see that what tends to apply in general may not apply totally in general. Moreover, a male naturally tending to use love to force females having sex with him into terrorizing and torturing what they are killing anyway is not the only naturally controlling tendency of a male that a female may find naturally sexually attractive, notwithstanding such naturally sexually attractive controlling tendencies are few. It seems fitting when considering the circumstances in which male dominance is appropriate in catlike sexual situations to consider the other few examples of appropriate sexually controlling behavior by males—examples that don't have much if anything to do directly with catlike cruelty—by way of understanding how the morals of how male dominance relates to the most appropriate (or least inappropriate) sexual cruelties fits into the larger picture of the circumstances present when males should be sexually dominant.
One other situation where sexual pleasure tends to be something especially right for males to want to experience comes into play when males want females to be themselves. A female has a choice—she can judge a male by being true to herself by making observations about him and taking into account her own important feelings and fantasies about him and spend time making inferences from those and getting in touch with her own feelings about what she wants or doesn't want to do to him about it, or she can instead judge what the mass of other females feel about him, hardly using her own feelings or mind at all, opting to conform to others about which males are desirable and about what is desirable to expect of them and to do or not do to them. Thing is, though, even especially conformist females aren't typically reckless enough so as to not know that it is preferable to conform to the opinions of females who actually have put some thought and feeling about the male in question than to conform to what may be merely manufactured hype. So if a male is desirable, it is to his benefit to love better those females who eventually are true to themselves in the sense they are much into their own natural feelings about him and what they may want to do sexually with him under what circumstances—that way, when other females with conformist tendencies see how much other girls want him, they will quite possibly be especially sexually impressed and curious on account of the girls having sex with him being true to themselves as opposed to conformists conforming to a mostly mindless unfeeling herd. True, a girl may find it a little off-putting that she likely will before long have to feel and think for herself if she is to be well-loved by him, but the tendency to want even somewhat conformist girls to have sex with him tends to cause desirable males to want the sexual pleasure they get when girls think and feel for themselves when judging him ( eventually if he already has a visible following—if standard opinion is that a male is sexy, it's rather expecting too much of him to insist that that he insure females be nonconformist in their initial judgments of him). And it is beautiful for females to be more true to themselves in their sexual decisions, since it causes females to evolve to be more wise and beautiful in making sexual decisions. When a male characteristic is lovable because it is both beautiful and something characteristic of a male being sexually desirable, females are going to find that characteristic sexually desirable in a mate, so much so that it will tend to make them more inclined to have sex with him notwithstanding they may not especially want to do themselves what the characteristic tends to force them to do as a result or precondition of having the sex they want with him. It is not impossible for a female to be attracted by a trait in a male that causes him to exercise effective power over females for his own sexual benefit, when the exercise of such power tends to have beautiful consequence. The tendency for males to selfishly put effort into obtaining the sexual pleasure that comes from obtaining sex with many females is an unusually selfish one, one that can get in the way (say) of putting effort into obtaining the pleasure of obtaining more caring for the offspring one has by a well-loved female (normally one's wife). Accordingly, on average, sexual pleasure does tend to be a pleasure that in males it is somewhat more selfish and bad to want greatly as far as pleasures go. For the same reason, sexual pleasure tends to be a good pleasure for females to want, as far as pleasures go, assuming the pleasure is real and not just some screwed-up emotion caused by rape-drug chemicals introduced into the brain unnaturally via sodomy or drug use rather than through the natural process that the brain uses when constructing its brain chemicals from circulating nutrients as the brain naturally sees fit when naturally creating the emotions which the brain has evolved to create so as to cause appropriate behavior. It tends to be more unselfish and good for a female to want (real) sexual pleasure over the pleasure of obtaining caring by (say) marrying for money, notwithstanding that good females may on average get more caring for her family than bad females on account of good males on average being especially caring toward the (typically good) females they marry and their mutual offspring. But it is being too indiscriminate to say that it is always more bad and less good for males to be motivated by sexual pleasure than for females to be motivated by sexual pleasure, even when all the pleasures are real, i.e., natural. Certainly there is some merit to take into account what is typical; for instance, it makes sense for laws to be more geared to protecting females from rape from males than to protecting males from rape by females, on account of male sexual pleasure being typically more selfish for males to want. However, not every variant of sexual pleasure a male can experience is going on average to be more bad for the male to want than it is bad for the female to want a corresponding female sexual pleasure that is counter to what the male wants—the sexual pleasure a desired male takes in a female being true to herself is an example. It is good for males to emotionally love their mistresses better when they are true to themselves, and though to a certain extent males behaving thus can arise merely from males finding beautiful behavior beautiful, i.e., a male who loves beauty may from love of beauty encourage beauty by loving beautiful behavior more than less beautiful or ugly behavior, yet it seems rather pompous to not appreciate that a desire for sexual pleasure itself can also motivate the male to want the female to be herself.
Encouraging females to evolve so as to choose mates better, which is the gist of what makes it beautiful to encourage females to be themselves, is something whose benefit is to distant generations. What in the aggregate is probably the most important sort of love, namely the love for beautiful individuals of the opposite sex that on average causes those individuals to have more mutual children than would be the case if the love were not there, probably will have especial difficulty selecting for something whose benefits are mostly to generations in the distant future. Though good men do somewhat from love of beauty find it easier to love females who are true to themselves in their sexual decisions, and though this aspect of love of beauty, whatever its cause, is precious, even good males on average don't find females being true to themselves as beautiful as they should. And neither do good females tend to find being themselves as beautiful as they should. Of course, there is so much to learn from others. It is silly and excessively sacrificial not to learn from others, but the desirability of having much of others in you doesn't imply that it is undesirable to have much of you in you. Fortunately, good desirable males don't have to be motivated by love of beauty to love mistresses more if they are being true to themselves in sleeping with him, they can just be motivated there by especially wanting the sexual pleasure they'll get from the mistresses being true to themselves, since such being true to themselves will help attract other typically somewhat conformist females into sleeping with him, and that is a good thing. (Though it's not something I've thought out carefully, I mostly don't think wives should be forced to be nonconformist, since there is a kind of appropriateness to wives being allowed to be thus unloving, inasmuch as the better males will tend to have wives who are lovingly less conformist, and Why force the wives of the worse males to be loving?). And it is not just that the girls will be attracted to the males who strongly encourage females thinking of sleeping with them to be themselves because the girls find it beautiful for their lovers to encourage them to be themselves, it's also that the females will be sexually pleased by having a lover who forces girls to do what is sexually pleasant for them when such force is not held in revulsion (because it is encouraging something beautiful). All things else equal, girls get sexual pleasure from qualities in their lover that are useful to him in getting more pleasant sex, because it is of evolutionary benefit for a girl's male descendants to have lots of pleasant sex, and a girl's male offspring and more distant male descendants will inherit genetically some of her lover's tendencies.
There is an inherent danger to society in allowing killing, lest the killing get excessive and out of hand. Accordingly, life is inherently possessed of sacredness, and even killing evil people who are the opposite of sacred must be done sacredly in order for the destruction of life to not make the killing less sacred than the destruction of evil makes it sacred. It's risky to assume that love of beauty alone will suffice even in beautiful couples to prevent the female member of the couple from killing with sexual kicks more than she should, and thus contrary to sacredness. Caring greatly about somewhat bad people not related to you not getting killed even if they have enough good traits for the killing to not be right is unfortunately just not something that people are good at wanting from mere love of beauty. Such sacred magnanimity doesn't seem to proceed well from loving well-loved people so they can have more mutual descendants with you, which is the sphere in which love of beauty tends to work best. Enjoyment of coolness can help reduce killing, but what can also help is males sexually enjoying their lovers not killing too much, as can happen if the males sexually enjoy their lovers being more into terrorizing and torturing what they are killing anyway. It is desirable that males find girls with moral catsy behavior lovable not just because the behavior is moral and thus more beautiful, but also because it is sexually pleasant to love catsy girls better when they are killing in the most right (or least wrong) ways.
Intuitively, though it took me a while to see it, it seems very sacred that catsy cruel behaviors be thought about slowly, as though what is more important is having wisdom about cruelty in the long run (when one is old) rather than having such wisdom in the short run (when one is young). I mostly think this has to do with coolness being an important consideration not only in sex with catsy girls but also in sex with especially young females. Girls in love with very morally good males tend to want sex sooner than later, because moral goodness tends to be something easily judged (or else moral goodness wouldn't evolve) and because morally good people don't tend to deceive others much—good people don't deceive good people because that would be wrong, and they don't tend to deceive bad people even when the latter have behaved so as to arguably deserve it because they wouldn't be any good at it, not having practice with deceiving the fellow good people that good people most tend to associate with. If a girl wants sex right away with a morally good male, she must have high confidence in his desirability to feel like she doesn't need to wait until he is older to see if she can find better. In good males, sperm especially suited to fertilizing young females is likely to have very desirable traits—the traits that make girls so sure of the male's desirability that they want sex with him while still very young because they have insignificant concern about maybe changing their mind about him in the future, whereas in bad males, since girls are more easily deceived than women, sex with young females that involves intraejaculate sperm selection will likely select mostly merely for deceptive tendencies and the traits that are so undesirable to females that only males with deceptive tendencies can tend to mate while having them. But coolness, too, is an indicator of how certain a female feels in a male's desirability. If a girl has sex when she is naturally very cool and comfortable about her sexual decision, then this coolness suggests an extra level of desirability in her lover. The coolness may affect the environment sperm encounters in a fairly standard way that will be desirable to the female. It doesn't in itself seem much of a deal, since if girls aren't already very cool to begin with they won't probably naturally want sex anyway when very young—to a young girl's mind, the difference between extremely cool and very cool may well not be sufficient for her to consider it worth waiting about, considering how much she would age inside by waiting until she is more cool. But intraejaculate sperm selection may amplify things somewhat to cause her to love appreciation of coolness in sex partners to such an extent that she finds males significantly sexier if they naturally love (with feelings) girls somewhat better when they are extremely cool and comfortable about the sex they are having with him. On the one hand, caring greatly how cool a girl is with having sex is moral in a way that is opposite both to rapists (who don't care at all how cool a girl is with sex) and to males who more-or-less always want sex sooner than later from the somewhat selfish consideration that if a girl is willing to have sex now, then simply by having the sex right away can make it a sure thing, whereas she might change her mind if it is postponed. On the other hand, in a way, it is somewhat mean if the male causes a girl to postpone sex when the pleasure the girl can get from having the sex sooner than later is likely more than the pleasure she would get from having the sex later and being more cool about it. But the thing is, if a male's natural tendency is to want girls to be somewhat extra patient and cool about sex even more than the girls want to be patient and cool about it, then because he and his ancestors are naturally that way, if a girl has sex with him at a young age, she is selecting not only for genetic material that caused girls who would be willing to have sex with him to have had sex with him at that age, but for genetic material that caused girls to be willing to have sex with ancestors at an even earlier age, i.e., at the age at which they were cool enough merely to be willing to have sex with his ancestors, an even earlier age than the age at which they were cool enough for his male ancestors to especially find it beautiful to have sex with them (which would be the still young age at which his male ancestors tended to ended up having sex with them). It may well be that (at least in the most moral of the moral males) by a moral male naturally finding coolness lovable in girls considering having sex with him that this tendency of his to love coolness gives girls and their parents so much extra pleasure at the prospect of the girls having sex with him sooner rather than later that girls end up having sex with him at a younger age than they would if he didn't value coolness, notwithstanding his love of their coolness might cause sex-delaying behaviors in him that may be somewhat annoyingly unpleasant to the girls and their parents. Anyway, there is a fundamental association between males loving coolness in girls and the males and girls being slow and patient in starting such sex, because such love of coolness is associated with not making haste quickly and not having the rushed thoughts associated with such quick haste making in the sex that is likely to be thought about. Slow patient thoughts tend to be in brains where there is also love of coolness, especially as regards thoughts about sex, and more particularly about sex in which intraejaculate sperm selection is relevant (as with sex where there is much natural female lust and stillness). It follows that in brains where there is much love of coolness, slow, patient thoughts are likely to have an environment much more conducive to their being wise thoughts than would be the case with hurried thoughts. Indeed, any sort of thought is likely to be more effective when it appears in a brain environment more typical of where it most often importantly appeared in ancestors, where evolution has most often selected for its effectiveness. Especially thoughts concerned with loving coolness need to be patient. It's largely love of coolness that causes catsy girls from being homicidal maniacs—the catsy girls themselves enjoy such coolness, and the better males love the girls to have such coolness even more than the girls do. This love of coolness is a very sacred thing as regards sex where the girls sexually get off on cruelty to someone else, since it has the potential to greatly reduce the extent to which girls excessively kill things for sexual kicks. Since love of coolness is a sacred thing, it's sacred that our thinking about how to best love such coolness be effective, and thus it is very important for this thinking to be slow and patient, as if what is most important is not to find the answers right away, but to make sure one will have made much progress in finding the answers in one's old age (leaving more advanced considerations for future generations to consider is okay, too, this delaying actually making the thought process even more patiently slow). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is good to not think and fantasize about sexual cruelty until one is an adult—putting things off isn't slow thinking, it's no thinking. Young adults can be wiser about sex than teenagers because they have had more time to think about it, but if they didn't spend their teenage years thinking about it, then they haven't spent more time thinking about it, and are likely to be just as foolish about sex as adolescents, and if they are female, though their brains might be better at critical thinking from being more educated and experienced in ordinary affairs, they won't have the natural innocent tendency to find non-deceptiveness (and the morality that suggests such non-deceptiveness) very pleasant in males that they would have had when adolescents. Anyway, it is especially beautiful when thinking and fantasizing about females sexually getting off on cruelty to get the fundamentals right very carefully without sacrificing generality, the most important thing when one wants to fruitfully think about a subject slowly and for many years. Once one gets in the habit of thinking about something the wrong way, it can be difficult to correct the error. When one has a fantasy about sex involving girls being cruel, if one is interested in being wise about such matters, return to the fantasy again and again to see whether one's understandings that follow from it can't be improved to be more accurate without being less general or more general without being less accurate. Anyway, in my opinion it is especially good and sacred to be very patient and lazy when thinking about female sexual cruelty. Youth is beautiful, but young women who have for years thought and fantasized thus about their own sexually cruel tendencies may well gain so much wisdom and familiarity with their own cruel sexual desires that they are more beautiful on average as sex partners than teenage and adolescent girls who perhaps have started exploring their own sexual cruelty but haven't lived long enough to have spent much time in such patient explorations.
Since it tends to be somewhat sketchy to think quickly about catsy sexual cruelty, it follows that it may be unusually problematic if a large part of society all of a sudden more-or-less simultaneously decides to think enthusiastically about such sexual cruelty, which like all enthusiastic thinking tends to be short-term thinking, which as we have seen is likely to be especially bad when thinking about catsy sexual cruelty.
Typically, it is better to love a girl better if she is herself, but it is so important that girls be free from male manipulation and control about whether to engage in cruel behavior or fantasies while having sex, that males should be indifferent about girls being copy cats when it comes to whether to be cruel during sex or even whether to fantasize about being cruel during sex. As mentioned, the freedom there from male control is so important and appreciated by cats, it's the reason people say you can't herd cats. Accordingly, it seems pretty much unavoidable that females will be copycats as regards whether in general to be cruel in deeds or fantasies while having sex. This is unfortunate, I suppose, but the real danger is not in girls being trendy about being cruel during sex but in their being enthusiastically trendy. If males did love girls better for not being copycats as to whether to be catsy, then girls would tend to rush to be the early copiers, leading to dangerous sudden enthusiastic bursts in cat sentiment. Indeed, as regards being oneself, the next best thing to being first to start a trend is to be an early adopter of a trend, since girls who adopt fashions early tend to be much more themselves (in deciding what trends to adopt) than girls who adopt fashions later, only after a very large number of girls have adopted them. It is actually good to build on the wisdom and even good fashion sense of others, so long as one puts oneself into deciding what to adopt. Realistically, you can't be wise if you try to figure everything out by yourself—it is just too hard given our limited lifespans—what is desirable is not to have little of others in you but to have much of yourself in you—and that often more involves using your own feelings and thoughts in deciding what styles or beliefs of others are beautiful or true than actually being totally original or ingenious from almost scratch. Anyway, when males tend to love females better for being themselves, they will tend to prefer females who adopt or resurrect fashions early, since such females are more likely to at least have put themselves into deciding what to copy than girls who only adopt fashions late after they have gotten very popular. Thus, to appeal to males who value girls being themselves, girls can get very enthusiastic about wanting to adopt the latest trends, which enthusiasm can be dangerous as regards catsy-cruel trends. All this said, there is one catsy area where it is so important for catsy girls to be themselves that males should love them better for being themselves. To kill what they hate, girls have to feel hate, which ideally should come from within. Indeed, it should not be considered sacred for authorized murderesses to kill a victim during sex with a lover unless all the catsy females having sex with the lover sufficiently hate from within the victim to want him dead. This makes punishment more as if from a jury (that ideally should involve every juror thinking for oneself) than as if from one individual, as is good basically for the same reasons juries are good. Males should love authorized murderesses (were there such) better when they are being true to themselves as to whom to hate (want dead). Males, too, should probably have a veto power over catsy killing, though it probably should be more often exercised from a sense that something may be somewhat off or not right or not beautiful with how the murderesses are behaving when about to start the (democratically authorized) killing than from actual character judgments about the proposed victim—what's important after all is that the hate be from the females doing the killing (males are not sexually turned on by being able to hate because it is physiologically impossible for females to sodomize and thus silly to test for that), and killing being determined partly by how much the male they are having sex with feels hate toward the victim would dilute the female hate, which seems quite sketchy if it were at all a common thing. Plus, people tend to be better at judging the opposite sex than their own sex, judgments of their own sex being more useful in deciding whom to love with sex or caring.
As I hope I have more-or-less made clear, it is a rather useful generalization that authorized murderesses (assuming society were such that it on occasion elected especially well-loved and respected females to be such) should decide for themselves whom it sexually pleases them to kill, and that they should take the lead accordingly in deciding which particular males are at the top of the list when it comes to being killed soon, whereas the males who are the lovers of such authorized murderesses should take the lead in forcing (by adjusting loving sentiment) the authorized murderesses to kill more slowly. Provided the sexes are clear when to accordingly be deferential to the sexual pleasure of the opposite sex, a desire for sexual pleasure that mostly always aligns in at least one sex with what is beautiful as regards catsy sexual behavior could always encourage good catsy sexual behavior. But there is a special case that seems an exception to the generalization that there is always in catsy sexual behavior at least one sex whose sexual desires for pleasure align with what is right, which could cause complications for which no desire for sexual pleasure from cruelty could solve.
There's an important and sacred love that seems as though it resides in the female chest. It encourages, as if a generalization of maternal instinct, a charitable love for all. When the loving chest feelings are for a loved male, they can I imagine amount to a kind of incipient maternal feeling that I presume makes sex with him more beautiful and pleasant to the female (the younger the female, the more the latter). (Unless her chest also feels a destitution that probably corresponds to the absence of the wherewithal (given whatever caring her lover is likely or not likely to give) to take care of a child, which could usefully discourage her from getting pregnant when it is a hopeless or reckless irresponsibility that very well could lead to the ghostly death of the offspring—the chest may encourage the female to align sex more with necessary considerations of reality.) What I think sometimes might happen is that a female feels so much love for a male in her chest it is as though the love won't fit there and so feels like she needs to extend her love to the chests of other females by encouraging these other females to also feel incipient maternal feelings (that might lead them to more want sex) when considering him. Encouraging other girls to love incipiently potential offspring that those girls might have with a male is basically loving those potential offspring. So basically, the expanded love females might feel in their chest is a love for potential offspring of her beloved with other females. Loving a male by deciding to have and care for mutual children is usually the most important and relevant love in the aggregate a female can have and is great; it is basically love for the children that he may have with her. But loving his potential children with other females enough to encourage other females to want to have and care for them is an even more unselfish love, though the importance of love being mostly through mutual children presumably makes it a quite rare love for females to feel, and to the extent they are not totally in love, they are quite reasonably likely to be extra suspicious of it. This more rare sort of love a female might feel in her chest to encourage girls to feel incipient maternal feelings for a loved male in a way is indeed love for the children that he may have with other females. I imagine that on some level, the female feeling the expanded love feeling in her chest probably imagines how beautiful the offspring of other children the male could have with other females would be and can't help trying to encourage the caring incipient maternal love in the chest of other girls while simultaneously feeling this love in her own chest. But like I said, this loving feeling for children of a male by other girls is presumably very rare, and so a female having such a feeling might especially want proof of the feeling being natural rather than as a result of adventitious addiction. She may decide to adopt a catsy approach: if she can have the opposite feeling that would be evidence that her expanded love feeling in her chest is real and not an unnatural feeling caused by some sort of sordid addiction. What is the opposite of loving something just because it is related to a loved male?— hating something just because it is related to a hated male. This expanded love feeling a female might have in her chest, could lead some of those catsy females having it to especially want to kill the relatives of a hated male just because they are related to him, a kind of killing that definitely seems contrary to sacredness. But it is not as though the male lover of females encouraging other girls to feel love in their chests when considering him are going to find such encouraging sexually unpleasant. When girls feel love in their chests, it presumably encourages them to find sex more pleasant with whatever male she is dreaming about, which of course may well be quite sexually pleasant for the male; females encouraging such love are being rather like procuresses that unlike the stereotypical ones would actually be beautiful and sincere in what they are doing provided it doesn't cause them to seriously consider slaughtering people just because they are related to people they despise, which could be a danger it would seem. In a situation like this it seems you've just got to be motivated by love of beauty. In particular, males would be well to appreciate sacredness in the female chest, which sacredness indeed can be beautiful to the point it makes one somewhat weak and dreamy (perhaps too much so to press the save button in time), and which can exist even in catsy females. Another sacred proceeding would be for males with catsy mates to not focus too exclusively on catsy females in their loving. In particular, there are huggy females who just seem to love almost everyone and everything from the lowly molluscs to the soggiest mosses. Presumably, these females also can love catsy females and those males having sex with them—indeed they probably will, because they mostly love everything. But of course, that's not to say the universal huggy females love everything equally. In particular, it could very well be that huggy females love a lover of catsy females (and the catsy females having sex with him) so much better than what the catsy girls are torturing to death that the sexual pleasure the catsy females and their lover can get form torturing to death what the catsy females hate is more lovable to the huggy female than the victim avoiding pain and death would be. But what the huggy female presumably won't find beautiful or pleasant is a torturess slaughtering people just because they are related to someone the torturess despises, though they may find beautiful the torturess enjoying the pain her evil victims will feel when their evil relatives suffer (so the relatives are indeed on their own account evil) . Or maybe they won't because perhaps taking any kind of enjoyment in people suffering because their relatives are being hurt is just too imprudent an escalation of ordinary cat cruelty to be worth the possibly precarious dance at the precipice of hell that may accompany it, at least not in a world that hasn't become accustomed and at ease with thinking about standard cat cruelty for a great while. People should be judged individually, and huggy females who don't do hating would have little if any temptation to not find it wrong for people to do otherwise, it feels like, and so it's a sacred thing for the catsy to appreciate and seek affection from them, the huggy females who love almost everything and everyone, though indeed it's such an advanced and somewhat special topic of consideration, I don't feel like putting my brain into considering all the details much in the foreseeable future, though I suppose one never knows if a beautiful idea about it should pop up in my head. I feel a responsibility when talking about cat morals to put the main issues of cat morals out there in a well-rounded way that covers pretty much all the major moral questions at whatever level of intricacy I am trying to reach. I don't want curiosity to send me into tangential non-fundamental questions that very likely are best postponed. Sure, I suppose cat girls offing people en masses just because they hate their relatives is the kind of portal into hell humanity or large masses thereof could fall through, but at some level one has to go by probabilities given the amount of sacredness that I feel exist in the female chest, and that I should be led by that. I'm more concerned with the pitfalls that I might never have even noticed because I haven't gone over the fundamental questions and behaviors of proper cat morals sufficiently many times to have even noticed their existence, much less how to deal with them.
As I have said, ideally catsy cruel sex morals are best thought of slowly and lazily, and of course my putting out here a somewhat thorough exposition on such catsy sex morals may of course cause people to consider how females get off on sexual cruelty, but with more enthusiasm and less leisure than would be desirable if everything else were peachy. But evidence suggests that large numbers of people have been slaughtered since 1900 or so as a result of zombifying cat impostors and their zombies using nastiness and superstition to spread a particular superstitious belief in the importance of aligning murders and assassinations with instances of mass death (esp. disasters) to encourage evil killings. I can understand feeling like zombies shouldn't rule one's life, but zombies are freaking dangerous and tend in the aggregate do things contrary to continued human existence, and so ignoring them because you feel thinking about them is letting them rule your thoughts is imprudent and also wrong. People need to know. DON'T IGNORE THE EVIL ZOMBIES. It's important that the legal system do its part to enact justice amd make us safer by punishing the zombies and more especially the zombifiers, and by protecting us from their evils. But arguably the most useful way (at least in the long run) to stop the evil from the zombifying cat impostors, it seems to me, is to make people clear-headed about the difference between cat impostors and cats, which people can only do effectively when they understand catsy cruelty as it relates to sex morals. Still, World War I would seem to be the worst product of the zombifying cat impostors, and though in a way it seems to be not as over as people think (because cat-impostor zombifiers), still mostly that war indeed ended in 1918, which was a while ago, and so I'd suggest it is still worth being very lazy and patient when considering all the moral considerations involved with people sexually getting off on clean sexual cruelty arising from hate, even to the extent that the hate is just. Nonhurriedly tends to the proper way to think about cat things. But you can't just ignore the haunted feelings arising from consideration of the evil acts of the zombifying cat impostors or how those same haunted feelings demand that people have at least basic understandings of how females can especially sexually enjoy hating a hated person while feeling love for someone else and of all the main moral issues associated with them acting on such hate. Pointing out the patterns of evil from the cat impostors without teaching people whatever mystique the extremely evil nasty zombifying cat impostors may seem to have is possessed a great deal more by the good or not especially bad females who cleanly sexually get off on cruelty like cats often do risks making things worse or only slightly better because the false mystique from the cat impostors which may impress people highly confused or ignorant about primeval clean sexual catsy cruelty could cause quite a few people to copy the evil homicidal zombies in superstition or murder.
Now I'll discuss some further weirdnesses I've noticed concerning PS General Slocum, etc.
The General Slocum apparently had a lengthy list of mishaps prior to it catching fire 15 June 1904, killing over 1000. Two of the seven prior mishaps on the linked list, both happening in the summer of 1894, should jump out immediately to those who have spent much time considering weird coincidences with disasters.
On 29 July 1894, the Slocum was overloaded with it is said 4700 persons on board when she struck a sandbar late at night coming home from Rockaway, injuring the electrical apparatus sufficiently to extinguish all her electrical lights, leaving everyone on board in the dark. According to one account, hundreds were injured in the ensuing pandemonium, which lasted about 30 minutes. Recall that the Slocum racist massacre in Texas happened 29 July 1910 and that the explosives causing the monumental 30 July 1916 Black Tom explosion at Jersey City, NJ, perhaps were placed late at night on 29 July 1916 (the day of Canada's worst ever forest fire). And on 29 July 1900, an anarchist who had lived in Patterson, NJ, assassinated the Italian King Umberto I. What at the time was the second-deadliest steamboat disaster, the sinking of the Chinese troop transport Kowshing off Asan, Korea, by the Japanese protect cruiser Naniwa at the start of the First Sino-Japanese War, happened four days before this Slocum incident, on 25 July 1894, and killed over 800.
On 1 September 1894...hold it right there. On the first day of September, 1894, about 415 were killed by the Great Hinckley fire in Minnesota, including (maybe) Boston Corbett, who shot dead the assassin (John Wilkes Booth) who shot President Abraham Lincoln. I have for several years thought that Reagan's would-be assassin John Hinckley was recruited on account of his surname—probably the mummery was that the Great Hinckley fire of all disasters was the most friendly to assassins on account of it having killed Boston Corbett, the killer of arguably the most infamous US assassin, and thus that Hinckley's last name accordingly was some sort of omen that suggested he would have special assassin powers—or something like that. Anyway, on 1 September 1894, off Pier 19 of the East River, General Slocum backed into the tugboat Robert H. Sayre, causing Slocum's steering to malfunction (according to the New York Times, her rudder fell off). The tug Robert H. Sayre was I believe a Lehigh Valley Railroad tug apparently named after the chief engineer of the railroad. At the time of the 1916 Black Tom explosion, the Lehigh Valley Railroad owned Black Tom and its associated piers and warehouses. Robert H. Sayre had already been made somewhat famous by the time it was hit by Slocum. Indeed, on 24 June 1894, Robert H. Sayre (along with the Algonquin) rescued many from the tugboat James D. Nicol, which had been chartered by members of the Herring Fishing Club at 55 First Avenue for their annual summer fishing expedition. Nevertheless, according to some accounts, about 35 drowned from the sinking of James D. Nicol off Sea Bright, NJ. The members of the club were of German background as one would expect from its being located in Little Germany—55 First Avenue is in East Village, which used to be considered part of the Lower East Side, which before it was redefined more-or-less coincided with Little Germany in its heyday. As a maritime disaster that killed mainly residents of Little Germany, the James D. Nicol disaster presaged the much deadlier General Slocum fire slightly less than ten years later. The same day Nicol sank, i.e., 24 June 1894, the President of France, Sadi Carnot, was fatally wounded by a knife-wielding anarchist assassin in Lyon, France (Carnot died early the following day). Recall that the third deadliest munitions explosion to take place in the United States during World War I was at Sayreville, NJ, killing about 100. I mentioned earlier that the date of the Sayreville explosion may have been chosen on account of the Staunton, Illinois, interurban trolley disaster that happened 13 days after the Kingsland, Indiana, interurban trolley disaster, what since the Sayreville explosion was on the anniversary of the Staunton wreck, and what since a massive munitions plant explosion had happened during WWI at Kingsland, New Jersey, in 1917. So do I still think this? and do I think that Robert H. Sayre may have been an additional reference in the Sayreville explosion? Aye! and—aye! According to tugboatinformation.com, the tugboat formerly known as Robert T. Sayre was in 1921 acquired by the Jersey City Stockyards of Jersey City, NJ, and renamed Staunton. Just to be thorough, though I doubt it of much if any signficance, it should be noted that Woodrow Wilson was born in Staunton, Virginia.
The Albion colliery disaster in Cilfynydd, Wales, killed about 290 on 23 June 1894, the day before the James D. Nicol disaster. It is now the fourth deadliest mine disaster to have occurred in the UK (at the time it was the second deadliest).
“James D. Nicol” may sound slightly familiar. Recall that the 1995 Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City was believed to have been plotted at the Dexter, Michigan, farm of James Douglas Nichols, brother of convicted conspirator Terry Nichols. In June 1894, a few period newspaper articles (including those from 25 June 1894 in the New York Times) incorrectly referred to the tug “James D. Nicol” as “James D. Nichols”.
On 17 August 1901, twenty days before the self-described anarchist Leon Czolgosz would assassinate President William McKinley in Buffalo on 6 September 1901, a group described typically by the papers of the time as 800 variously inebriated Paterson Anarchists chartered the General Slocum for a trip from Jersey City to Rockaway. Paterson was widely considered the headquarters of the anarchist movement in America, which sounds about right, what since the anarchist assassin of King Umberto of Italy and the would-be assassin of FDR both had lived there and since it was where most of the widely read anarchist publications were printed in the US. Let's just do what anarchists I suppose wouldn't admit (because they claim to not believe in governing bodies), and say that the governing body of the American anarachists was in Paterson, NJ, and that Czolgosz was suspected of having ties with it. Roughly opposite the Narrows, a subgroup of the passengers described as intoxicated anarchists tried to wrest control of Slocum from the crew and turn it back away from rough seas that the anarchists considered excessively dangerous. The crew resisted, and though outnumbered, gained control of the situation, turning back the ship to The Battery police dock, where seventeen of the rioters were handed to the police and mostly jailed.
On 16 June 1904, the day after the Slocum fire killed over 1000, Nikolay Bobrikov, the Governor General of Finland, was shot in Helsinki. Bobrikov died during the early hours of the following day. (James Joyce's novel Ulysses takes place on 16 June 1904, whose anniversary is celebrated annually as Bloomsday.)
Since US disasters that mainly killed Germans or German-Americans seem to have been of especialy importance to Aligners, it's worth noting that there are two prominent US disasters after the Slocum disaster that fit in this category: the 1925 Rockport train wreck and the 1937 Hindenburg fire.
Notice that the 1925 Rockport train wreck was on 16 June, just like the assassination of Governor General Nikolay Bobrikov the day after the Slocum fire.
Besides Sadi Carnot, the French President who was assassinated the day James D. Nicol sank, there has been precisely one other French President who has been assassinated: President Paul Doumer was fatally wounded by a gun shot on 6 May 1932, five years to the day before the Hindenburg fire (Doumer died at 4:37 am the day after his shooting ).
Recall that the SS Norge disaster (about 635 dead) was exactly 13 days after the General Slocum fire, which I believe was the second deadliest peacetime steamboat disaster before Titanic, which recall is interesting since the Governor of Bosnia was shot at in Sarajevo by Bogdan Žerajić on the sixth anniversary of the Slocum fire, and since the Archduke and his wife were gunned down in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, the tenth anniversary of Norge sinking. Moreover, the assassin of the Archduke and his wife and some of his collaborators visited the grave of Žerajić on 27 June 1914, the day before the assassination. Outside a couple steamships plying ports on the Indian Subcontinent (the 8 November 1888 SS Vaitarna disaster killed about 746 and the 6 May 1902 SS Camorta disaster killed about 737) the SS Norge could be the next deadliest peacetime steamboat disaster before Titanic (there is uncertainity as to whether the 3 September 1878Princess Alice disaster in the Thames was more deadly than the Norge disaster). The deadliest peacetime (depending on whether one takes the Civil War as having ended) steamboat disaster before Titanic was the 27 April 1865, 2am (local time) explosion of the overloaded Sultana five miles northwest of of Memphis, TN (1,168 dead). She was carrying Union troops (most of the troops had come from Confederate prison camps) back home from the South shortly after the Civil War ended (according to the most common definition, the Civil War ended with General Lee's surrender on 9 April 1865). One might wonder if there are any weird coincidences in the early part of the twentieth century with the Sultana explosion. No assassination references I could find, but the French armored cruiser SS Leon Gambetta was torpedoed by Austro-Hungarian sub U-5 at about 12:40am on 27 April 1915, 50 years to the day after Sultana exploded, and she sank only about 10 minutes later (685 dead). I can't help noticing that this alignment of dates does seem somewhat suggestive of Aligner activity, especially because according to Wikipedia, Gambetta had been stalked by U-5 for about a day and a half, and the torpedo was shot just forty minutes past midnight. As for U-5, at the time it was commanded by Georg Ritter von Trapp, who was played by Christopher Plummer in Sound of Music. (Not to take away anything from von Trapp later not having wanted anything to do with Hitler after the Anschluss.) Come to think of it, there would have been an assassination reference if von Trapp had ordered the torpedo shot the day before, and so maybe he was waiting purposefully in resistance to Aligner weirdos wanting him to torpedo on the 26th, especially considering Titanic hit the iceberg on the anniversary of Lincoln being shot by John Wilkes Booth. Indeed, Boston Corbett shot Booth shortly after 2am (local time) on 26 April 1865, the day before Sultana blew up, itself a coincidence worth considering. At this point 106 years later, Who knows how Alignism was involved or not involved with the sinking of Gambetta? The submarine U-5 is also well-known for sinking the Italian troopship SS Principe Umberto, causing 1,926 deaths, the deadliest naval disaster during the war. It's sort of interesting that the 8 June 1916 sinking of Principe Umberto was just three days after the 5 June 1916 sinking of SS Hampshire, just as RFK's 8 June 1968 funeral was three days after he was shot on 5 June 1968, especially since the loss of Hampshire was somewhat analogous to an assassination, since Lord Kitchener was lost on that ship. But the commander of U-5 when SS Principe was lost was Friedrich Schlosser and not von Trapp.
Though the Slocum was the second deadliest peacetime steamship disaster before Titanic and the second deadliest steamship disaster before Titanic that took place in the waters of the western world, it was not even the second deadliest steamship disaster when it happened. Remarkably, on 15 June 1904, only I'm guessing about twelve hours before the Slocum disaster, the Japanese ship Hitachi Maru was shelled and sunk by the Russian armored cruiser Gromoboi in the Korean Strait between the Japanese mainland and Tsushima, killing 1086 and ensuring that Slocum would only be the third deadliest steamboat disaster before Titanic.
The largest loss of life in a single-ship sinking in history was the 30 January 1945 North Sea sinking (about 9400 dead) of MV Wilhelm Gustloff by Soviet sub S-13. Ironically or who knows why, Hitler had guaranteed that any loss of this ship would be a reference to an assassination, by having named the ship after a Swiss Nazi who had been assassinated. I don't know the significance if any of the ship sinking on what would have been Wilhelm Gustloff's fiftieth birthday.
Of what I believe are the five deadliest North American trolley disasters, I have mentioned possible weirdnesses surrounding the ones at Kingsland, Tacoma, Staunton, and Victoria, and that the one at Victoria was the same day as the last Tsar's coronation ceremony. What about America's deadliest trolley disaster, namely the Summer Street retractable bridge disaster in Boston on 7 November 1916, the day Woodrow Wilson was reelected? The Bolsheviks are generally credited as having come to power in Russia on 7 November 1917, the date of the storming of the Russian Winter Palace in St. Petersburg. Perhaps the Germans had used some sort of manipulation to ensure this storming would take place on 7 November, so after they won on the Western Front, they could use the coincidence to make it seem that the Bolsheviks were supernaturally doomed as evinced by the Summer Street Trolley disaster just as Nicholas II was supposedly supernaturally doomed as evinced by the Victoria Trolley disaster, thereby making it easier to topple the Bolsheviks. Near the Crimea on 7 November 1941, the 25 th anniversary of the trolley/bridge disaster (and exactly one month before Pearl Harbor), a German plane torpedo-bombed the clearly-marked Soviet hospital ship Armenia, which sank in about four minutes with only eight survivors and an estimated 5,000-7,000 dead. Armenia also sank on the one year anniversary of another US bridge disaster, namely the dramatic Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse (the same Tacoma referred to in the Tacoma trolley disaster). No humans were killed in the Tacoma bridge disaster, but the cocker spaniel “Tubby” was killed by it.
At four minutes to midnight on 16 April 1945, a Soviet sub fired four torpedoes at the German ship Goya, purportedly mainly carrying refugees and wounded soldiers. Two of the torpedoes hit the ship, which sank within four minutes, with about 6,000-7,200 dead. The 16 April 1850 Angers, France, suspension bridge collapse (226 dead) was occasioned by resonant swinging of the bridge, as in the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse. Recall that at about 1:30 pm, 17 April 1914, NYC Mayor John Purroy Mitchell was shot at in an attempted assassination, and that a tenement fire that morning in NYC (in Hell's Kitchen just west of Times Square) had killed about a dozen. Unlike the striking coincidence with the date of the Wilhelm Gustloff sinking (which admittedly could still be a coincidence, though), I suppose the Goya coincidences are probably mere coincidences, but they still seemed worth mentioning. On 16-17 April 1947 two ships carrying ammonium nitrate exploded in Texas City, TX, killing about 581.
