Somehow discussing the murder of Elizabeth Ernstein, an innocent 14 y/o girl last seen walking home from school, seems like it needs to be done in an unsually careful context, I suppose mainly since James Earl Ray may have been responsible. So I am going to preface it with a fairly lengthy post concerning some of my moral ideas. Discussing first some of my moral opinions as exactly as possible feels right like a strong bow feels right on a ship, and if the moral opinions I express happen to be odd, so much the better. Or again, surrounding my discussion of her murder with my own moral opinions feels like making a frame of silver anti-evil-vampire crosses to protect from evil her and those like her akin to how one might construct the right sort of picture frame to protect a treasured photograph of someone hurt by unjust evil.
Moral Advice
This blog started out focusing on moral issues. About the turn of the century, I had written a (not published) book about morals, which I entitled Exact Morality for Today, and put it freely online. In 2004, I decided to create this blog as a way to further discuss morals, and in particular the relations between morals and several underappreciated ideas I have had about biology. I had two beliefs that seemed particularly controversial, though I am as sure as ever that they are true. What caused the most resentment was my opinion that sodomy, which I define as behavior that introduces semen into the digestive system, is a harmful controlling addiction that warps the natural sexual inclinations of the sodomized from what they naturally would be when the brain uses its own natural tendencies to construct feelings, using chemicals created naturally (in the person having the feelings) from nutrients according to its perception of reality. In my opinion, sodomy warps by introducing feelings directly as a result of psychoactive chemicals in semen introduced via sodomy into the body and then into to the brain after having been absorbed by the digestive system and distributed by the circulatory or lymphatic system. Given this hypothesis, obviously it's most harmful when the young are sodomized, since to the extent you've already naturally familiarized yourself with your natural sexual feelings, any artificial sexual feeling caused directly as a result of sexual brain chemicals (or their analogues) having been directly absorbed by the digestive system would more tend to seem unnaturally out-of-place, in other words, likely of screwed-up origin. But as I stated in my first blog post in 2004, whenever you've got one group of bad people trying to confuse people into loving them unselfishly via deception or addiction, you've got another group of bad people trying to justify their unloving nature by arguing that such love would be stupid or an addiction. Unselfish loving behavior can be real and is distinct from screwed-up stupidly sacrificial behavior like willingly allowing oneself to be sodomized. What both sides of evil agree on is that sexual love and sodomy are not worth discriminating, and so evil is united in making this conflation, helping to explain, for instance, why sodomy is often called "sex".
Sex outside marriage, particularly if male caring for offspring is not enjoined, is often considered especially sinful. True, a female who more entertains the possibility of having sex outside marriage (when in love) tends to be more unselfish than females who always would demand marriage, especially if she doesn't expect or demand that her partner care for any offspring that may be produced, and maybe sometimes a female will engage in such activities because she has been screwed-up by sodomy, but sometimes females love just because they love, and love is beautiful and the best thing to encourage. Similarly, for basically the same reason, a male tends to be more unselfish and loving the more he tends to consider it right to care for the offspring of the children he might have with a woman he loves greatly (compared to the other women who might have him) and who is willing to have such children. It's important that both sexes be allowed to be loving, i.e., a female should be allowed to have sex without her mate being forced to support her children that might be produced, and males should be allowed to commit to caring for children produced by marrying the female before children are produced. (This is the way it was in the early 1900s in California and Missouri and in a few places in Europe, and as regards male sailors in the British Navy.) Otherwise, marriage is basically meaningless if its important caring responsibilities are enforced on all males when they reproduce. And if marriage is done away with and paternal caring is never legally required, then so many bad males will dispense caring a little here and a little there, it will make things like prostitution and bad males will care more (here-and-there) for bad females and bad females will have sex more with bad males.
It's true, too, that teen or adolescent females are more likely to be tricked by males than older females, and that sodomy is more controlling of them since they haven't had time to as thoroughly acquaint themselves with their natural feelings, which in a way might suggest that the age of consent would be better raised given the cluelessness people have about the evil of sodomy. There's some truth to that argument, but it is also true that people are clueless about the advantages of girls mating good males when especially young. If a young female desires to mate with a male when very young, this is a sign that she feels unusually certain of his worth—she doesn't need to wait to make sure that she can't find someone better. It is clear that, relatively speaking, it must be fairly easy to judge whether someone by nature has good, unselfish, morals. Else, there is no way unselfish morality would evolve, since the advantage of having a moral nature is that being the sort of person with a moral nature on average encourages you to be more loved by others; else the sacrifices unselfish people by definition are more willing to make would make unselfish people inherently less likely to prosper and to pass on such qualities genetically to future generations. Since moral people mainly interact with fellow moral people, especially as regards the mating sphere (good males tend to care for their wives and their offspring more than bad males do, and good females more tend to have sex from love than for money), and since lying to the people you interact with tends to hurt them, it follows that moral people tend to be non-deceptive, their deceptions being sufficiently rare that their deceptive skills won't evolve much (making them even less often deceptive). Thus since people who are moral by nature tend to be more-or-less obviously so, they will tend to be obviously non-deceptive. It follows that when a girl has sex with a moral male, it is highly unlikely that she did so because she was deceived, but because she was so sure of his desirability that waiting is superfluous. Sure, being young, she is more likely to make an inaccurate judgment of his worth, but there's no reason to think she won't factor that into consideration. And in fact, because the male is non-deceptive, there's a significant possibility that were she to make her best judgment unbiasedly she would underestimate his desirability, which would, since he is non-deceptive, be a mistake with likelihood comparable to the possibility that she judged him to be more desirable than he is. By judging unbiasedly, I mean judging in such a way that on average for males of a particular desirability their desirability is about as she judges. Of course, when making a test for mating purposes, it would make sense for her to consider somewhat that males worth mating are less common than other males, which she could do after making her best unbiased judgment and then biasing with that information, if she is particular, using her sense that males up to her standards are uncommon. On average, if a male is non-deceptive and has sex with some female, he is more likely to be especially desirable the younger she is. With respect to bad males, it seems to me, there is a level of badness beyond which it is essentially beyond most females (especially young or insensitive females) to be able to judge them unbiasedly. The problem is that the trait that especially tends to make a bad male less desirable (especially to the young) than he seems is his deceptiveness, which is not something females can judge easily in bad males. True, one could say that less-deceptive bad males may have desirability that tends to be underestimated since females will think them deceptive (it's obviously hard to tell whether a bad person is deceptive, or the deceptions of the deceptive wouldn't tend to work, whereas obviously their deceptions do often work). This will on average cause females considering mating with a quite bad male to be so uncertain of his desirability that any unbiased test would be essentially useless. In fact, because a bad male also tends to manipulate people into thinking being a bad person is more rewarding than it is, and also into thinking that he (a bad male) is not as bad as he is, it follows that beyond a certain level of badness, the more desirable a bad male actually is, the less desirable he is likely to seem thus to young females considering mating with him (of course, those females would tend to be bad females, since good females tend to mate more with good males). A meaningful test of bad-male desirability obviously can't be unbiased if it judges more desirabale bad-males to be more undesirable than less-desirable bad males! Young females have a tendency by nature to strongly sexually prefer good males; people think young females especially innocent, and of course that is right, assuming they haven't been abused excessively, but much of what is considered this innocence is something else entirely that I think all too often it is confused with, namely a natural tendency in young females to be especially sexually pleased by males who by nature are good (morally). This has to do I am quite sure with male gamete selection, which people are clueless about. Something similar happens with flowers from somewhat different reasons. The sooner a flower is fertilized after opening, the more likely the bee, etc., depositing the pollen came from a flower that gave the bee such a pleasant or beautiful experience that it became especially on the lookout for a similar flower to land on, maybe even to the point of returning to unopened flowers of the same species repeatedly so that they can be landed on immediately after opening, lest some other bee should get there first, or the flower be overlooked or forgotten. But there are likely to be many pollen grains transferred to the stigma; the ones that tend to succeed on a freshly opened flower will tend to be the one with many ancestors who also landed on freshly opened flowers, because natural selection will have selected for an especial ability of the pollen tubes coded by such pollen to succeed on freshly opened flowers. It is in the interest of flowering plants fertilized by insects to be fertilized by pollen tubes especially talented at penetrating freshly opened flowers. That obviously (to me) is the reason flowers tend to be very delicate and dainty even if not freshly opened, since those are especially characteristics of flowers freshly opened, and flowers need to be fertilized by sperm cells carried by pollen tubes especially skilled at fertilizing flowers with those characteristics. The same thing happens in humans with young females, I believe. The younger the female is, the more likely it is that any good male having sex with her will fertilize her with a spermatazoon especially skilled at fertilizing young females, which, on account of the male being good and thus non-deceptive, will more be the sort of spermatozoon from him that the girl would want to be fertilized by.
Lately, it is true, my blog has mainly been about murders and assassinations, and especially about the consistent pattern (reference to disasters) that seems to surround a great many of them. I suppose that warning humanity about the horrendous occult evils that I have noticed has lately seemed more important to me than communicating my opinions about morality. But evils arising from occultism are more likely to be copied than typical evils. Obviously if evils are being committed today with the same bizarre occult patterns as in (say) the mid-nineteenth century, as seems to be the case actually, occultists are heavily into copying. I feel I must interpose my crime theories with my theories about morality, and in particular with my moral theories about cat-like sexual behavior, which to the extent they are believed could go a great way toward deflating the lies that might lead to occultism or to society considering occultism neither concernedly nor with understanding. There's a very primeval tendency of females to judge whether their love for one person is an addiction by seeing whether they can easily simultaneously hate others. It's hard to feel any sort of hate while under the influence of a love potion. And semen probably has addictive, love-potion characteristics if absorbed in the digestive system, which may give hate a kind of primeval sexual appeal. A female can use hate during sex to ensure she is clean from nasty addiction. If she can feel hate for one person while feeling love for another, it's more likely that her love for the latter person is not caused by a love potion, and in particular by the chemical affects of semen absorbed during sodomy. It's a sort of hate that has a totally opposite purpose to the nasty "hate" abusive males have toward those they are sodomizing. All that said, female hate during sex can be a dangerous and ugly thing as well if there are no associated morals to it. For instance, it's one thing for a girl to enjoy a hated male not being able to take the pain she inflicts any more, because it reminds her that all she wants is to terrify and harm him maximally (to the extent it is safe to be the sort of person who naturally wants to be thus cruel, which obviously is not the case in our present society) on account of her hate during sex with a loved male being proof of the purity of her love, whereas it is another entirely to enjoy a hated (in a different sense) male not being able to take it anymore because it's a sign she can force him to do chores for her or to give her money or material possessions or whatever she selfishly wants from him. I discussed similar matters at length a few years ago, especially in 2022, and when I have new ideas, won't mind discussing them again, though, yes, it is hard to poetically switch back-and-forth between talking about the stupid recurrent patterns in occult atrocities and talking about higher cat-girl morals, or indeed any sort of morals. But I think there is another reason for me to not want to obsessively discuss the morals of cat-like clean sexual cruelty: there are all sorts of moral considerations, and in particular moral considerations about sex, that are important besides considerations about cat-like sexual cruelty. And it is not sacred to ignore those considerations by behaving as though they don't matter. This truth about not getting obsessive about cruelty is a general moral consideration that applies to cat-like sexual cruelty independent of the context with serial killers. There are many different animals in the forests, plains, and jungles, besides cats and the other animals who more tend to get off on (clean) cruelty, and they too deserve consideration. True, if you are interested especially in understanding the morals of a particular type of sexual behavior, that is much better (especially if you are male, for whom sexual pleasure is an especially selfish pleasure to want much) than thinking about the behavior so as to try to get more (meaningful) sex, but still, focusing on one type of sex can be at least somewhat selfish if that is the type of sex you most can get and thus need to glorify if it is the sort of thing that many look down upon. But in a way it is more fundamental than that.
Females may at times be willing to be deferential to their lovers as regards being more into torture than killing, which is actually likely a good (or less bad) thing if a girl is getting-off on killing anyway, since torturing a few males to death is likely to be more sacred (or less non-sacred) than killing scads of males. And it is hard for a girl to torture someone without imagining empathically as it were all the agony and hurt she is causing him, something she will enjoy sexually if she hates him but otherwise will tend to make her self destruct or feel premonitions of her own self getting tortured in a hell real or imagined, and if she doesn't hate her victim greatly, the torture will likely seem unnatural to her own self. But what no decent girl with morals would do even in a society that most substitutes human "sacrifice" for the judicial system is to be forced into killing. Yeah, fantasizing about cat-like sexual cruelty is less drastic than actually being cruel, but frankly just taking the initiative to complement a girl on looks and facial expressions that seem to reflect naturally good moral insights into clean sexual cruelty is too controlling for me to feel exactly comfortable about it. In some sense I know (because I need to deflate the lies of cat impostor serial killers, assassins, mass shooters, terrorists, etc.) that it would be highly appropriate for me to gain the acquaintance, friendship, or more of female(s) who can give me insights into any clean moral cruel feelings she might have or has had towards what she hates while being affectionate with someone she loves. But to a large extent (especially if she is quite young) I must be largely comfortable with her exploring with me other aspects of her moral feelings about sex, romance, etc., if that is what she claims to want, and in particular to not treat her any less kindly or politely or lovingly if she is not willing to explore the morals of sexual cruelty that I most need to understand to fulfill what I suppose is likely to be my most useful chance at service to humanity and more generally to nature herself as a whole. Loving someone better because she suggests wisdom about cruelty is too much like forcing her to be homicidal, because it's not like she is going to be wise about clean sexual cruelty unless she fantasizes about being thus cruel, and that's akin to her actually being so. But yes, the evil occultists I am studying seem to be manipulating others to kill, likely mainly because it makes the occultists look like cats so cleanly loved well by the cat girls the latter can hardly keep their paws from killing from hate while being sodomized by him; but of course, it is not from hate that those beholden to cat impostors kill, but from occult nonsense pushed on the beholden during sodomy, presumably. If people weren't largely clueless about how girls can get off sexually on hating one person while loving someone else, almost all of the occult mystique that homicidal cat impostors seem at first to have would vanish, in my opinion—the cat impostors would look right from the start like the evil people that they tend to be more than just about anybody. And it seems like a highly innocent and moral sort of pleasant fun to fully acquaint a girl with just how sexually enjoyable it is to be loved with holy loving feeling in a context where she doesn't have to behave any sort of way to receive such love because the love is an unconditional result of some mixture of my finding her a naturally morally good person and having enough regard for myself and my natural moral tendencies that I feel like being pious to her. If I don't love a female and myself enough to love her unconditionally with feeling in a normal context, she probably is not good enough for me to love her the same way while having cruel fantasies with her that are contingent upon her being obedient to my desire for her to get off more on torturing rather than killing what she wants to destroy from either hate or a feeling of it being the beautiful thing to do, or for her otherwise not making moral mistakes in such fantasies related to cruelty. So really, it is likely to be no misappropriation of love to treat a girl who you suspect wants to get appropriately catty with you with an unconditional love (i.e., unconditional so long as she doesn't get sexually into cruelty that is from hate rather than from defense) as if you loved her and she were not that way. If she would be not catty, that's how you should love her, and if you don't, you probably shouldn't be catty with her, because you and her likely aren't good enough to improve the world by having serious fantasies with her that mix cruelty toward another with sex, you'd just goof up too much, rightfully disturbing others and perhaps even yourselves. If she wants to migrate to cruelty, she won't feel as much as forced, which will be relaxingly enjoyable to her, and she'll be thoroughly acquainted with how sexually pleasant it is to have sex while being emotionally loved, because you have spent a while at least familiarizing herself with how greatly your emotionally worshiping her contributes to the pleasantness of whatever normal sexual fantasies or normal actual sex she has had for you while you emotionally worshipped her for free unconditionally, and this thorough acquaintance will increase your ability to allow her fantasies to be as cruel as they need to be, while simultaneously keeping her from getting excessively homicidal. In a society that tries to destroy evil by periodically deciding select democratically chosen murderesses should be authorized to slay a certain number of people (probably mostly young males) they hate provided the slayers are simultaneously having sex with someone they love really well, the best chance that a woman (or girl) has to be allowed by the the people to slay more is to submit to her lover as regards being good during slaying, and in particularly being obedient to his and society's need for her to slay only by sexual torture. It may well be that a girl could wade through the entire BDSM repository that exists on the internet and not find anything BDSM to not be revolted at (though no one half-decent would be able to know for sure if it's all filth because none would stomach trying this for more than a few seconds or minutes probably, unless I suppose trying to find some poor victim murdered--the sort of sacrifice police officers I suppose have to make occasionally), and yet she still might in her pleasant fantasies hopefully dream of getting the award for winning the most, I don't know, daily Most Obedient Sexual Torturess of the day, a.m., trophies at the yearly cruel-kitty awards (ideally as if in Hollywood somehow, despite the deficiencies of the latter).
Interruption by another assassination attempt on Trump
The shooting yesterday (April 25) was on the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Giuffre suicide. My guess is that the shooter may have been motivated at least in part by the anti-Epstein fanatics who claim to think men sexually attracted to teenage girls are evil and they would be glad to castrate them and kill them if it were legal, and who claim to be sure Trump was closely involved with Epstein. Reddit is full of this rubbish to varying degrees. They don't discriminate between statutory rape and rape, it's all rape to them and deserves death or life imprisonment, but at least since society doesn't do that they claim to be thankful knowing the non-rapist pedophiles will get forcibly sodomized in the prisons. Getting off on pictures of clean, pretty and innocent seventeen-year-old girls in bikinis is perverted but videos of 18-year-olds getting sodomized is perfectly fine to these people. These are probably mostly examples of the man who tends to prey on fallen women who were screwed up when young, by pretending it's okay for him to sodomize such a woman because it was not being sodomized that caused her to make bad choices when young, but an under-appreciation of the foolishness of young females being sexual. If anti-Epstein fanaticism is what motivated this assassination attempt, really it's lack of freedom of speech that is responsible. You can't say anything against sodomy on reddit—you can get banned for refusing to use gender neutral pronouns. And google search loves to promote reddit (whereas they used to promote a more eclectic mix of ideas from various sources, e.g., individual web pages and other internet forums), and google has essentially a near monopoly when it comes to its search engine, because they have spent so much money on it. Monopolies or near monopolies should be required to promote free speech if their platform greatly determines what people can easily talk to each other about, or they should be broken up; this is essential, for instance, for democracy to work as intended, and it is essential for keeping the internet socially useful. Search engine recommendation placement needs to be governed largely by collaborative filtering, i.e., the search engine should try to recommend to you sites liked by people who like the same sort of webpages that you like (the great Stumbleupon did this back in the day, but it was bought out and ruined, wasting the efforts of the many ordinary people who had invested their own time expressing their opinions about what they liked or disliked), or at least governing search results in this way should be an option for the searcher. In many ways the internet peaked about 15 or 20 years ago, but with proper government policy, it could be much better even than it was then, but since nowadays people largely judge politicians by the heavily censored internet, this may be difficult and require a period of greater reliance of people on friends and associates not met on the internet.
Girls are naturally innocent in their sexual desires, to the extent they have them, more so than women in the sense that girls find moral qualities in males more sexually attractive than women do. Making it nearly impossible for young females to express their sexual nature, such as it is, makes sexual morals deteriorate, because girls find moral traits in males naturally more sexually pleasant than women do, and women will get to excessively dominating the public discourse on sex that creates sexual dogma. And it's punishing especially good males by preventing them from having sex with young females, because young females are the ones who naturally will tend relatively to most want sex with them, since young females hate to be deceived, and good males mostly never deceive; and there will be less space between generations of good-loving females if they are allowed to mate young, causing them to evolve relatively faster. Indeed, the bodies of young females presumably select for sperm especially good at fertilizing young females, which in good males tend to be sperm that code for the moral traits (since such traits are what naturally most tend to sexually please young females) and useful traits (girls have to be extra-certain a male has useful traits before having sex with him, since being young she will have a harder time judging such traits). If a morally good male has a child with a young female and she has enough (clean) lust to elicit intra-ejaculate sperm selection (intuitively, it seems to me that female lust upon being absorbed by male causes sperm development to be regulated more haploidly, presumably by neutralizing the syncitia between developing sperm cells, though male control is also possible) in sperm development, children conceived will likely have more beautiful traits than were they to wait much, which to moral males will on average make girls more seem something akin to beautiful. (This might cause good males to on occasion be too devil-may-care in being willing to have sex with girls, even though such males, being good, are likely to totally lack the criminal cunning to get away with it, because they might find girls being beautiful in this sense a sign, if they aren't totally clear in their understandings, that the girls are less ignorant or selfish than they are). That's not to say girls aren't especially likely to have their feelings corrupted by inappropriate sexual relationships, and though this corruption can occur by simple deception, mostly imho it is motivated by sodomy, forcible or otherwise. It really is heinous that girls are forcibly sodomized, and it is very bad that girls are raped and that sodomizers can sodomize girls who are confused enough to allow it. There needs to be age of consent laws, but really what the girl's guardians (particularly the mother) feels her daughter's age of consent should be ought to matter more than what the government thinks it should generally about be, and so-called statutory rape deserves much less punishment than actual rape (and it is foolish for law to use the rape word in both definitions). Of course, the same remarks apply (perhaps with even more force since people need to be encouraged to be less idiotic when it comes to sexual attraction to young females) when it comes to men and girls being able to explore their feelings toward one another in safely patient, non-defiling ways not involving sex or sodomy (e.g., kissing, dancing, fiddling with her hair while staring at her face, etc.). Girls are in many ways like flowers (the whole haploid competition between pollen tubes from pollen grains from one flower to enter freshly opened flowers is quite clearly the reason flowers are pretty and flowering plants are beautiful), and people need to get this.
I'm not saying Epstein wasn't quite bad and gross—his apparent fondness for orally sodomizing certainly suggests it, as does his tendency to encourage girls to prostitute themselves. Still, at least superficially, more than your stereotypical whore-monger, he seems like he more tried to look (more than was the case, presumably) like he was trying to promote the underappreciated truth of girls being beautiful and pleasant to good males, especially to the upper classes who tend to be somewhat clueless about what constitutes depravity and separating that from sexual pleasure. And my guess (just a guess, partly since the media is largely if not mostly not trying to be honest) is that Epstein's evil is being exaggerated by the media on average. At any rate, Trump's associations with Epstein may well be minor, and punishment is a matter for the courts, stupid though the laws may be. But redditors post pictures of Trump judging the bathing-suit part of teen beauty contests back in the day, and pretend that there is something so perverse in this that it proves Trump is evil (possibly interpretable as enough to deserve death), while in reality there needs to be more such contests, etc. (assuming the girls in such are protected especially from forcible sodomy, sex trafficking, actual rape, etc.).
Age range differences are mostly a crock as well. Sure, older bad males are more likely to be effectively deceptive, but older good males are more likely to be wise and correctly instructive than younger good males. Actually, admittedly there's probably something to older males producing more mutations in children when they are conceived at an old age, but the best way around that is by females encouraging (to weed out mutant sperm) effective intraejaculate sperm competition, which only a young female or a female using in sex some sort of expert moral understanding (of behavior in the sex or of fantasies had during the sex. e.g., catsy cruel fantasies) with a male also expert at it are going to especially want, because otherwise selecting for competitive haploid traits would on average select against desirable diploid ones. I suppose that eventually there comes an age beyond which when even good males become less desirable, but a few other considerations are that older males being older might select for male children who tend to have lived longer; you can't have sex as an old man unless you have managed to survive to be an old man. Similarly, sperm from young males may have advantage in haploid sperm competition because the sperm will tend to have characteristics of males who succeeded in such sperm competition when the male producing the sperm was young, and such competition happens with greater frequency in young males, there being less space between generations of males conceived when the father was young. This could (and probably does) make older males somewhat less fertile than younger males, but it also means that the sperm that succeeds in intraejaculate sperm competition in a young female when the male is old is more likely to be sperm that succeeds just because that sperm is skilled at fertilizing young females, and less because it would more generally be more fertile regardless the age of the lustful female (the quite generally fertile sperm, tending to be the sperm that tends to succeed when produced by a young male, might be selected against by the age of the male; in other words, though it might take more sex for an older male to get a young lustful female pregnant, intraejaculate sperm selection will select more exactly for the sort of sperm she wants (at least to the extent intraejaculate sperm selection weeds out the mutant sperm).
So I wrote basically the preceding of this section the day after the April 25 shooting, but now it is May 22. I tried to post about it more-or-less immediately on someone else's blog, but comment length restrictions prevented me from posting all but the first paragraph or so. I have decided I really ought to point out one more thing, namely that April 25, 1946, recall, is the day of the Naperville, Illinois, train wreck (45 dead), eighty years to the day before the shooting at Trump. It being the one year anniversary of the Giuffre suicide seemed a more interesting observation, and so I hadn't planned to mention it. But then I got to thinking that the wreck being the day Paul John Knowles was born makes it exactly the sort of thing that seems to be going on with recent possible references in murders, etc ,to the murder of Paul John Lentz, and to MD Route 547, which recall on its east end is Knowles Avenue. I notice that Knowles was finally arrested November 17, 1974, the second anniversary of the Elkton, Kentucky, plane crash (exactly fifty years to the day before November 17, 2024, the day I was apparently banned from the hospital after I expressed my feeling they were trying to kill my Mom).
Back to moral considerations
Some people tend to think of gay rights as a civil rights issue. And there is much evidence for that, just not in the way that is commonly portrayed. The history of African-American slavery certainly is a civil rights issue in this country. Certainly racists wouldn't have supported slavery if they weren't racist enough to be indifferent to the civil rights of African-Americans, the latter being less related to European-Americans than fellow European-Americans. But anyone evil enough to be especially racist is likely to be evil and selfish in other ways, and in particular to be pro-sodomy. Sodomy, as I have often explained, is likely to be a controlling addiction. Sodomy is something one can use to try to obtain a (extremely inappropriate) type of enslavement of another to one's will. And so one really has to wonder whether some whites glorified chattel slavery because by so doing, slavery in the broad sense itself would be glorified, including the sort of slavery that sodomy tends to promote, which these whites had a selfish interest in promoting toward their (largely white) wives and mistresses. If a white woman was hesitant to allow herself to be sodomized from a sense it might enslave her, her wicked would-be sodomizer could more easily argue that enslavement (in particular enslavement caused by sodomy) is acceptable if a particular type of enslavement, namely the chattel slavery of blacks, is viewed as appropriate by white or white-southern society at large. Similarly, after the Civil War, white southern women must have come to the realization that there was little prospect of getting slaves again, and more particularly slaves who might clean house, and so arguing that slavery was somehow appropriate is not something white women in the postwar South would be near as likely to claim to agree with as before. It would seem some white southerners decided to substitute the Jim Crow system and segregation. It's highly plausible they did so at least partly to make fraternalizing with blacks a red herring to create the atmosphere that it is not sodomy white women need to be worried about, but, e.g., drinking out of a water fountain where there be some manner of black person kooties there on account of a black person having recently used it. Thanks largely to Martin Luther King and other civil rights heroes, racial segregation it may be hoped has largely entered the dustbin of history along with the Jim Crow system, at least for a good while. And so a new approach to use racism to promote sodomy is used in the present era. To convince whites that being sodomized is something innocuous they ought to try and not resist, the current approach would seem to be to equate people who are into sodomy to black people. To argue sodomy is particularly wrong is akin, they would claim, to arguing that non-white ethnicities are bad. Of course, if sodomy is as evil as I think it is, it does blacks a great disservice to equate civil rights against racism with civil rights for those into sodomy, because if special privileges for sodomizers get rightly discarded, ordinary privileges of all people to not suffer racism may get thrown out as well if people have been made to equate the privileges. Moreover, since African-Americans especially tend (by experience of racism) to know how important it is to treasure civil rights, by making those who are strong in resisting sodomy seem akin to racist bigots, the so-called DEI dogma (Diversity Equity and Inclusion), mostly developed by white folks, will (to extent the conflations work) con black folks at least slightly to sodomize each other more than it will encourage white folks to sodomize each other, because blacks are on average more against racism, which will hurt blacks, perhaps one of the things that the DEI bigots want at least emotionally from their natural racist tendencies they pretend to have less than people in general.
Those who view sodomy as disgusting should have at least as much right to express their opinion as those who claim to view sodomy as beautiful, whereas laws are forever trying to be passed which restrict antisodomy speech without restricting prosodomy speech, e.g., by allowing or even requiring employers to fire employees for antisodomy speech (lest an employer be sued for threatening work environment), while making it impossible or legally dangerous to fire an employee who expresses prosodomy speech (lest the employer be sued for bigotry in his choice of employees). True, the type of sodomy generally referred to is the sodomy between males, but the whole notion of male homosexuality being caused by the gay male naturally being possessed of female sexual sensibilities is totally sexist because it presumes that females naturally want to be sodomized. Anyone who has been around females more than a little will have observed that females on average naturally tend to be much more into cleanliness than males, and people will upon wise reflection consider that the obvious explanation is that females naturally have a distaste for sodomy more than males do, inasmuch as love of cleanliness protects against being sodomized in as much as sodomy, involving fecal matter, the prototypical nasty dirty substance, is difficult to love while loving cleanliness. Since on balance and on the whole females are hurt more by sodomy than males (sodomy between males is probably rarer than suggested in the media), females, compared to males, have more evolved to find cleanliness beautiful. In short, slavery, Jim Crow, and the modern tendency to lump racism with homo"phobia", can all be explained at least partly by those whites who are sodomizers being at various times too racist to care about the effects on blacks of promoting slavery, of segregation, or of the likening criticism of sodomy to racism, because caring appropriately would make it harder to sodomize. And of course they are too misogynist to care about the women who will mostly be hurt by such sodomy and too cruel to the sodomized males addicted into a behavior that tends to deprive them of children and to unnaturally divert their caring to predatory types that are less likely to reflect how the sodomized would naturally desire his caring apportioned (if his brain had not been warped by chemicals unnatural to the brain in the sense they were not produced naturally in the brain but introduced adventitiously as a result of absorption of semen chemicals during sodomy). All that said, notwithstanding that sodomy is immoral, it is true that by far most of the blame people have for those who engage in sodomy should be directed at sodomizers rather than the sodomized. Indeed, it may well be that sodomizers choose as preferred victims those who have a natural tendency to be more loving. Indeed, it doesn't make much sense that sodomy could induce a person with no natural tendency to feel love into feeling "love". It's not at all clear that those who have been sodomized are naturally worse people than those who haven't been. But one can't be too sentimental about those victims addicted to sodomy. Since in the aggregate sodomizers probably typically sodomize their sex partners more than anybody else, those who become addicted to being sodomized are likely to have more ancestral DNA from female ancestors who also were unable to resist being warped by the love-potion effects of sodomy, and so those who become addicted to sodomy (as opposed to the larger group of those who were sodomized) probably are by nature significantly worse than an average person, having DNA from the male ancestors who controlled their weak female ancestors (though still on average not anywhere near as bad as sodomizers naturally tend to be). Another point is the wisdom of choosing one's ground carefully to fight on. Since mostly people have sex in private, legally banning sodomy is not probably going to be particularly effective in reducing its frequency. True, making sodomy illegal might make us all safer against being forcibly sodomized (the worst sort of sodomy), because forcible sodomizers would have no recourse to pretending the sodomized willingly wanted to be sodomized, but this is not something that would be easy to enforce generally without intruding on the right of people to privacy. That said, if sodomy is illegal, in order for the law to be effective, those who sodomize should be punished and not the sodomized. In fact, it is very doubtful the advantages relative to discouraging sodomy by punishing those who seek or willingly allow themselves to be sodomized would equal the disadvantages, e.g., in discouraging the sodomized from defending themselves against their sodomizers lest they be punished too, and in encouraging blackmail. Also, there is much violence and inappropriate control exerted by sodomizers toward their victims, behavior that often leads to more publicly obvious forms of abuse. One sees the results of this in our society. Conservatives manage to belittle so-called transsexual women much more than the sodomizers who mostly deserve the focus of the hate. That said, anti-transexual sentiment to the extent it exists is I suppose better than no sort of sentiment whatsoever for anything that might put sodomy in bad light. In particular it is true that being sodomized can make you subservient to your abuser, who perhaps could encourage you to be a very dangerous or otherwise selfish homicidal zombie. That said, forcible sodomizers often find it convenient, at least when in common society, to justify their abuse and more particularly their first abuse of someone (the first act of rape or forcible sodomy) by declaring that it's the abused's fault because she or he has underlying love of being sodomized and more particularly forcibly sodomized. He wouldn't have wanted to abuse, he might argue, but he has to feed the addiction and the "love" of violence the girl or boy (he would tend to imply) naturally wants to have, in order to do what anyone would have to do to have any chance of being around her enough to be "good" to her. In other words, abusers tend to make out like the people they abuse naturally want it, and that the violence is not so bad because better he inflict it than someone else worse. Make it seem the problem wasn't his abuse, but her having wanted the abuse that is the problem, which may seem less contradictory than it is to his victims inasmuch as the abuse probably did (unnaturally) feel less wrong than it was because of semen's addictive chemicals and the capacity of the digestive system to absorb such chemicals. It's like a drug dealer publicly blaming those addicted to the drugs he sells because they naturally like psychoactive drugs because drugs occur in nature and because they are naturally susceptible to (unnatural) cravings for them, and so they deserve to become addicted. Anyway, at any rate, if one believes as I do that those who seek being sodomized are mainly suffering from a very harmful addiction, one must recognize the great difficulty of outlawing an addiction so potent and unfortunately common that a great many will resist any politician who opposes it in the name of it disallowing freedom, notwithstanding sodomy is probably the archetypal tool of the enslaver. And it's not just electoral politics proper that those who seek to ban sodomy or more particularly sodomizing will be up against, but the politics that exist in schools, corporations, etc., which tend to be governed more than they should be by those who have "screwed their way to the top" (via sodomizing). Freedom of speech, however, is something a significant majority of my country (the United States) supports, at least in principle, and it is a much easier sell at this point in our society to pass laws ensuring that those who think sodomy is a disgusting addiction should be able to express their opinions with the same freedom employed by those who are trying to get us to think sodomy is harmless or beautiful. Freedom of speech in this country is sorely lacking at present. Indeed, it seems to me that just a few companies, namely Google, Meta (Facebook), Reddit, and (to a lesser extent) Microsoft and Apple have effective control over the internet, or at least that portion of the internet which one can find easily, and the internet has largely devastated whatever independent local newspapers existed. It's even worse than it might at first appear since the stockholder voting rights on these and most other companies are presumably largely controlled by the huge passive asset managers BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street (who are also heavily invested in each other, in some sense forming one blob), and so in a sense the one great financial blob that is these three financial passive asset managers taken together do to an excessively large degree influence or control most companies, including most internet media companies (though my guess is they tend to follow management without significant reason to do otherwise, since this is the easy inexpensive thing to do—but that tends to make it harder for ordinary investors to force change).
Rich people do make conspiracies, but they tend to be boring. They meet at exclusive clubs and discuss non-disturbing stuff like business deals and what charities they believe in, and by-and-large I don't think it is an especially great desire to sodomize that makes them support the pro-sodomy agenda, it's just the general total cluelessness of them as regarding depravities that tend to be more associated with the lower classes. In particular, they are such total idiots as regards the difference between sodomizing and innocently enjoying sexual fun, that it is a matter of great national and worldwide interest that they not be so presumptuous as to thwart democracy by taking it in their own hands what the average person should be allowed to discuss publicly concerning in particular sodomy, e.g., by censoring anti-sodomy viewpoints or by privileging the elites' viewpoints there. The elites' viewpoints in the western world on sodomy are by-and-large highly dangerous and completely naive and idiotic and illustrative of a tendency of the highly educated to lack the common sense that comes from reflecting upon and understanding one's natural feelings, either because they don't have time from all their studying or seeking of wealth, or because they just assume that feelings are best explained by official explanation. Academia sucks at understanding feelings, because unlike science, where experiments can be checked, there is no way to check whether another person's claimed feelings accurately reflect what his feelings actually are, or whether they are lies. But one perceives directly what one's own feelings are, though it takes some work to understand their meaning. As Locke says, reflection, the internal perception of the workings of one's own mind, is a kind of perception not particularly different from the perception (sensation) arising from the senses. Though a good mathematical education, one that gives training in logical thinking and proof, can help one to know what follows from whatever premises one might make when trying to understand feelings, which can help in understanding one's feelings, ignoring one's own feelings is ignoring the most reliable relevant source of data (though the data is going to be uninteresting if the feelings are unnatural because then they are caused directly by externally introduced chemicals rather than by the elaborately evolved working of one's mind that one is wanting to better understand). And mathematical training gives insight into what follows from premises and what premises are likely to explain reality without producing contradictions or being overly complicated or numerous, which premises basically give the best explanation (strictly speaking, the most beautiful explanations are best, but those with these characteristics I mostly feel tend to be the most beautiful explanations, especially if they mostly explain something beautiful to understand (e.g., how to be a better person as opposed to, say, how to make a stronger atom bomb or to cheat people) or if the explanations used seem like they might extend into or remind of more beautiful explanations yet to be understood. Math is important, but admittedly, mathematicians as a profession tend to overemphasize the rational approach that mathematicians from their training can excel at the most, because any field tends to sell itself excessively, and math in itself has nothing to say about what your feelings are, except maybe producing a feeling that some proofs and definitions are subjectively more beautiful than others, and so mathematicians as a whole may well be less in tune to their feelings (except feelings about math) than is ideal. The average person can't protect himself from sodomy by socializing only in clubs whose members pride themselves more on the knowledge they've bought in exclusive clubs and universities, etc., at a cost of having spent time at studying lectures and books at school, at conversations at the club, and at looking at the spreadsheets, etc., at work that they need to comprehend in order to pay for it all. Instead, the less wealthy, perhaps just because they aren't willing to pay the price of not having the time to reflect on themselves and their feelings, or are less willing to socialize in an exclusive atmosphere that necessarily restricts their acquaintances, not only have more time to think about love and sex, and more choice about whom to think about it with, but more need to worry about encountering sodomizers out to get them from every angle—they can't afford to ignore sodomy. The more a person has money, the more he will have tended to value it as opposed to other things. This gives the rich a certain cleanliness since one of those other things is sodomy. But it also gives them idiocy as regards sodomy, because since few of the people around the rich value sodomy, they have no reason to think about it much, unless one of their children goes gay (sodomizers do prefer to target the rich, but they have a hard time getting close enough to them to do it, unless they are rich, which happens less frequently and is usually associated with much cunning in how to go about sodomizing), by which time they are too old probably to have the time to become reasonable about much, and then they probably just decide to hold the normal position held by the educated elite, because they more value the opinions of the educational elite more-or-less without question. I know I have made somewhat sweeping generalizations about the wealthy and the highly educated, generalizations that only somewhat hold, and I admit that not being especially rich my observations of them are limited, but still I feel I am mostly right.
But as I have mentioned since the very beginning of this blog, the problem isn't just that people confusing the feelings caused by sodomy with love causes people to respect sodomy more than they ought, it's also that people wrongly disrespect and under-appreciate (natural) love because intuitively they know there's a seductively addictive dangerous and corrupting affliction that by nature they need to fear in order to not screw up their lives and to not wrongly hurt others by loving evil, but they just aren't clear in discriminating this danger from innocent sexual feelings or even love. They aren't clear that sexual love in particular is very different in its causes from whatever it is they are anxious they feel need to be wary of, because they haven't examined their fears sufficiently to understand what vaguely sex-like behavior they need to be wary of that could cause it to be highly appropriate to disrespect any feelings caused directly by it. What they need especially to be wary of, namely the unnatural "love" caused merely by sodomy's rape-drug-like chemicals having been carried to the brain by the circulatory or lymphatic system after they are absorbed subsequent to being introduced into the digestive system via sodomy, is likely something that they haven't even considered much. Indeed, thinking with emotion about sodomy may cause you to imagine ugly things, and if you aren't rational and a little practiced about the matter, may make you feel your emotions are sullied somewhat, causing some part of your brain to feel you have been sodomized or that someone has tried to sodomize you by introducing some manner of manipulative grossness, or if one is male, thinking about sodomy immaturely with greatly explicit feeling might cause your brain to do something that causes the addictiveness of one's semen to increase, the brain perhaps figuring the explicit feelings about sodomy reflect a desire to sodomize, increasing slightly the rape-drug chemicals in one's semen, making one in some sense unclean sexually (which probably adversely affects intraejaculate sperm selection during sex, even if one doesn't sodomize). But to not want to consider one's emotions at all about sodomy is kind of like not wanting to have a baby because one doesn't want to have to deal with the grossness of changing diapers; the emotional disadvantages to at least somewhat considering sodomy are negligible compared to the advantages of the wisdom and confidence to be gained by examining at least somewhat one's feelings about the matter. However disgusting imagining sodomy might be, it pales compared to the disgustingness of whatever emotions you or your loved-ones will have if you or your loved-ones are sodomized because you and your loved ones have become more susceptible to becoming addicted to sodomy on account of you having ignored whatever your natural feelings might say about the importance of protecting against being sodomized. Moreover, there's a great many slightly dirty things that you will excessively disrespect if you haven't examined your feelings about sodomy enough to realize, yes, it is sodomy that is far-and-away the dirtiness that it most pays to be wary of. Gardening or otherwise getting in touch with how we can modify our natural surroundings for the better? No, might encounter worms and make your hands dirty. Notwithstanding the emotional drawbacks of siding with mass death and committing holocaust of back yard, bulldozing the back yard with wildflowers and mostly non-invasive weeds randomly about and replacing it with a monoculture of turf grass of little if any benefit to wildlife because it isn't perfectly clean like a golf course? Quite possibly, if you haven't been wise and virtuous enough to see your love of cleanliness as mainly a love of your feelings remaining pure and untainted by (dirty) sodomy. Emotions don't just effect understandings, understandings effect emotions, in particular the emotions we have about what we should do or cherish. Just as addictions to alcohol, drugs, sodomy, etc., can cause one to not be true to one's own natural self, so can one disrespect one's natural self from a misplaced willpower or resolve that arises because on some level one has been made to feel one has or could become addicted to the feeling, the feeling of loving life more than order, for instance, whereas in reality, it is the natural feeling one's brain created or would create. Life is sacred, even plant life—don't murder or avoid things simply because they are a little messy, my advice. Beauty itself appears a little messy, messier in particular than a universal void, a terribly afflicting concept devoid of beauty (and by definition everything else, including life), why would one want the emotions you'd get from yard that reminds one of a universal void? Sure, the natural feeling may involve chemicals, but when addiction is not involved, those chemicals are the chemicals naturally created by the brain's internal processes (perhaps influenced by hormones suggesting to the brain it's an appropriate time to feel, e.g., sexual if that's what the brain wants) in order to produce the feeling, because that's merely the way the brain has evolved to be. Hormones, and more particularly sex hormones, are natural as well—there's no reason to ignore a feeling just because hormones natural to the body played a role in allowing the feeling, though it is too easy for people to get away with manipulating society by deriding the young as hormone-crazed since hormones like sodomy chemicals often don't arise in the brain (but this is irrelevant, since hormones are naturally produced inside the body, and so are not introduced externally unless one eats meat (though it might be coincidental, I noticed that when I became vegan, I became more poetical and understanding of my feelings) or takes sex-hormone supplements or pills, and it is preposterous to somehow believe the brain has not evolved to expect the hormones produced naturally inside one's own body or that such hormones have any special reason (except in a few very rare diseased conditions, I suppose) to be of an amount that is maladapative or less good than the amount of other chemicals natural to the body which produce feelings. There is one sort of feeling that it is always in one's interest to disrespect, namely a feeling caused by chemical addiction, and more particularly sodomy (which in my opinion is a chemical addiction in the simplest sense, i.e., because semen contains addictive chemicals that are appreciably absorbed by the digestive system, though negligibly by the female reproductive system). If a feeling is unnatural in the sense it is caused by an adventitiously introduced chemical, it deserves disrespect. But it's well to realize that the converse also holds, namely, if a feeling deserves disrespect, it is unnatural. In other words, every natural (in the sense I described) feeling is worthy of being respected by the person having this feeling (and also by others).
Since I ended the last paragraph with two bold assertions, you might think clarification is in order. Well, so do I. First, it is important to understand the sense I use the words "respect" and "disrespect". At least as I am using the terms, it's possible for a person to be respectable and yet bad. Similarly, one can be not particularly respectable and yet good. Indeed, if a person is not addicted to anything, and in that sense has perfectly respectable feelings, that are natural to him, he can still be bad if what he naturally wants is bad. Take bankers for example. It was decided after the financial crisis of 2008 that government policy should be to essentially print money to use to buy the assets (mainly bundles of troubled loans) of the investment banks well below value so that the banks would not go bankrupt, inasmuch as this bankruptcy would cause hardship for those who had invested in the banks via stocks or bonds, say, and also hardship for those who held assets similar to those which the investments banks held that were failing, e.g., mortgage backed securities. There was zero good reason to do this. It was a very bad and unfair thing to do, that has had enormous repercussions insofar as, for example, increasing income inequality, encouraging the growth of an already bloated financial industry, inflating housing and rent prices, and thwarting democracy by causing a widespread impression that democracy doesn't work, especially because the party who always claimed to be for the average person, namely the Democrats, voted for TARP (the Troubled Asset Relief Plan) even more than the Republicans did. And yet doubtless many of those who were responsible for this wickedness were quite respectable people. Sure, a few of the finance types responsible for the push for TARP, etc., might have been some of the so-called finance bros who if not greedy outright by nature were made especially greedy because excess drinking, etc., at least partly encouraged them to want to spend their money on prostitutes, etc., too much, I'm inclined to think the mostly respectable banker-types were behind it mostly, though admittedly, finance tending to be something purposefully made opaque and lacking any philosophical interest (unlike, say, economics), many who supported TARP at least partly just didn't know better because of a failure to understand the consequences to greater society for their decisions. Anyway, respect is indeed a word that is loosely thrown around. Some people also use the word "disrespect" to mean what I call "screw-up". For instance, one will often hear the phrase "he does not respect women", when what I would say is that he screws-up or strives to screw-up women (which could make the feelings that she might come to have for him properly disrespectable to herself); the force mainly behind this conflation is obvious, since if a male makes or tries to make a female disrespectable by screwing her feelings up via sodomy or some other addiction, he looks somewhat less bad if he claims she was not respectable to begin with and so he was just doing what her disrespectable self wanted by "disrespecting" her (a her that was her naturally disrespectable self, he would probably falsely claim). Strictly speaking, the way I define "respectable", one can be respectable and yet still screw-up females with sodomy, alcohol, rape-drugs, etc., and still be respectable because the feelings that made one do this to a female are not caused by having been screwed up, and so are respectable, but are just wicked from being exceptionally bad. Similarly, some feelings can be bad because they are based on incorrect understandings of reality. In this case, I wouldn't say they are disrespectable, just that they are unenlightened. I'm not saying my choice of words is better or worse than what others use, just that it's important not to conflate what one means by using words with too broad a denotation to separate properly quite distinct concepts, and that it is important for me to indicate what I mean by making clear the senses in which I am using the words here. As an example, I'll use the sort of things said at graduation ceremonies, which ceremonies I tend to want to avoid, because usually the spirit of them is how great you have been to have been respectable enough to graduate. Education can help make you respectable by causing you to value what makes sense rather than more than screwed-up feelings, but really, if you want to give out rewards for respectability, if you give me an award for not getting drunk, for not wanting to get sodomized, and for not being into psychoactive drugs, you'd more hit the target as regards what makes me a respectable person, and more encourage those lacking respectability to seek it. And why should such ceremonies praise people for merely being respectable, especially since it's frequently an excess willpower centered on seeking education that can cause you to improperly disrespect your own feelings by not lazily exploring your own feelings because you are too busy educating yourself in the opinions of others? Education is good, especially as an alternative to getting drunk or screwed-up or to trying to succeed in getting wealthy without understanding the broader effects of whatever you are doing to society at large. One must understand not only what goes on inside one's brain, by for example examining one's feelings and trying to make sense of them, but also by examining the world around you, and making sense of that as you make sense of yourself (and how these relate). Indeed, many if not most of the feelings that really get one's attention are geared toward reality outside of oneself. Love, for instance, necessarily involves someone else besides oneself, and I'd have been hard-pressed to understand love at all if I had never felt it toward others. It is not a sign of selfishness to be more interested in your own feelings than the feelings of others, because you have much more ability to perceive your own feelings than the feelings of another. And the feelings of another, after all, should largely be judged by using your own feelings about what those other's feelings are, and many if not most of your own feelings are about others. In particular, it is very difficult to judge others without understanding your own feelings, because the surest way to judge the moral goodness of another is to see how sensitive, e.g., in his opinions about your own feelings, he is as to your own moral nature as judged by your own perceptions and understanding of your moral feelings, which is more certain than your understanding of another's feelings, because you alone know your own feelings by direct perception and it is doubtful you will lie to yourself about them (because lies tend to hurt the deceived, and it's maladaptive to be the kind of person who hurts oneself for no good reason), because such sensitivity and moral goodness tend to go together.
Another clarification that obviously it is important to make (so obvious most probably realize that probably it is tacitly meant), is that though it is well to respect one's own natural feelings, one should be civil and realize that feelings depend on the constraints put upon us by others. You may have the feeling that you would want to do something were others not getting in the way, but this feeling should not be interpreted as a feeling that you should do it regardless, or else you are not being true to yourself (but being insolent). If you feel like doing something were there no obstacles put up by others, you may or may not feel like doing something given the constraints. It is foolhardy to not consider the obstacles when deciding what you intend to do. Sometimes you and the person(s) getting in your way may both have respectable feelings causing them to disagree, and sometimes at least one (or both) have disrespectable feelings that are causing them to disagree. Obviously, if you feel the other person is wrong, but if the latter has too much control or the consequences of clashing with the other person is too great, it is often reasonable to give in unless you can (1) convince the other person that her disagreement arose from opinions on her part that arose from feelings that are or were disrespectable, or that (2) her feelings are respectable but unnatural because they are a result of misplaced willpower on her part causing her to ignore her true natural feeling, or (3) that she is confused on some point(s) that has caused her feelings to be swayed by improper understanding, in other words they are (merely) unenlightened feelings that happen to be wrong, as unenlightened feelings often are. And sometimes unjust obstacles may seem just to whoever is putting them up because they view the obstacles as just punishment to correct what they perceived or claimed to have perceived as a past wrong on your part, a so-called wrong you may well yet believe as great righteousness, certainly in comparison to the gullible pompous weakness or unjust uncaringness that they seem to you to have exhibited. Whatever the cause of the obstacles, you can try to do what you want to do were the obstacle not there, or you can give in, or do some sort of compromise. Once others get in the way in a way that you feel is bad or worse, it can be unusually difficult to figure out what to do, especially if one is an idealist who spends most time considering what the proper thing for people as a whole to do, which is what people interested in morality most have occasion to consider, but it is a frequent situation in life, especially in families when you are the sort of person who more feels and thinks for himself while many others in your family are much more conformist about everything, which I think frequently happens inasmuch as, I don't know exactly, family members tend to want to balance each other out or even react against each other to point of being other way, and because people who try much to understand and be themselves are rare. Freedom is a useful thing to have, but all have the freedom to believe according to what they naturally feel to the extent they avoid addictions and undertake the bother to take their feelings seriously enough to use them to create an understanding of themselves that gives a meaning to the interpretation of the feelings as regards what to do. Still, there is another reason many people don't trust or try to understand their feelings that has nothing to do with misjudging their respectability—they may feel that their feelings are insufficiently inspiring to enable them to sufficiently succeed at life.
One might argue that some people naturally want to copy other people, or to copy some particular fairly large subset of people, for instance (often the case) the successful people, and so they aren't being themselves when they are caring about their own feelings or using their understandings to interpret those feelings, since their natural tendency is to be conformist. Indeed, it comes down to how one should weight the feelings one is true to when measuring the extent to which one is true to oneself, and I define things so that being true to feelings counts more when the feelings have some profoundness or beauty to them. There is nothing beautiful or profound about the feelings leading one to merely appropriate the opinions of the majority or of the majority of the successful, a very simple approach unlikely to evolve much through use, when deciding what you should believe or do, rather than using your own particular feelings. When I say be yourself I especially mean that part of yourself that is special in humanity, more especially if it special in you. Whether you copy the rich, the majority, or those who are recognized as celebrities, since you aren't much using your feelings about what you are copying, but just the feelings in the mere part of yourself that wants to copy, by my definition you aren't being yourself a significant amount, but doing what follows by resolving to be guided in belief and behavior by what you are copying. True, practically, there is much that one should accept more-or-less at face value without putting much feeling into it. For instance, if a book is well-written and wise and honest, it will likely occasion feelings in you that feel special to you which cause you to take seriously what the author is saying even in the sentences which at first glance don't seem particularly special. The world is a very complicated place, there is much we must accept just because people we trust say so. This is not being not true to ourselves, because we feel that the more we are introduced to what we feel will be beautiful thought, the more we will have opportunity to engage our own special feelings. It's not how little others guide us that counts for being true to ourselves, but how much of ourselves guides us. The same holds in relationships. If someone else's feelings or understandings of those feelings inspire us to have beautiful feelings, we are more likely to trust that his or her feelings are to be trusted somewhat, or at least that he should at least somewhat guide us into the sphere he feels that will inspire the best most special and beautiful feelings. The ideal situation in a romantic or sexual relationship with another, whether it has progressed beyond the flirting or dating stage or not, is one in which two people so mutually inspire each other to have beautiful feelings that each cause the other to trust each other's feelings a great deal, which trust inspires more beautiful feelings that are more authentic to each person's self than would be the case if they had considered their feelings about such matters privately with the usual skepticism that tends to be appropriate for individualists amid a largely unauthentic conformist world. As Robert Louis Stevenson puts it in Travels with a Donkey in the Cevennes, "For there is a fellowship more quiet even than solitude, and which, rightly understood, is solitude made perfect". Perhaps I would never have thought of viewing it that way if I hadn't read his book, but of course I don't care, because reading such a book made me feel a solitude made more perfect in the sense it helped allow me to feel beautiful feelings from myself that else I might not have had occasion to feel, at least not as quickly, and the reason I was reading the book in the first place was just the beauty of his writing insofar as his sentence structure and use of words is concerned led me to want to read it carefully. No reason to feel like you are being conformist in reading a book that your own feelings suggest you should read, e.g., because someone you trust because you have had feelings that you do trust him suggested it to you or because you have read enough of the author to believe the book might inspire you. And sometimes even if you don't feel like you would like to read a book were there no obstacles to not reading it, it may nevertheless be something you should do as a member of civil society, because others have set legal obstacles that it would be uncivil or even unpatriotic to ignore even if you could get away with it. Tax form instructions (and similar unavoidable boring paperwork), for instance, hardly anyone feels it an inspiring thing to read, yet it ought to be done at least somewhat carefully if you have to pay taxes. It's well for conformists to keep in mind that there are important advantages to being yourself, depending on the situation. If you want love to be meaningful in your life, you need to decide who is most worthy of affection, and you are much likelier to be successful in this endeavor if you at least understand yourself (even if you insist on not being yourself), because else you won't be able to judge another's sensitivity toward yourself, because you won't have any idea, and judging another's sensitivity toward yourself is the surest way of judging character; and knowing yourself is a great deal of the bother involved with actually being yourself. Also, if you are a female, particularly a young female, males who are naturally most desirable will greatly prefer if you are yourself when loving them, because being loved by a number of girls each being themselves is much more impressive and attracting of females than being loved by a number of girls copying each other or whatever hype has been implemented to make their love interest seem more desirable than he really is; you're more likely to be loved well if you are not conformist, and not just because the tendency to be yourself is a good trait that people find beautiful (though not as beautiful as they should, because the benefit to the world of being yourself is mainly to distant generations, causing evolution in the long-run to go more beautifully and well, and distant benefits are not selected for quite so well by the ordinary forces that cause most other aspects of beauty to evolve). Also, if my theory is right, female lust tends to cause epigenetic effects in the sperm so affected by it, which causes those tendencies involved with attracting very youthful females in beautiful ways to be especially expressed when trying to deal in a beautiful way with young females being sexually attracted to you. For a male to have any hope of attracting especially youthful females in beautiful, morally right ways, he especially needs to be true to himself. Similarly, if he is trying to understand almost the best he is able how to get the morals of some other aspect of sex extremely right (as in my case with respect to understanding the morals of having sex with authorized murderesses), perfectly enough to elicit female lust (which to my intuition promotes intraejaculate sperm selection) were the sex to happen, he will likely get more enlightenment from his fantasies (before or during sex) about such sex if he is being true to himself while having such fantasies.
It's well to point out that openly wanting to be yourself by examining your feelings can put you at risk, especially if you are young. On the one hand there are predatory forcible sodomizer types who of course prefer to abuse young people who are into exploring their feelings, inasmuch as forcible sodomy can cause such a feeling (unnaturally), which could have an unusually warping effect on the young victim from her age making it unlikely she has had time to much understand her feelings, and more especially her natural feelings about love and sex. Similarly, tobacco, alcohol, and drugs can have a very harmful affect on the young. I remember when young how vaguely annoyingly uncomfortable it was, for instance, when high school English teachers would focus on the theme in literature of finding one's identity. I never knew exactly what felt kind of gross about it, but I realize it is that they never talked about the dangers of the young being into feelings in the quest to be oneself. They could have said to beware unnatural feelings caused by drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and SODOMY, but they didn't, which I feel is irresponsible for anyone to do who seems to be promoting the being into feelings. There are other people who will try to use manipulative trickery to fool the young into assuming their natural feelings are not what they are. Take fantasizing about sex, which is something especially teenagers tend to want to do imho. There are strong forces that try to convince the young that the best way to explore feelings about sex is to have sex. Of course, one can learn an enormous amount about your feelings toward sex when actually having sex, but that tends to be too late. In particular, one of the most significant feelings about sex is that it should be something both people desire. If a female doesn't desire to have sex enough to accept the possibility of it causing her to get pregnant, to my way of thinking, to your less rapey males, that would make them feel like, egad! she doesn't want to have sex and I'm having something with her that is so much like sex this is wrong and rapelike. I really think I could more fruitfully explore my feelings about sex with such a female in a more relaxing less confusing way via kissing, hugging, etc., that does not create unrealistically alarming feelings of moral wrongness, such feelings doubtlessly intruding with the fantasies sufficiently as to very possibly take away most of whatever enlightenment I could get from them. Similarly, if young females are fantasizing in a way that feels too much like real sex notwithstanding she actively does not want children, that will feel alarmingly to her like she has been warped, such sense of being warped likely interfering with whatever she could get from the fantasies as well. Young bad male tend to try to warp people into thinking that males who have tried to understand their feelings enough to appreciate that sex is about reproduction are being ridiculously logical; in my day as a young person those who felt hesitant to explore sex by actually having sex would be too often derided as the sort who have calculated they want precisely 2.23 children or whatever. A belief in exploring sex too carnally when not desiring children of course could trick females into getting pregnant, or even worse, encourage them to engage in oral or rectal sodomy, both activities bad males often want. To me birth control is just silly more than anything (though condoms should be legal inasmuch as by blocking chemicals, it presumably blocks the effects of sodomy, and is better than other forms of birth control at preventing venereal disease). That said, the importance of virginity is something else that tends to be overrated notwithstanding it immediately does somewhat suggest an increased susceptibility to venereal disease; it's not that females who have lost virginity are in some sense too hole, it's that females quite generally don't like to overemphasize the "hole" aspect of their sexuality, it possibly attracting sodomy or the sodomizer types who tend to conflate all holes while simultaneously professing their love of holes (I call them the "woot-hole males"); decent males won't care especially about female "hole" nature one way or the other mostly, though it's true they won't help noticing that up to a point anyway, the more nude the female the sexier, because somewhat seminude females tend to be in a better way to create inspiring sexual feelings, provided (a crucial provision) that the females are comfortable being naked or seminaked, because if females don't look comfortable about sex, this is a turnoff to males who don't want females to be miserable or non-desirous of sex during sex, such impressions making the fantasies about the sex he should want seem less natural in one of the most important senses. Once a female is stark naked, it's doubtful she is going to comfortable enough about it to be very attractive, and so publicly semi-naked is usually sexier and more beautiful, though it depends on the context. That said, while making out otherwise than by having sex, it is fine, at least in a setting sufficiently private to feel comfortable about it, for actual sexual fantasies to take place. That the kissing, etc., that can occur in dating is not mainly to increase wisdom about love and sex, is to be too conservative and out of touch, in my opinion. Conservatism itself can play an appropriate role in deciding what feelings to take as unnatural or worthy of avoiding from willpower or whatever. Probably people by nature more tend to be conservative about what constitutes depravity than anything. Sodomy is a very easy to define concept—the ability to define it hasn't probably changed much over the ages. If you're family or society has a long-standing tradition about what constitutes depravity, and the family or society has done fairly well during that period, not the worst thing to do to adopt more-or-less at face value the tradition, though if you feel quite comfortable that you are not messed up, you probably would do better being less conservative, since in my opinion conservatism tends to be too broad in what it considers depravity. Just respecting your close older family members when it comes to what is depraved (more than about ordinary matters involving, say, love) is an especially wise approach to conservatism when young, at least if you don't have feelings about the family being screwed-up. It's always well to remember that being yourself is not complicated; some will say various rituals, etc., are essential, but I think all that matters mostly is putting yourself in situations where you have interesting and beautiful natural feelings, and then taking the time to patiently examine and understand them carefully. I tend to be a little sceptical of guru wannabes promoting various definite rituals, etc., as a way of supposedly helping people find themselves. Like I said, how to find your natural self is not complicated, it just takes time and effort and the willpower to be sober. True, those you love or who love you (most rewardingly when both happen) can greatly help you find yourself since so much of yourself involves feelings toward love, romance, sex, etc., but there's no simple effective instruction book for how to get involved in loving relationships. If you have been unfortunate enough to have been sodomized, either forcibly or as a result of having been manipulated or fooled into it, what I would suggest is that you ignore those feelings that you might have had more-or-less immediately after having been sodomized, the feelings likely being unnatural. That said, you may feel like talking about it, which might occasion recalling some of those feelings, simply because you want justice or for you and others to be protected from similar nastiness in the future. If you had felt your parents reasonable, they, being in most cases natural protectors, would be an obvious choice. If the sodomy was forcible or otherwise illegal, telling law enforcement (unless it is involved, incompetent, or corrupt, which on average I'd say is unlikely) about it could go a long ways towards protecting people, including yourself, from similar incidents. I would avoid telling the mental health establishment about it, unless perhaps you have found an unusually enlightened councilor. What is the point of endangering yourself by likely bringing up at least some unnatural feelings into your recollections unless it is to protect others and yourself from similar wrongs? Don't allow mere listeners and talkers make you feel that talking to people who can't create justice to protect people from injustice is any substitute for talking to people who actually might create justice or otherwise prevent wrongs.
Some might argue that it is better to have feelings about what is beautiful as opposed to what is one's true nature, but I think this is confused thinking. If it is your nature to have feelings about what is beautiful, then you are being true to your natural self when having those feelings. And if you are having natural feelings other than what is beautiful, then you are by definition being yourself. Sure, it could be that you don't care about what is beautiful because you are just bad, in which case there is nothing much that you or others can do about the situation, but it could just be that at times it is the most beautiful thing to have feelings about something else besides what is beautiful. For instance, when I am driving, I rarely tend to have feelings about what is beautiful, more especially profound such feelings that would occupy my mind in reflections, but rather feelings about how to best avoid an accident and yet arrive at my destination; when driving, it is more beautiful to be concerned about avoiding an accident than about doing the most beautiful thing. That said, having feelings that cause one to do the wrong, not-beautiful thing can be a sign (if you aren't naturally bad) that you have become screwed-up by a bad nasty person, who will of course tend to try to get you to do the likely bad things that he probably wants you to do. Having conservative values may well help you avoid behaving thus unnaturally badly, but frequently such values may cause you to feel that merely innocuous behaviors on your part are merely bad. Sexual pleasure tends to be an unusually selfish pleasure for a male to want, and so it could be a bad sign if a male fantasizes about it more than typical, especially if his fantasies are geared toward trying to obtain more. But for the same reason that sexual pleasure is an unusually selfish pleasure for a male to want, it is an unusually unselfish pleasure for a female to want. Moreover, the most significant way for a female to love a male is by giving him (clean) sexual pleasure. There is no reasonable way for a male to consider the morals of love or sex or to be sensitive to good females, each of whom tends to be good largely because she especially wants to find a male she loves well and give him sexual pleasure, without considering male sexual pleasure. Females tend to love males more significantly by giving them sexual pleasure than by giving them anything else, that's just how it is because (real) sexual pleasure is more-or-less what benefits the male inasmuch as on average this sexual pleasure increases the offspring he will have. (A qualification, in my opinion, is that young lustful females need to be loved with feeling so greatly that they are somewhat more hesitant to feel a desire from love to sexually please lest it mean a desire to have sex even if not love with feeling; but since young lustful females find being lovable an especially pleasant concept in a mate and find it especially sexually pleasant to have sex when her chest feels a sort of incipient maternal love for any offspring that might be produced, practically it doesn't much matter.) As good as religions may be at discouraging people from unnatural behaviors, they tend excessively to deride innocent sexual pleasures. That wouldn't be so bad, but they also manipulate people into thinking that they these innocent pleasures can be controlled by using what basically amounts to misplaced willpower, i.e., not giving into temptation and avoiding sin; how exactly sin is akin to addiction or just being bad is not really made clear, emotionally it seems addiction and moral badness are lumped together somehow to define the unclear concept of sin. Willpower can improve your morality if your immorality is caused by addiction, and also morality can be improved by an enlightened understanding if one's immorality is caused by some sort of confusion. But it is very doubtful that natural impulses can be overcome by willpower, though it might lead to a kind of hypocrisy (the kind that is not mere lies), nor is it likely that if somehow willpower does work that the impulses and what they naturally would tend to lead to are not something better to have than otherwise. If a male believes he has bad tendencies that he doesn't have, he may well tend to overestimate his badness, which could, for instance, make him less loving in his loving emotions than he should be. In particular this applies to holiness emotions. Holiness, sadness, and piety are closely related emotions in my opinion, whose main effect when felt in males is I am quite sure to reduce crossover during sperm development, keeping the chromosomes more whole, as it were, which on average tends to preserve any harmonies that tend to have been selected for between alleles within particular chromosomes, as is beneficial to female mates. A particularly good female deserves to be fertilized by spermatozoa with fewer new crossing-overs in their genetic material. Similarly, she will deserve more this if she has had bad fortune, as reflected in an authentically sad nature on her part. And an unfortunate or virtuous male will deserve the extra attracting power he will have by not crossing over his chromosomes during spermatogenesis, which respectively he can and likely will tend to cause by sadness or piety, respectively. That said, it is also imperative to the greater good that crossover happen frequently, so that new combinations of alleles can appear on any particular chromosome. To the extent a male and his mate are not great or unfortunate, it is for the greater good that the male have a sort of lust contrary to holiness, so that the genetic mixing can occur. Piety in the sense it is akin to holiness and sadness in its genetic effects, is not an emotion one should strive for with some sense of self-discipline. Mostly I don't like talking about my past mistakes in public, because people can use knowledge of your weaknesses and errors in understanding to try to hurt you, but I will make an exception here since I am no longer weak about the matter since I figure I have become a more-or-less world leading expert about the matter. Too much of my youth was spent fretting about how I didn't always have holy feelings toward the mass of sexy females I didn't love particularly well, but rather lustful feelings. It's easy to think that giving in to wanting to be unholy is akin to an addiction, because there is something one can do to avoid or lessen holiness: just only desire the most beautiful holiness-inspiring female or females; it's good to spend time before having sex with a holy girl to spend much time emotionally worshiping her, thereby improving the direction of one's holiness. But once I figured out things enough to realize that if I were less good then it would be good to have lustful non-holy thoughts toward typical young females, then mostly all (young and perhaps for whatever reason sexy) females became rather holy toward me because I no longer had the main reason I felt bad about myself, namely that I couldn't feel good about myself because I had unholy feelings toward young for-whatever-reason sexy females because I couldn't feel good about myself, etc., the vicious circle I had trapped myself in without realizing it. But I wouldn't have gotten to that stage of wisdom unless I had earlier decided that it was sodomy that screws people up, which allowed me to discriminate between (always bad) unclean thoughts toward young females and unholy thoughts toward girls, which distinction enabled me to feel unholy thoughts were probably the feelings one had toward young females when one wanted sex but no caring. So I became comfortable with feeling lustfully unholy toward a sexually attractive girl, because I figured it was the right, honest thing to do since I was pretty sure I didn't quite love her well enough to commit to caring for her, only I quickly ended up having holy feelings toward her just because it was my nature to do so, and examining my holy feelings I was able to fix my confusion. I had put myself into a situation, a silent non-touchy quasi-date as it were, where I had feelings that transcended my then understanding, and that (after consulting at home for a few minutes with a expired-edition freshman level biology textbook that I had picked up from a heap for 50¢ from a college textbook store in Ann Arbor), enabled me to figure holiness all out. But I probably wouldn't have figured that sodomy was evil (while looking at muskrats who seemed to be sort of looking like they were good-naturedly internally laughing at what an idiot I was to underestimate the power of sodomy to pervert the sexual tendencies of females into something bad and unnatural) unless I had earlier distinguished it from sex without male caring. And I probably wouldn't have figured that out until I had rejected my immediately previous hypothesis, namely that females more naturally prefer marriage than males do because they are more refined on account of males having a greater temptation to sex without commitment, the latter being more something that pleases males. And what caused me to reject the latter hypothesis was probably just the consideration that it doesn't make sense, which sense of whether something makes sense I probably had gained a significant amount from my mathematical studies. Indeed, I got to thinking, if sex without marriage is more pleasant for males, doesn't the same thing that makes marriage more unselfish for males also makes marriage selfish for females? Why is male unselfishness more refined than female unselfishness? No reason. And it made sense to my feelings, because my feelings had from high school been that females who look like they very much want whatever sex they have along with their concomitant feelings about it to be profound, beautiful, and enjoyable are just better and less mercenary and more lovable and worthy of being cared for (along with whatever children one might have with them) than girls who mostly naturally ignore sexual feeling.
There are any number of activities which at various times have been labeled addictive. Such has been the case with novels, radios, movies, television, internet, and computer games, especially not long after they first came onto the scene. I feel it's confusing the concept of addiction to label these activities as addictive. In fact, in some ways, they may occasion obsessions for a reason opposite to that arising from addictions. E.g., once you start fighting a cave monster in a computer game, and he casts slime ball spell on you, if you give up, your defenses against addiction may well feel that feeling like quitting very well could be on account of some nefariously addictive quality of the slime ball—and so you keep fighting them until 4am or whatever. But catchy music I do think it reasonable to consider slightly addictive since musical patterns are in a way perhaps akin to internal brain stimuli, and so could be addictive. But obviously music is very mildly addictive at worst, and better music is presumably quite beneficial, being a way to communicate emotion, especially in conjunction with other forms of communication, e.g., dancing (if stillness is not mostly your thing), lyrics, or a film of which the music is a soundtrack. And then there are some activities that are slightly chemically addictive, but it behooves one to engage in them, e.g., eating. The food itself could be slightly addictive, as with overripe fruit that has partially fermented into alcohol. And microorganisms in the digestive tract might release chemicals that induce cravings for an excess of whatever food or foods the microorganisms need more of, inducing an addiction of sorts to eating too much. Similarly, tooth and gum bacteria might induce cravings for the sugar they need to fuel their multiplication (resulting perhaps in extra cavities)—one possibility is that they do this by releasing chemicals that encourage or cause diabetes. When judging what's best to eat, better to go by taste than by how the food makes your brain feel. (As regards judging what is poison, don't ignore how it makes your brain feel; there are so many things that properly should taste bad but which don't, but yet have bad effect on brain, body, etc., on account of their being toxic. This is why, I'm thinking, the oral mucosa have evolved to be semi-permeable, since this limited level of absorption often might furnish a test as to the toxicity of the substance by causing a slight sense of its effects, before you have to swallow it, which swallowing might of course induce very dreadful effects indeed.) And eating quickly without properly chewing food and mixing saliva with one's food might perhaps encourage organisms in the digestive system that prosper on partially digested food, and such organisms might release chemicals that encourage short-term rushed thinking and behavior, that could make for even more fast careless eating that could allow them to enjoy even more poorly digested food. But obviously eating is essential for life, and so it is folly to stop eating or drinking from fear one might be addicted to it, which I suppose could happen to a fanatic. Personally, I think it good to avoid all simple obvious chemical addictions, e.g., to alcohol, tobacco, or psychoactive drugs, and even to things that upon thought look quite possibly at least slightly addictive, even if not widely considered so, e.g., coffee, chocolate, and vanilla. Still, I am inclined to think alcohol should be allowed, if for no other reason that there's always the danger that if addictions are all banned, people will fail to appreciate the danger of addictions on account of the concept of addictions becoming nebulous, in particular causing them to excessively succumb to the much more insidious addiction of sodomy. Being true to your natural feelings is worth supporting, but it is always wise to qualify such support by emphasizing the difference between natural feelings and feelings caused by chemical addiction. This was the great danger of Carlyle's highly emotional last of his collection of 1840 essays On Heroes, Hero worship, and the Heroic in History. The last essay concerned the "Hero as King" (which recall is the transcription of a speech given by Carlyle 75 years to the day before the Quintinshill train wreck). There is nothing dangerous about naturally emotionally admiring or even worshiping a truly great leader. If that is your natural feeling, you aren't being true to yourself else, I suppose. However, realistically, how often do people naturally worship leaders? Are leaders often that great? If a leader is merely good enough so that he shouldn't inspire widespread cynicism, he is probably better than average, I'd say. It's dangerous to glorify the worship of leaders without a carefully presented qualification concerning the dangers of hero worship as applied to powerful leaders. What leaders do have is power, a power that is often dangerously controlling, potentially if not actually. What also is powerfully controlling is sodomy and the sort of physical abuse often concomitant with it. So any worship of power is quite possibly or even probably going to be wrapped up in the emotions the obsequiously defiled and the defilers have toward the control exerted by sodomy and more particularly forcible sodomy. Hitler seems to have believed that by glorifying power and being ruthless the masses would be glad to bow down, and one can't help thinking he was aiming his appeal to those who respected sodomy and its enslaving effects. Indeed, consider what he wrote in Mein Kampf (James Vincent Murphy translation):
The psyche of the broad masses is accessible only to what is strong and uncompromising. Like a woman whose inner sensibilities are not so much under the sway of abstract reasoning but are always subject to the influence of a vague emotional longing for the strength that completes her being, and who would rather bow to the strong man than dominate the weakling—in like manner the masses of the people prefer the ruler to the suppliant and are filled with a stronger sense of mental security by a teaching that brooks no rival than by a teaching which offers them a liberal choice. They have very little idea of how to make such a choice and thus they are prone to feel that they have been abandoned. They feel very little shame at being terrorized intellectually and they are scarcely conscious of the fact that their freedom as human beings is impudently abused; and thus they have not the slightest suspicion of the intrinsic fallacy of the whole doctrine. They see only the ruthless force and brutality of its determined utterances, to which they always submit.
If Social Democracy should be opposed by a more truthful teaching, then even, though the struggle be of the bitterest kind, this truthful teaching will finally prevail provided it be enforced with equal ruthlessness....
Of course, there is no truth to this Hitler doctrine. Sure I suppose there might be some women, namely women more-or-less totally screwed-up by sodomy to the point of compliancy, who I suppose one might say are under the influence of a vague emotional longing for what they may hope to be something akin to the strength that completes their being or whatever. By far most women are strong and lucky enough to not have been screwed-up so thoroughly like this, and the natural tendency of all women is to detest sodomy. Though it very well may be that such compliantly screwed-up people are over-represented in the broad masses, and in particular the lower classes of the broad masses, it is also true that the clean (a majority) of the broad masses, and more particularly the clean (a vast majority) of the lower classes, more tending to have actual conservative values inherited from their ancestors and more respect for common sense arrived at by clean inward introspection, may well have more accurate assessments of the evil of sodomy than the average, more naive, clean upper class person. Oh sure, there are a few things girls and young women will (metaphorically, though not I suppose the best metaphor) "bow down" to. As I have mentioned, girls tend to be amenable to being forced into being themselves if it means their lover will love her better. But it's doubtful a girl would be forced thus unless she already recognized as a part of her inner self the neglected part of her inner self that her lover was trying to force her to be (I suppose it's conceivable that she could find him so obviously virtuous and wise she would take his word for what her inner true self was, but that would seem to be a highly uncommon level of trust). The other exception would be the tendency for girls in cat mode to imagine them getting one of those most obedient sexual torturess awards that I mentioned earlier, but really you have to balance that with cats being more unwilling to be led into killing (as opposed to torturing what they already want to kill) than just about any animal can be led into anything, a characteristic that so dominates the overall ethos of cats that mostly, as is a truism, they are essentially untrainable and unwilling to be led at all. Obviously whatever Hitler was, he was not in some catty way, because if he had any semblance of cat morals, he'd have forced his executioners to torture each before killing to make sure the executioners hated the individual person killed enough to thoroughly want it, and showed the torture in the movie theatre, whereas of course he couldn't and wouldn't do that because the mass of people in Germany would have gotten more emotionally in touch with their feelings about hurting Jews, and the mass of Germans almost surely naturally didn't have such feelings, especially to the point of wanting to kill them; in fact they would likely be so traumatized by the tortures inflicted that they didn't want to inflict, and wouldn't want to inflict on any group of people, punishment properly being (1) toward individuals in accordance to carefully thought just principles as exist in a better judicial system or (2) perhaps in accordance to a democratically controlled sacred cat-like ritual by authorized murderesses motivated by their hate toward individuals (rather than groups), which ritual the people of the state had thought about and evaluated democratically for a while (which they manifestly hadn't); if executioners were forced to kill by torture and more particularly public torture or torture publicly portrayed artistically by the torturers, likely it wouldn't take long before the vast majority would have felt the need to correct the evil, e.g., by killing Hitler (perhaps with torture). Some say Hitler never actually witnessed an execution of a Jewish person (I suppose it true or at least almost true), which he might have claimed was avoiding sentimentality, but which was probably just him trying to avoid being subjected to whatever naturally self-destructive forces (which forces he seems to have lacked to an unusual degree) that might rebel against the rest of his nature and just kill him, or to whatever spiritual or unknown forces of nature (if they exist) would insist on killing him when his karma gets sufficiently bad; or maybe he was just a soulless person with almost no self-destructive tendencies and he was trying to set a (bad) example. Hitler was pro death, and though he was pro torture when it came to forcing others to obey, that is not at all how a cat is pro torture. Sure, cat girls (in a democratic society that has voted for them to do a certain amount of "human sacrifice" or as I would prefer calling it, "authorized murders" of those they hate the most), or at least cat girls with at least the most basic morals, presumably love it when their victim says he can't take it anymore, it's not because they want something else than to hurt him, but because they don't want anything else, which makes the killing, etc., more moral and beautiful to them and likely to the democratic forces they feel might allow them to do more killing. It would seem to me highly immoral for a cat girl (or cat young woman) to want something else like money, testimony, etc., from her victim for non-sexual reasons, all she wants to do is terrify and hurt him and kill him for her own sexual pleasure and that of her lover and whatever other cat girls are involved, and unless her hate stops (and she will try to choose victims carefully enough that would not happen except perhaps exceedingly rarely), he will eventually die from her torture, as is right, because if she doesn't want him to die, he certainly ought not be tortured; she sexually enjoys being reassured of her feeling that way, the moral or least unmoral way, by her natural indifference to his futile attempts at bribery to stop it. Sure, she would appreciate and be grateful for the non-sexual enjoyment that could come from wealth, but ideally, the best that I can imagine, that should come as remuneration determined by democratic forces in accordance (especially when it comes to bonuses as opposed to monetary punishments, cat girls needing to feel safe which they won't if they are seriously worried about them or their family starving if they don't find new inspirations often) with the extent such forces find what she has done beautiful. I know it may seem impertinently irrelevant to drag my cat theories to a discussion of Hitler, he was anything but a cat after all, but whenever some evil philosophy, however slightly, has some resemblance to some truth that it might get confused with, it is well to mention those truths very precisely, and to sharply elucidate the differences so that corrupt feelings for one evil thing are not mistaken for good or much less bad feelings for another good or less bad thing, making evil seem more profound and less evil than it is, as for instance nasty behavior in young women being subservient to sodomizers threatening violence being confused with clean behavior in catty girls being subservient to a male cat's demanding of torture of someone she is killing anyway, to the point he won't have loving emotional feelings else, or as for instance enjoying being bribed (as suggested by a torture victim claiming he can't take it anymore, implicitly suggesting he'll give anything for it to stop) because you want the bribe being confused with enjoying being bribed because it reminds you and democratic forces that you don't want to take a bribe (unless you are an authorized murderess who considers the reward your lover beautifully and pleasantly gives you in holy loving feelings for sexually torturing thoroughly a victim you've chosen to murder a bribe of sorts).
I wish now to say a few more things about young females tending to want to feel hate while feeling love for someone else. In particular I wish to examine the possibility of females in love enjoying killing people who are relatives of people she hates (in a society that tolerates that sort of thing). This possibility is sort of an advanced topic, and it is especially sacred in trying to understand females getting off on hate to be lazily patient in one's considerations and to not get too ahead of oneself, and so I suggest if you don't want to be overly disturbed that you skip over the next three paragraphs until you have read and lazily considered my more fundamental writings about females sexually getting off on cruelty to those they hate, in particular what I wrote about more extensively at a more fundamental level a few years ago on this blog.
I guess this is something of an aside, but it seems well for me to point out that lately I feel that emphasis on cat theories, though still important, may increasingly be less productive than other considerations. It's a good sign, suggesting to me that I have largely figured out (relative to my understanding of other aspects of morality) the basic morals of females being (or fantasizing about being) cruel to one person while having sex with someone else, which hate recall is something that is hard for a female to have while having sex if she is having sex for screwed-up reasons on account of being under the influence of love-potion chemicals such as I suspect exist in male semen to various degrees, and which might be absorbed by the digestive system so as to warp her brain into feeling an inappropriate amount of esteem not natural to her brain. I can well imagine if my theories about murders by sodomizing cat imposters gain prominence, I don't want people to be disturbed by feelings they might have about clean sexual cruelty. I want to feel that I have walked around all the important pits into hell that people might feel like they are in danger of falling into if they feel the need to hurriedly try to check everything I have mentioned by deciding what their own feelings are by hurriedly fantasizing and thinking about authorized murderesses killing during sex. Hurrying tends to be unusually imprudent when trying to understand cat morals, but it might happen, because people might not take my word that it is more imprudent than thinking fast about standard matters. And I don't want my theories about the matter to be so ill-formed that they are in that way unappealing causing my opinions there to be too soon superseded (with help of censors, etc.) or twisted by manipulators into immoral falsehoods. But at the same time, I don't want to get to the point that my consideration of the morality of clean sexual cruelty has been so extreme compared to the other moral considerations that I have made, that people think I am trying to encourage a society that periodically votes for cat girls to be allowed to murder a certain number of people during sex each year. True, I'm not trying to discourage it either. Why would anyone trust me enough anyway if I gave an opinion? They'd have to trust me an enormous amount to do so. To say one way or the other might suggest (wrongly) that I think people should be otherwise than very hesitant to take opinion at face value concerning whether society should start having authorized murderesses, even if from people like me who have thought about clean sexual cruelty more than most of them, notwithstanding authorized murderesses hasn't been a thing in any society at all lately, and so hardly anyone has thought about it. There are a ton of reasons why someone who has thought and felt more about clean sexual cruelty than most might encourage sexual cruelty, even if clean, for very selfish and potentially highly dangerous reasons, and if you say that no, authorized murderesses should or shouldn't happen, then maybe in the future when someone refuses to say whether such behavior should start, or that the opposite should happen, their opinions on other matters that should be taken seriously will be disbelieved. The most I want to say about that now is that people, or at least people who feel up to it, ought to explore their catsy feelings about clean sexual cruelty at least enough (enough is probably not very much) to differentiate such feelings from feelings about the sort of cruelty that is related to sodomizing and more particularly with the occult sodomizing such as happens with what I call the aligner weirdos. Whether humanity survives probably depends mostly on how much of nature we take with us. If we destroy ourselves, it will be largely because we had taken much of nature to destruction. If we don't, we must take more-or-less most of nature with us. Nature guides us in subtle ways which on average are beautiful and much contrary to indiscriminate destruction. Beware of would-be prophets who care not for nature. To the extent the natural world seems plummeting to destruction, I suppose people may some day feel they need a hero or heroes who seem extra-wise about cat matters, and (if for whatever reason it seems beautiful to them) to authorize (by vote) before long certain females to engage in actual murders during sex to the extent it seems fit to society. On the other hand, if the natural world seems like it is not plummeting, I'm thinking usually people will rightly feel it safer to be more prudent even if they feel maybe a shift to a more cat-like system of punishments may be appropriate eventually—a more gradual approach will seem under such conditions more safe, because since nature isn't failing or is failing a little but not as much as previously, or is in a good way for the failing to slow down greatly before long, or something like that, better to be gradual about things and not put so much at stake on one throw of the dice. The thing is that if society is in a state in which few if any feel like there is going to be any cat-like authorized murders happening any time soon, then the people who fantasize about catsy cruelty will tend to be more unselfish and long-term in thinking, in as much as that it would seem very doubtful to them that figuring out the morals of catsy cruelty will increase their chances of them or their lovers being allowed to actually engage in sexual cruelty via authorized murders. But if authorized clean sexual cruelty seems like in the long run it might come back appreciably, the more moral will still feel that maybe they should fantasize about being authorized sexual murderesses or (if male) of being the lover of such a one, because if their fantasies are beautiful in the moral sense, then they will end up selecting for sperm that code for offspring especially moral and beautiful when it comes to the morality of killing people appropriately (or least inappropriately) with cat-like cruelty, which could make a huge difference not only to how beautiful things become in the distant future should a more cat-like approach be taken by society, but also to the survival of humanity and other forms of natural life if in the future society decides to augment the (a more dog-like system) judicial system by voting for authorized murderesses being allowed to perform a certain number of murders during sex. If society eventually adopts a cat-like augmentation of the judicial system, it may well be best for total amount of authorized murders per year, relative to the size of the population and/or I don't know, maybe unauthorized murders, to fluctuate in a fairly regular fashion akin to a sine-wave (shifted upwards since there can't be negative authorized murders per year), with a period somewhere (just guessing from feeling) of something like 1500 years, so that there will be less-catsy ages where the morality of catsy cruelty will evolve among the unselfish while the particular selfish sorts of cunning useful mostly in catsy ages won't evolve. Of course, it's not important that the sine-wave quality be anything like exact. In particular, there will be (e.g., from randomness) fluctuations over time in the suitability of those most worthy to be authorized murderesses, as well as in the suitability of their lovers. And after allowing a certain amount of authorized murder by someone, it is very important for society to reassess and to stop or lessen the amount of it if it seems surprisingly wrong, not sacred, or not beautiful, and (to a lesser extent, because it is more dangerous) appropriate to increase the amount of the authorized murders if it seems more beautiful and right and sacred than expected, and so in that sense not to be much constrained (especially in the short term) from a sense that things should fluctuate; sudden increases in authorized murderesses murdering would seem to have more potential for danger than sudden decreases, I'm feeling. In particular, if society feels they have had enough of authorized murderesses, nothing wrong with cutting authorized murderesses off completely (the sinusoidal nature of the frequency being much more important during increases than decreases) from (say) prudence. It's always well to remember that to the extent sodomy is not common and hasn't been common in a long time, females continuing to get off on cruelty during sex, to the extent they have been getting off on such cruelty for a good while since sodomy has been common, thereby having already selected sufficiently for the moral goodness that might be selected for, serves no good purpose whatseover, at least not that I know of, and will not until sodomy becomes fairly common again or seems like it is in a good way to before long become quite common again (a qualification is that drugs or drug cocktails, etc., could replace sodomy as love potions/rape drugs, in which case sexual cruelty could I suppose still be relevant, though I imagine the morals of how that would work would be quite different inasmuch as females as much as males can deploy love potions constructed from drugs, while females can't sodomize—at any rate, I have not considered this situation much and probably won't be interested in doing so).
I mentioned in the first part of the last paragraph that I am increasingly feeling the need to more balance my cat-girl theories with theories about other aspects of morality , but there are still a few moral discoveries I have made about the morals of young females getting off sexually on sexual cruelty that I feel are worth considering for a couple paragraphs. Recall that females being cruel to one male while loving another if carried to a high level could lead to a girl killing not just the hated male but his relatives also, since that is being more cruel to hated male. It seems very wrong that these relatives should be hurt unless they too are hated directly in a way that doesn't depend much if at all on how much his relatives are hated. People should mostly be judged as individuals. As I have mentioned earlier, if the authorized murderessess love greatly whomever they are having sex with, this killing of the hated male's relatives will likely give a kind of pleasure to the beloved they are having sex with, since hating someone because he is related to someone hated is akin to loving someone because he or she is related to someone loved, which last will be natural if the former is natural, and so it will be more natural and clean like for a male's lovers to love the thought of his having future offspring with other females on account of such offspring being related to someone loved, i.e., to the male they are having sex with. And a female loving her lover having children with other females is something pleasant to him, e.g., in it likely causing her to encourage other females to have reproduce with him. It's worth considering the appropriateness (in a society that practices human "sacrifice") of distinguishing females enjoying the look of a relative of someone she hates as he looks at his extremely hated relative being tortured to death and the look of the former (less certainly hated) relative as his relatives are killed later. It's very important that no relative of someone hated greatly (by authorized murderess) be killed just because his greatly hated relative be killed, and so in particular, if the authorized murderess doesn't enjoy the look on the less certainly hated relative when he sees his greatly hated relative being tortured to death, she presumably should not be allowed by her lover to kill the less-hated relative (not that such enjoyment, being presumably necessary for her to kill the less-certainly hated relative, should in any way be taken as sufficient), especially if she is enjoying killing him largely because of hate for his more certainly hated relative. That said, it is even more essential that a female not be forced in any way by her lover to look into killing someone's relatives just because before she started torturing him to death she enjoyed the look on his face while some particular greatly hated relative of his was already in the process of being killed before him. It is an important safety feature that a female be quite free from the possibility of her lover forcing her to murder someone (person B) because she hates his relative (person A) whom she is torturing to death. As always, her lover can force her not to murder someone, in particular someone she doesn't hate enough to enjoy the look of his face as one of his thoroughly hated relatives is getting killed (or, more importantly, if she doesn't act like she is torturing him sufficiently), but to go beyond that, for instance, by using that as an excuse to be less loving if she doesn't look for more of person B's relatives to see whether she wants to kill them also, is a wrong and quite dangerous interference with an authorized murderess's tendency only to especially get off on murdering someone's relatives when she loves the thought of her lover attracting other females because she loves her lover extremely much; anything that interferes with this tendency of such murders to be conditional on the murderesses' great love for the male is highly imprudent for any society to allow even if it trusts a female and her lover enough to permit her to sexually get off on the look of a thoroughly-hated person as his relatives are getting killed, which relatives of course should not be killed unless they are well-hated in themselves. I think a fairly enlightened society that doesn't restrict girls' freedom to not kill (or to not look into killing) relatives of someone she hates thoroughly would on average be quite skilled at distinguishing between a girl getting off on killing someone's relatives because she feels so much love for her lover she can't help enjoying it greatly, and a girl pretending or being forced into pretending such. And of course society would feel even more safe about allowing such killing of relatives to happen if her lover would force her to not do it unless she showed strong evidence that she hates outright in themselves the relatives killed. But if authorized murderesses are killing relatives of someone just because her lover expects it and would love her better or otherwise force her into it, and if such persuasion or force were deemed appropriate by society (a persuasion or force that I believe would likely be rather obvious if one is looking out for it) the killing of relatives may in its superficial characteristics seem similar to a female enjoying the killing of relatives of someone she hates because she loves her lover greatly, and so it will be much harder to tell (e.g., by society or by girls thinking of joining in) whether the girl would choose to kill from love if not forced, and indeed whether the girl even loves her lover or whether the "love" is all or significantly just manufactured hype for evil purposes. Any sort of mistake when trying to figure out about catsy morals I find tends to make me at best quite gloomy and distressed, I suppose because it's hard to say whether the spirit guardians of the universe or one's own self-destructive tendencies (it's not illogical to think that there is some part of the human genome that could have self-destructive tendencies more tending toward the survival of the species or the natural world of mostly life itself than toward the survival of the individual possessing it, especially, it seems to me, though I haven't thought things through precisely, if this part of the genome is not closely linked with the other parts of the genome, and has a slow mutation rate), or whatever, is considering destroying me and damning me with cat punishment (though mostly catsy types or cat-spirits or whatever judge according to a feeling about the innate tendencies of the judged, I feel like when it comes to egregious errors of the morals of cruelty, they judge by deeds) for a long period or eternally, a sign they believe I have gone beyond my expertise level and should stop or slow down thinking about it unless I am quite sure it is right thing to do (considering the spirits of the universe hates it), at least for a while, or whether they just want to encourage me to improve my understanding about the particular matters I'm considering, or to scare me enough to be more wary and careful next time. That said, it's always (to me anyway) beautiful and pleasant making new moral discoveries concerning cruelty in catlike sexual morals as they should maybe apply between humans, though I suppose much of the beauty of it in the case of my own person comes from my resolve to use understanding of it to try to lessen or destroy the evil of a general confusion that could promote what I call Alignerism, as I have explained a kind of cat-impostor behavior associated with occultism. But any time one thinks about a branch of some subject, e.g., a branch of morality, that relates in a significant way to the other branches, one is going to have diminishing returns concentrating on that branch once one's understanding of that branch becomes so great as to be unbalanced with respect to one's understanding of the other branches. And imbalance can be a sign of excessive disrespect for people more wise about what you are so ignorant about as to be imbalanced about. Obviously, it is reasonable to concentrate one's efforts at understanding to a certain extent when it is especially important to understand some particular subject (as it is especially important for me to understand clean sexual cruelty in order to counteract the evils of cat impostors such as the aligner weirdos), but as one's concentration in thought has led to a concentrated understanding, it becomes increasingly reasonable to be less concentrated.
Another thing torturesses (in a society that tolerates authorized murderesses, aka human sacrifice priestesses) might do during authorized murders is to highly coordinate their tortures with each other, e.g. (I don't know, females probably have a much better sense probably of how to torture painfully), by, e.g., one torturess flaying one part of a nerve while another torturess flays another part of it so as to maximize the pain. This coordination is the sort of thing their lover might especially enjoy if he is loved by the torturesses, since it is something more likely to happen if they find what the other is doing beautiful, a sense of beauty that tends to make them more keen on sexual sharing (I suppose tending to increase his sex partners). But I don't think it wrong for males to encourage that sort of thing by being more loving if it happens—it's definitely something that increases the pain of the torture, which it is basically right for him to always do. Sure, this moral opinion being general would make it easier for a male to force girls into torturing so as to create hype, but that's a heap safer than forcing girls into killing a male's relatives so as to create hype. And if torturess girls don't naturally enjoy coordinating their tortures with one another and yet are in some sense forced or bribed into doing so, the result will be a strong acquaintance on their part with how unpleasantly disturbing and useless to themselves such coordinating of their tortures be. This sense will likely make it much more unlikely (because they don't love their lover enough for it to be much enjoyable) for them to kill relatives of someone they hate even though they aren't much if at all into hating such relatives, such killing thus a highly wrongly disturbing thing for them to do. Of course it is especially pleasant to the male for torturesses he is having sex with to coordinate their torturings, and partly this pleasure indeed arises from a sense that his lovers getting off on such coordination is going to lead to them more wanting to enjoy the look on their victim's face as his relatives are getting killed. Probably males being tortured have evolved to find especially painful such coordinated torture because it is a sign some if not many of their relatives are going to be killed as well. True, being evolved to feel thus won't help much if they are being tortured by authorized murderess cat-girl torturesses in a stable society, because their victims are almost certainly going to be helpless—by the time they feel the pain, it will be too late for them to do anything about it, and a sense that such pain is possible won't save them because cat girls mostly believe in punishing people according to how bad they naturally are as opposed to how bad their behavior has been, which might make one question how such sensitivity to pain could have evolved. But realistically, human society so far always has periodically had chaos as a result of cruel war or lawlessness, tending to lead to an associated anarchy, and in such tragic situations fear of being tortured by torturesses harmonizing their tortures with one another can cause males to alter their behavior sufficiently so as to not much risk this (and the mass murder of their relatives) happening, e.g., by reducing their tendency to rape, forcibly sodomize, murder, plunder, etc., others, which could lead to being hated enough for females to especially want to do such tortures to them. In lawful peaceful times girls can enjoy the pain which coordinating the tortures they inflict can cause because what happens in non-peaceful times, where law less rules, had caused it to be adaptive for males to fear such pain quite generally. In such times of chaos, you are likely to be judged (quickly) more by others' perceptions of your works than by others' perception of your beliefs or true character, partly because speed is necessary and partly because deterrence is essential; girls then mostly won't be like the Lutheran or Calvinist God and they will mostly justify you by your deeds and you won't be destined to live (nor to not have your relatives killed on your account) just from your natural character. They will hate you for what you did and may well punish you and (if you've been very bad) your relatives, accordingly. Just as the prevalence of sodomy has caused girls to enjoy loving while feeling cruelty, the (periodic) prevalence of times filled with chaotic times of rape and pillage, etc., with only vigilante justice, has caused males to specially find coordinated sexual torture of themselves especially painful. Anyway, if girls are having sex with a male while they are committing authorized murder (because society allows human "sacrifice" priestesses and one of them is democratically authorized to murder another victim), the male if loved sufficiently by the torturesses will feel that the coordination of the torture is something necessary for them to do in order to make a highly painful torture. Coordination of torture is something a good male should want if to him the females feel loving enough that they would enjoy it, and in fact it is in a way something he should want just as he should want the torture of the females' victim to be painful. But though the male if good may in some sense (weakly) hope that an authorized murderess or her female assistants will want to check out their victim's relatives to see if they want to kill the bad of them as well, it isn't something that he should want in the sense that he would do something like love the murderesses more if they check out the possibility of killing the relatives of their victim; about all he should do that may feel in some sense like he partly wants it because it's directly encouraging of girls to kill relatives of the murder victims is to try to make everything about the authorized murder as beautiful and good and morally right as possible given that society has decided to allow such murders. It is not wrong to enjoy doing right when doing right is enjoyable because it is what most likely could cause you to be allowed by the (largely good-loving) majority (or thereabouts) to engage in highly pleasant activities, nor wrong to fear doing wrong partly because doing wrong is what most likely could cause you not to be allowed to engage in the highly pleasant activities, especially if what soothes your sexual fears of not being allowed to engage in the activities are activities that to some other male are the extreme opposite of having his sexual fears soothed, which makes for a sexually pleasant and prudent contrast (directly in the females and indirectly in their lover). In a world with authorized murderesses, nothing wrong with enjoying trying to be good enough at the morals of authorized murder so as to not cause society to feel uncomfortable with your lovers being allowed to participate. That said, it would be rather selfish I should think to concentrate largely on understanding the morals of authorized murder in order to encourage society to allow authorized murderesses, who, say, one could speculate might well decide to do their murders while having sex with someone who had studied the matter enough to be a moral expert about it. Such selfishness might warp society in a particular direction whose beauty probably doesn't depend especially on the sexual need of the warper. In defense of myself, I am not thinking and fantasizing largely about the morals of sexual cruelty, authorized murderesses, etc., just from the pleasure of it, but because it is largely what people especially need to understand to stop the evils of alignerism, and understanding alignerism will not only tend to stop alignerism, but will also bring moral englightenment in other places, especially as to the evil of sodomy and the misplaced fear of love because love is confused with sodomy.
It's worth mentioning that one of the two prominent individuals I know of who contemporaneously felt rampant sexual perversity (in particular homosexuality) was responsible for the rise of Hitler and the concomitant fanatical antisemitism in Germany was Jewish, namely the Jewish historian Samuel Igra, who wrote a hundred page book about the matter, Germany's National Vice. In my opinion, Igra is more effective at explaining how male homosexuality played a role in the First World War as opposed to the second, going at length into the Eulenberg affair. That said, he does point out one quite convincing clue suggesting the role of male homosexuality in causing the rise of Hitler and his antisemitism: Hitler outright says in Mein Kampf that he largely became antisemitic while in Vienna on account of the Jewish press having insufficient respect for the Kaiser (read Igra's book linked to above for the quotes in Mein Kampf more-or-less suggesting this). Since while Hitler was in Vienna occurred the very much publicized Eulenburg trial in which many accusations of homosexuality occurred against high ranking officials, in particular military officials, surrounding the Kaiser, and since the leading criticism of Eulenburg and his nasty pals in the German military occurred in Vienna from the columns of journalist and editor Maximilian Harden, who had adopted Christianity, but who was the son of a Jewish father, which Jewish background was heavily emphasized by his opponents, the simplest and most reasonable interpretation of a meaning of his writings in Mein Kampf concerning his time in Vienna was that he decided he hated Jews because Maximilian Harden and similar at least somewhat Jewish journalists in Vienna shamed the Kaiser and the German military establishment for their connection with homosexuals. In other words, it's highly reasonable to interpret Hitler's writings about his opinions of the Viennese Press during his time in Vienna as suggested by his own writings in Mein Kampf, that he largely became an antisemite because he hated what nowadays the pro-sodomy types call homophobia, or at least homophobia that might insult the leaders and associates of the German military machine, and he felt that Jews hated sodomy more than typical people, or at any rate were most salient in criticizing the homosexuality around the Kaiser and the German military. Igra, by quoting Hitler's own writings, makes a convincing case that an intense resentment of what now pro-sodomy individuals call homophobia (or a desire to pander to the thuggish warmonger types wanting to rally around such resentment), and more particularly homosexual behavior associated with the military, may well have caused Hitler down the path of antisemitism that led to the holocaust, at least to a significant degree. The other contemporary person I know of who argued Nazi violence might be caused by rampant sexual perversion (in particular, homosexuality) was Robert Townsend Smallbones (mentioned by Igra), the British Consul-General in Frankfurt-am-Main, who ought to be widely famous and celebrated for having saved 48,000 Jews from the holocaust by arranging after Kristallnacht to first send them to Britain with the understanding that they would a couple years or so later go to America. I will quote what he wrote to the English Ambassador in Berlin a little more than one month after Kristallnacht:
I have served in Germany for some eight years. I have known the Germans, when I was stationed at Munich, in the hour of their humiliation after the war, and I have been at this post since 1932. I flattered myself that I understood the German character, and I have worked for an Anglo-German understanding to the best of my ability. Recent events have revealed to me a facet of the German character which I had not suspected. They seemed to me to have no cruelty in their make-up. They are habitually kind to animals, to children, to the aged and infirm. The explanation of this outbreak of sadistic cruelty may be that sexual perversion, and in particular homo-sexuality, are very prevalent in Germany. It seems to me that mass sexual perversity may offer an explanation for this otherwise inexplicable outbreak. I am persuaded that, if the Government of Germany depended on the suffrage of the people, those in power and responsible for these outrages would be swept away by a storm of indignation if not put up against a wall and shot.[Papers concerning the Treatment of German Nationals in Germany, 1938-1939, pg. 20]
The many reasons I believe that James Earl Ray snatched Elizabeth Ernstein within hours after vacating the St. Francis Hotel, and then murdered her (mostly written in about 2021).
Recall that my 2021 post brought us to March 18, 1968, the day James Earl Ray left the St. Francis Hotel in Los Angeles to drive east a few weeks before shooting Martin Luther King, Jr., in Memphis on April 4, 1968. To best understand what was behind the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Francis Kennedy, follow the trail of murdered girls and young women.
Let's start with Elizabeth Ernstein. After school on Monday, March 18, 1968, Elizabeth Ernstein, 14, left Moore Junior High School (now Moore Middle School) at 3:40 pm, in Redlands, California, to return to her home south of nearby Mentone. This is about a 1.5 mile walk east along Highland Avenue, the most direct route. That day, for whatever reason, she apparently made a detour one block north, for she was seen a few minutes after school walking east on Citrus, towards her home on Crafton Avenue near Highland. Citrus Avenue was busier than Highland Avenue—perhaps that day she sensed a danger ahead of her on Highland.
Redlands is about a one-hour, ten-minute drive east of Los Angeles on I-10. I-10 is probably the best route to take from LA headed east to destinations in the southern part of the United States, such as New Orleans, where Ray was headed when he left LA on March 18 (some sources say he left late on the 17th). Ray makes a special point in his HSCA testimony to mention that he drove more leisurely on this trip than he did when he drove to New Orleans a few months earlier in December 1967—Ray mentions that this March it took three or four days (rather than 36 hours, as it did in December). That Ray may have had something to do with the abduction/killing of Elizabeth Ernstein could well be an explanation for his slowness. Also, Ray conveniently couldn't remember where he spent nights on this trip. True, in Arizona especially, I-10 had gaps, but then so did I-8, the more southerly alternative. And even if he did take I-8, I-10 would have been a good way to get to the roads leading to Yuma and I-8, bypassing San Diego. Standard opinion should be that Ray very well may have been next to Redlands on March 18, being on an efficient route headed east toward New Orleans, Atlanta, and (eventually) the assassination of MLK in Memphis on April 4.
James Earl Ray is believed to have been antisemitic. Elizabeth Ernstein was Jewish. And then you've got the street names.
Highland Avenue is the shortest route from Ernstein's junior high school to her house at 776 Crafton Avenue. Ray bought his Ford Mustang in 1967 in Birmingham, Alabama, when he was living (using the alias Eric Starvo Galt) on a Highland Avenue.
The first few months Ray was in LA, he stayed at an apartment at 1535 N. Serrano Avenue, a few blocks southeast of the St. Francis Hotel where he would live for the last few months of his stay in LA. A shallow grave containing the remains of Elizabeth Ernstein were found in May 1969, and according to the May 21, 1969, San Bernardino Times,
...the grave was found in the Wrightwood area, one mile northwest of the intersection of Highways 138 and 2. It was approximately 200 yards northwest of Highway 2 and in an "open but brushy area," Sheriff's investigators reported.
Looking at online maps, this would put the location of the shallow grave somewhere near the intersection of Serrano and Pipeline Roads, about halfway between Wrightwood and Phelan. Elizabeth Ernstein's remains were not identified as hers until 2012. Serrano is a Spanish word meaning Highland (and Highlander) in English.
Serrano Road is also suggestive of Sandy Serrano, a witness of the RFK assassination who gave testimony suggesting a conspiracy that she later recanted. Could there be a tie-in between the murder of Ernstein and the assassination of RFK? Sirhan Sirhan was antisemitic as well; in fact his hatred of Israel is often given as his main reason for his shooting RFK (Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian Christian). The shooting was on the anniversary of the start of the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel and Egypt/Jordan/Syria/Iraq, and a few weeks before RFK's assassination RFK had declared his support for selling 50 Phantom fighter jets to Israel, which supposedly, according to Sirhan's excuses, played a major role in making him want to kill RFK.
The streets Ernstein would have to cross on her journey from school on Dearborn Street to her home on Crafton Avenue were, from west to east, Dearborn St., LaSalle St., Wabash Ave., Opal Ave., Walnut St., King St., and Crafton Ave. Each block is one-quarter mile wide, and so it would be about a 1.5 mile walk if she had gone straight east on Highland.
To me just that James Earl Ray, a murdering racist anti-Semite, likely passed by Redlands on the day Ernstein was abducted to be murdered, should make him a person of interest. Throw in his recent connections with Highland Avenue and the Serrano Apartments, suggested by the geography of the Ernstein case, and Ernstein being last seen on Citrus just west of Crafton, Ray ought to have been a strong person of interest. For the street one block west of Crafton is King Street, and Ray went on to shoot Martin Luther King just 17 days after Ernstein vanished, and there is other evidence of Ray being superstitious (e.g., when he finally reached Atlanta he stayed around the corner from where the author of Gone with the Wind was fatally injured by a car, and as we shall see there are many likely intentional references in other violent crimes to the dam disaster that happened two days after he was born).
Dearborn Street, LaSalle Street, and Wabash Avenue are all prominent north-south streets passing through the Chicago Loop (the central business district of Chicago); it should be a fairly safe assumption, I'd say, that the corresponding streets in Redlands, the first three streets Ernstein would cross on her way home from school, were named after the ones in Chicago. Consequently, it might be particularly worthwhile looking for references to events associated with the corresponding streets in Chicago.
The deadliest structural fire (602 dead) in the United States until 9/11 happened December 30, 1903, at the Iroquois Theatre in Chicago, Illinois, at 24-28 Randolph Street between Dearborn and State. But the theatre was L-shaped, and so the back end of the stage on the west side of the building happened to be along a vacant lot on Dearborn Street, where there was an exit (used during the fire) from the back of the stage (besides the doors on Randolph and Dearborn, there were also stage-left and fire escape exits on the alley-like Couch Street along the north side of the theatre.
Less interesting, but I suppose worth mentioning, is that two blocks south of the Iroquois Theater was the McVicker's Theater on Madison Street between Dearborn and State, where on April 23, 1877, a man originally from Keokuk, Iowa, by the name of Mark Gray twice shot at (but missed) John Wilkes Booth's brother Edwin Booth as the latter was performing as Richard in Shakespeare's play Richard II. Recall that James Earl Ray had escaped from the Missouri Penitentiary on April 23, 1967,and in 1998 he would die on April 23. I believe McVicker's was closer to Dearborn than to State, but the Chicago Tribune building did sit between McVicker's and Dearborn. At the time of the shooting, Edwin Booth was married to the daughter of the McVicker who owned the theater.
The third-deadliest maritime disaster in the United States (behind the Sultana explosion/fire of 1865 and the General Slocum fire of 1904) was the capsizing at dock of the steamship Eastland (848 dead) on July 24, 1915. Eastland was preparing to leave its berth on the Chicago River when it capsized between LaSalle and Clark Streets. One block east of Clark was Dearborn. Laurence Frank Northrup, the bridge tender of the Dearborn Street bridge over the Chicago River, jumped into a lifeboat and saved about 23 from drowning.
Immediately before Richard Paul Pavlick is believed to have almost blown up President-Elect John F. Kennedy, Pavlick was living in a bungalow on Dearborn Street in Belmont, New Hampshire. (The Lincoln Continetal limousine in which JFK was assassinated, which was built in Wixom, Michigan, and remained in service after modifications until 1977, now resides in the Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan, but I imagine the present location of the limousine could not have been predicted in 1968.)
On 5 June 1947, a fire at the LaSalle Hotel in Chicago killed 61, including many children. The hotel was located at the northwest corner of North LaSalle and West Madison. It caught fire at about 12:15 am local (Chicago) time. RFK was shot 5 June 1968, at about 12:15 am local (Los Angeles) time. Recall that McVicker's Theater was basically two blocks to the east, one significant building east of the southeast corner of Dearborn and West Madison.
Chicago's Wabash Avenue doesn't have any direct connections I can find with major disasters. An elevated train wrecked there, killing 11, but this was in 1977 (on February 4), long after Elizabeth Ernstein's murder. And in 1898, 1902 and 1910 there were some structural fires on Wabash that each killed from 10-16 people (according to Wayne Blanchard's exhaustive list of American disasters), but they are each understandably rather obscure.
On April 23, 1968, the one year anniversary of James Earl Ray escaping from the Missouri penitentiary, Robert Kennedy campaigned in the Indiana primary on a special train on the Wabash Railroad referred to by the media as the Wabash Cannonball (he went from Logansport to Fort Wayne). (Recall the possible importance to German WWI saboteurs of the Fort Wayne and Wabash Valley Traction Company and its 1910 wreck at Kingsland, a name suggestive of Martin Luther King.) Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was born on the same day as the 1968 campaign-train event, and the 2018 Toronto van attack was on its 50th anniversary. The famous Wabash Cannonball song was actually about a train that did not exist when the song was originally written. Later, however, Wabash Railroad did name a train the “Wabash Cannonball”. The song mentions Birmingham:
Well she came down from Birmingham one cold December day
As she pulled into the station you could hear all the people say
She's from Tennessee she's long and she's tall
She came down from Birmingham on the Wabash Cannonball
James Earl Ray may have been superstitious about Birmingham. He bought his 1966 Ford Mustang in Birmingham, AL, when he lived on Highland Avenue. The St. Francis Hotel was located at the NW corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Garfield Place. President Garfield was fatally wounded by a gun manufactured in Birmingham, England, and bought at Rhodes' tavern near the White House, while Ray made an out-of-the way trip from Atlanta to buy his gun in Birmingham, AL. (As for Rhodes, Sharon Rhodes was in Long Beach a dance instructor of Ray when he was in LA, and according to his testimony, Ray after shooting King wanted to get to Rhodesia.)
But to get to the heart of what is likely behind the Wabash Cannonball reference, you've got to look closer at how LBJ won his Silver Star medal. On the morning of 9 June 1942, LBJ was in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, an observer awaiting takeoff in a B26 Marauder identified by the media as the Wabash Cannonball, when he had to get up to relieve himself (or possibly retrieve a camera). Upon his return, he found his seat had become occupied by Lieutenant Colonel Francis Robert Stevens. Accordingly, LBJ switched planes, finding a seat instead in another B26, namely Heckling Hare. The plane identified as Wabash Cannonball was chased down by Japanese Zeroes after its bombing run, causing the loss of all onboard as it crashed into the sea. (Modern accounts of the incident mostly indicate that the plane carrying Stevens was not actually nicknamed Wabash Cannonball but Virginian; however, newspaper accounts concerning LBJ's medal were until recently seemingly universal as identifying (wrongly, I suppose) the plane as Wabash Cannonball. Obviously what matters for purposes of figuring out what was motivating the assassins/murderers is what they thought the plane was called.) Heckling Hare, on the other hand, ended up turning around on account of a mechanical problem before its bombs were released. LBJ and everyone on Heckling Hare survived,while Francis Robert Stevens and everyone else on the plane identified as Wabash Cannonball perished. I suppose the way the assassin/murderer may have seen it, Francis Robert Stevens takes LBJ's place as observer by riding the Wabash Cannonball and promptly dies a violent death. Robert Francis Kennedy tries to take LBJ's place as president by riding the Wabash Cannonball (to help himself win the election) and promptly dies a violent death. In America, it was June 8 when Francis Robert Stevens died. Robert Francis Kennedy was buried June 8, 1968, the same day James Earl Ray was arrested by Scotland Yard at London's Heathrow Airport.
Sirhan Sirhan was purportedly born 19 March 1944. Lieutenant Willis G. Bench, pilot of the plane identified as Wabash Cannonball (which recall was lost with all on board off Papua New Guinea after LBJ had given up his seat) was born 19 March 1918. Apparently Ernstein was taken the day before Sirhan's 24th birthday and (what would have been) Bench's 50th.
The next street to be crossed by Ernstein after Wabash would be Opal. Recall that as a result of poor visibility during a blizzard on 12 January 1918, HMS Opal and HMS Narborough wrecked (188 dead and exactly one survivor) in the Orkneys off the east coast of South Ronaldsay at Hesta Head, and that the date is weird because the Minnie Pit mine disaster (155 dead) in Staffordshire was earlier the same day, i.e., 12 January 1918. Some searching on my part suggests that HMS Opal would be probably the only prominent “opal” disaster ever, at least until Hurricane Opal (a not especially deadly hurricane as hurricanes go) in 1995. In California in 1968, a well-known figure was a Ronald, namely the then governor, future US President Ronald Reagan. Perhaps Reagan from his first name “Ronald” was considered by the murderers as being a prominent politician that was “Ronaldsy”, which along with “Ronaldsy” being a near homophone of “Ronaldsay” maybe was enough to help cause him to be considered an ideal future target of assassination, and of course he was a target when John W. Hinckley, Jr., shot and seriously wounded him at the Washington Hilton on 30 March 1981. The Opal/Narborough incident, occurring during a blizzard the same day as a major mine disaster, is somewhat reminiscent of the 6 December 1875 running aground of the Deutschland, a German ship which ran aground (157 dead) on the Kentish Knock shoal off the mouth of the Thames as a result of poor visibility during a blizzard the same day that the Swaithe Main Colliery explosion killed 143 near Barnsley, England, and that the Llan Colliery explosion killed 16 in Gwaelod-y-Garth in Cardiff, Wales. And the slowness of the English rescue effort during the Deutschland disaster is something some Germans took offense to, much as many (more obviously justly) took offense at the circumstances (e.g., iron weights in the life jackets) of the General Slocum disaster.
On their last patrol, destroyers Opal and Narborough were searching for minelayers or submarines trying to sink British ships near the British main naval base at Scapa Flow in the Orkneys, Scotland. On 5 June 1916, thirty years to the day before the LaSalle Hotel fire, the armoured cruiser HMS Hampshire was sunk thus near Scapa Flow, killing 737, including the British Secretary of State for War, Lord Kitchener. The reason the Opal and Narborough were patrolling when they ran aground was to prevent just such another disaster. Fritz Jubert Duquesne later claimed that he had given secret information to German submarines enabling the latter to sink Hampshire, but evidence gleaned by divers on the Hampshire wreck suggest the ship was sunk by a mine rather than by torpedo. Duquesne led the German Duquesne spy ring based in New York City, which was unravelled by the FBI shortly before America entered World War II. During World War I, Duquesne purportedly led the German effort to assassinate Frederick Russell Burnham, who thwarted the 1910 assassination attempt in El Paso, Texas, of then President Howard Taft. Burnham and his agents had been hired to guard Taft by John Hays Hammond, as in the Hammond, Indiana, Hagenbeck-Wallace circus train wreck of 22 June 1918. (Hagenbeck, a German, died in Hamburg one year to the day after Titanic hit the iceberg.) On 5 June 1942, just a few days before LBJ would have his brush with death in Papua New Guinea (I suppose less interesting is what a normal date-knowledgeable person would observe, namely that it's the day after America's great naval victory off Midway Island), the US Army Elwood Ordinance Plant would explode near Elgin, Illinois, killing 48 (in the same state as Chicago and thus the LaSalle Hotel which would catch fire four years to the day later). The Elwood Ordinance Plant explosion and the 12 September 1940, Hercules Powder plant explosion of 270,000 lbs. of gunpowder in Kenvil, NJ, were I believe the deadliest US munitions plant explosions during WWII. (The Kenvil explosion was exactly two years before the infamous Laconia incident.)
The next street Ernstein would cross would be Walnut Street. As with “opal”, there's only one large disaster I have found involving “walnut”. The Walnut Grove, Arizona, dam disaster of February 22, 1890, killed about 100. On February 22, 1974, Samuel Byck attempted to hijack a DC-9 at BWI Airport in Maryland with the idea (it is believed) of flying it into the White House. Byck killed a pilot and a policeman before being shot dead by a police officer. The plane never budged. The similarity of Byck's attempt with Osama bin Laden's later 9/11 attack is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. BWI is quite close to Tipton Field, where US Army Private Robert Preston hijacked a Huey helicopter on February 17, 1974, the anniversary of the 1950 Rockville Centre train wreck (32 dead), which wreck was on the same railroad as the Richmond Hill or Kew Gardens train wreck mentioned in the last post, and only about nine months earlier. Preston's helicopter actually reached the White House grounds.
In 1968, I-10 had gaps in Arizona, occasioning taking US 60 east of Brenda. It wasn't until 1973 that the Brenda Cutoff portion of I-10 east of Brenda, AZ went almost straight toward Tonopah and Phoenix. In particular, in 1968, the gaps in I-10 required one to take US 60 through Wickenburg to go east from Brenda to Phoenix, a somewhat roundabout route. The Walnut Grove dam disaster destroyed pretty much everything downstream of the dam south to Wickenburg. A day or so after Ernstein was taken, assuming Ray had taken the I-10 route east, Ray very well may have driven through Wickenburg on US 60. He would have been at or near the area devastated by the Walnut Grove dam disaster.
A prominent RFK assassination-related conspiracy theory asserts that part-time Ace Security guard Thane Eugene Cesar may have shot RFK from behind during the assassination with his gun. I am skeptical, but it's worth noting (given likely Murphy references in the assassination of his brother JFK) that in the hours before the assassination he mainly was directed by Ace commander Fred “Pat” Murphy (and to some extent by the Ambassador Hotel Chief-of-Security William Gardner).
RFK was shot next to a serving kitchen (or pantry) next to a kitchen next to the famous Cocoanut Grove nightclub, part of the Ambassador Hotel. (I suppose some or all of the food served in the Cocoanut Grove was prepared in this kitchen, though I haven't seen any definitive statements to that effect.) Presumably the infamous Cocoanut Grove nightclub in Bay Village, Boston, less than three miles from where Bobby Kennedy was born and raised in Brookline, was named after this Cocoanut Grove nightclub in Los Angeles. The Boston Cocoanut Grove fire of 28 November 1942 killed 492. It is the third deadliest US structural fire/(non-munitions) explosion (behind 9/11 and the aforementioned Iroquois Theatre fire). According to the NFPA list, the fourth deadliest would be the Ohio State Penitentiary Fire (320 dead) of 21 April 1940. The 1967 Belvidere/Oak Lawn tornado (57 dead), which killed 17 high school kids in Belvidere, Illinois, tossing their school buses about like it was nothing, occurred on its anniversary, just two days before Ray escaped from the Missouri State Penitentiary. (He escaped on the anniversary of the 23 April 1940 Natchez, MS, Rhythm Club fire (209 dead) that is seventh on the list; but that disaster killed only African-Americans, and so I am hesitant to say Ray would count that as a disaster.) Ernstein was last seen alive on the anniversary of the 18 March 1937 New London, TX, school explosion (294 dead), the fifth deadliest according to the NFPA list. After the Knickerbocker Theatre in DC collapsed (98 dead) on 22 January 1922 from too much snow on its roof, it was rebuilt using the old foundation and facade and called the Ambassador (a coincidence that in my present estimation was quite probably of no significance whatsoever to the killers, but in central cases it is right for the careful to know about the weakly suggestive coincidences as well as the strongly suggestive ones).
Elizabeth Ernstein purportedly was born 22 May 1953. On 22 May 1967, a department store fire killed 251 in Brussels, Belgium. On 22 May 1968, a helicopter crashed (23 dead) in Paramount, California, killing more people on a helicopter in the US than is the case with any accident before or since. The same day, nuclear submarine USS Scorpion sank (99 dead). Scorpion was the sister ship to Thresher, which recall sank the day Oswald shot at General Walker. Scorpion was declared lost several weeks later, on 5 June 1968, the day RFK was shot. Recall that the Quintinshill rail disaster and some sabotage in Tacoma, Washington, happened on 22 May 1915. Hard to say what all those coincidences mean if anything, but they are worth noting, if for no other reason that they may well have motivated future murders, etc., up to the present day.
Anyway, the particulars of the murder of Elizabeth Ernstein seem to suggest at least somewhat a killer obsessed with disasters, with possible involvement by James Earl Ray and Sirhan Sirhan. Obviously this hypothesis becomes more likely if there is evidence of obsession with the St. Francis Dam disaster, given that (1) Ray was born two days before this disaster, (2) RFK's middle name is “Francis”, (3) Ray left the St. Francis Hotel on the day Ernstein was taken, and (4) the murderer Winston Moseley who is most associated with the killing (that of Kitty Genovese) most strongly associated with the disaster associated with JFK's assassination escaped on the day Ernstein was abducted and had perhaps started following Genovese on the night she was murdered at the approximate time (Pacific Time) of the anniversary of the St. Francis Dam disaster. One doesn't have to look far for such evidence of an obsession with St. Francis Dam disaster—just follow the trail of dead bodies and disappearances of young females.
The St. Francis Dam was built by what is today called the LA Department of Water and Power, whose chief engineer and general manager was William Mulholland. Mulholland inspected the dam on the morning before the dam disaster, and he decided that the new leak was not dangerous or serious enough to warrant immediate action.
In the early morning of December 30, 1968, Marina Elizabeth Habe, 17, was kidnapped in front of her house in West Hollywood, presumably as she was getting out of her sports car. She was a student at the University of Hawaii living at home with her mother during winter break. Recall December 30 is the anniversary of the Iroquois Theater fire. Two days later her body was found off Mulholland Drive just west of Bowmont Drive. Yes, Mulholland Drive is named after William Mulholland. Marina's father Hans Habe was a native Hungarian who mostly worked in Vienna until World War II, and came to fame after publishing in 1932 that Hitler's father originally had the last name Schicklgruber. His books became forbidden after the Anschluss, which happened 12 March 1938, the tenth anniversary of the St. Francis Dam disaster, and so from this and that he was of Jewish descent and was against the Nazis, he left Austria and Switzerland for the safer France. He joined the French Foreign Legion, but was captured. He escaped from the German prison camp and emigrated to the United States, joining the US Army as Private, but before long being promoted to Major.
On the night of May 18-19, 1969, Los Angeles Valley State Junior College coed Rose Tashman was last seen alive at her car parked on the inbound Highland Avenue off-ramp of the Hollywood Freeway, where she had stopped for a flat tire. Her body was also found off Mulholland Drive, this time near (North) Beverly Drive, about one-half mile from where the body of Marina Habe had been left. Tashman was a native of Israel who had emigrated to the US with her family about seven years before she was murdered. Tashman was believed to have suffered the flat tire at about 2am Monday, May 19. But perhaps something had been done to the tire earlier, i.e., late on the 18th or earlier on the 19th. As mentioned earlier, May 18 is the anniversary of the 1902 Goliad tornado and the 1918 Oakdale, PA, Aetna munitions plant explosion (the deadliest US munitions plant explosion during WWI). May 19 is the anniversary of the 1902 Coal Creek Company mine disaster in Fraterville, TN, that occurred the day after the tornado. Coal Creek gave its name to the infamous 1891 Coal Creek War that led to the creation of Brushy Mountain Penitentiary where James Earl Ray would later be imprisoned. May 19 is also the anniversary of our nation's seventh deadliest mine disaster, the 19 May 1928 Mather No. 1 explosion (195 dead) at Mather, PA.
Montreal, Quebec, resident Reet Jurvetson, 19, was found about 3:15pm on 16 November 1969, off the same Mulholland Drive, slightly east of where Marina Habe was found. She was believed to have been slain 24-48 hours before being found, which would put her time of death on 14 or 15 November. Most of the disaster murders tend to be organized around the time when they start (e.g., when abduction happens), I have observed. It is not known exactly what day Jurvetson went missing—it wasn't until 2016 that her remains, which had been named “Jane Doe 59” were identified as those of Jurvetson. The Cherry Coal Mine disaster of 13 November 1909 is our nation's third-deadliest mine disaster and is an Illinois disaster like the Murphysboro and Chicago disasters possibly referred to by the killer of Elizabeth Ernstein (and James Earl Ray was born in Illinois and had visited Montreal in the summer of 1967—he claimed to have met the mysterious “Raoul” figure there). Also of interest is that 14 November 1969 is exactly one year before the wreck of Southern Airways Flight 932, which killed most of the Marshall University football team at Tri-State Airport, Huntington, WV.
[2026 update:]Jurvetson's last communication with her family in Montreal was a postcard dated October 31, 1970, about two weeks before her murder. The return address was 5311 Melrose Avenue, Apt 306, Hollywood, California 90038, an address in what was then called the Paramount Hotel (near Paramount Studios). On May 22, 1968, a Sikorsky helicopter mostly carrying visitors from Disneyland to LAX airport, crashed in Paramount, California, killing all 23 on board. May 22, 1968, besides being an anniversary of the Quinstinshill train wreck, also would have been Elizabeth Ernstein's birthday, the first she presumably missed from having been murdered already. It was also the date that the nuclear-powered attack sub USS Scorpion sank, taking with her the lives of all 99 US sailors aboard; Scorpion was declared lost the same day RFK was shot by Sirhan Sirhan. Recall that Scorpion was the sister ship of the Thresher, which sank April 10, 1963, the day Oswald shot at General Walker. Recall that last year, on June 5, 2025, there was an anti-ICE riot in Paramount, California, and that John Mullican's blacksmith shop/tavern was located in Derwood, Maryland, at the south end of what is now Paramount Avenue and used to be Redland Road before 1983 or so. I have to believe that murderers' obsession with Lincoln conspirator George Atzerodt having taken a drink at this tavern, where Gaithersburg resident William Gaither had dropped him the day Lincoln died, is partly because Elizabeth Ernstein was walking home from her home in Redlands, California, when she vanished, and in all likelihood, James Earl Ray (and possibly even Sirhan Sirhan) was the murderer or one of the murderers. But Redland Road is not plural like Redlands; this in all likelihood was part of the motivation for another killing at another Redland, the choice apparently being the May 30, 1975, murder of Davie County Deputy Sheriff Officer Wayne Gaither on Redland Road in Advance, NC, and (making things extra-for-sure plural) then that of Captain Jack Conrad Renigar of the Forsyth County Sheriff Department at the south end of Redland Road.[end of update]
On 15 November 1970, at about 2 a.m., California Highway Patrol last saw Robin Graham, a Pierce College freshman, on the shoulder of the Hollywood Freeway near the Santa Monica Freeway, with her car, which apparently had run out of gas. She was travelling home after working at a Pier 1 Imports retail store located at 5711 Hollywood Boulevard, three blocks (400 yards) west of the St. Francis Hotel, 5533 Hollywood Boulevard, which James Earl Ray had vacated the day (or possibly the evening before) Elizabeth Ernstein was murdered. Using a highway call box, Robin Graham called her sister who was to tell her parents to pick her up upon the parents returning home. When her parents showed up to look for Robin not long after her phone call, Robin was missing and her car abandoned. She has not been seen or heard from again. Robin Ann Graham's father was an employee of LA Water and Power, the agency that (under a slightly different name) William Mulholland had led. Robin had graduated the previous spring from John Marshall High School, named after Chief Justice John Marshall, just like Marshall University. Flight 932 crashed some nine-and-one-half hours before she was last seen by the Highway Patrol. Tri-State Airport is partially homonymous with the Tri-State tornado that is to this day America's deadliest. Recall Ernstein was taken on the anniversary of this tornado, which devastated Murphysboro and West Frankfort, Illinois, especially.
I suppose it worth mentioning that (1) Hitler annexed Austria (the Anschluss) on 12 March 1938, the tenth anniversary of the St. Francis dam disaster. (2) On 22 September 1975, then President Gerald Ford was shot at by Sara Jane Moore as he was leaving the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco (a city named after St. Francis). The 18 April 1906 San Francisco earthquake (about 3000 dead) is California's deadliest disaster. That morning she had hastily purchased a .38 with a faulty sight after her .44 had been confiscated the day before; had she been using a non-defective gun, Ford may well have been killed. (3) The prime minister of Serbia was assassinated in Belgrade 12 March 2003, the 75th anniversary of the St. Francis dam disaster. He was shot by a sniper from the window of a building rather as in the MLK assassination, and the building was located on a street named after Admiral Émile Guépratte, who led the French fleet at the disastrous (for the Allied Powers) 18 March 1915 naval battle at the Dardanelles, which saw the loss of one French and two British battleships from Turkish mines. About 90% of the Allied casualties in the battle were the 639 dead from the lost French battleship Bouvet (nearly homophonic with Jackie Kennedy's maiden name Bouvier, despite there is an extra syllable in the latter). It could very well be that Aligners considered it a miraculous sign that the 18 March 1925 Tri-State tornado was exactly ten years after this Turkish victory. Recall that Ray may have left the St. Francis Hotel on 18 March 1968, also the day that Ernstein was murdered and that Winston Moseley escaped from prison. (4) Vladimir Arutyunian was born 12 March 1978, the 50th anniversary of the St. Francis dam disaster. Arutyunian threw a hand-grenade at George W. Bush and Mikheil Saakashvili (and bystanders) on 10 May 2005 in the capital of Georgia (NOT Atlanta, the capital of Georgia where Martin Luther King, Jr., was co-pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church from 1960 until his death, but in Tiflis, the capital of the country of Georgia in the Caucuses); his attempt was probably the most serious against a US president since Hinckley's attempt against Reagan [until the July 13, 2024, attempt against then former and future President Trump].
There are later murders that seem to refer back to the LaSalle Hotel and St. Francis Dam disaster. I wish to give an excellent example of this from Montreal, which recall is where the liar Ray said “Raoul” was from (sometimes lies suggest truths). First a few remarks about the Malbone Street wreck.
It appears the disaster killers were particularly obsessed with the November 1, 1918, Malbone Street wreck in Brooklyn, NY, at a tunnel entering Prospect Park station, the transit station for Ebbets Field, the ballpark for the Brooklyn Dodgers. Recall that Puerto Rican extremists tried to kill President Truman in 1950 on the anniversary of this disaster. (It made the national evening TV news on the 100th anniversary of the Malbone disaster that a synagogue near Prospect Park was defaced by graffiti which among other things supported pro-Puerto Rican nationalism.) There has been no deadlier U.S. train wreck since. Lisa White was last seen in 1974 in Rockville, CT, near the intersection of Prospect and Park, on the anniversary of this crash. On the same day, about two hours away from where White was abducted, Kim Benoit was abducted from West Adams, MA, near the west portal of the Hoosac Tunnel, probably the only U.S. railway tunnel associated with a greater number of deaths. (About 180 died from the work of constructing the tunnel, which took about 24 years to complete.) Benoit's body was found a couple weeks later down an embankment on MA Route 2 not too far from the east portal. And very early on the day following their abductions, Kathy Kolodziej was abducted from Cobleskill, New York, about two hours away from North Adams, her body being found several weeks later off a McDonald Road, which presumably refers to Mount Macdonald, from the shoulder of which (and also from the shoulder of the adjacent Avalanche Mountain) Canada's deadliest avalanche of snow killed 62 railway workers on the Rogers Pass below, before the Connaught tunnel underneath Mount Macdonald replaced the Hoosac Tunnel as longest North American railway tunnel. One month to the day after these disappearances and murders, the Franklin Avenue Shuttle train crashed at exactly the same spot as the train in 1918. If newspaper reports are to be believed, the 1 December crash was at 9:51 am, which is three minutes after a train passenger who got his foot caught in the door was dragged to his death onto the third rail at Huntington Station, Huntington, NY (Huntington, WV, is where most of the Marshall University football team was killed in the crash of Southern Airways Flight 932, and Eaton's Neck, Huntington, NY, is where the General Slocum was headed when it caught fire in 1904), and one hour nineteen minutes before the 11:09 am crash of TWA Flight 514 into Weather Mountain, Virginia, killing 92 in a crash similar to that of Flight 932 (both controlled flights into hills or mountains while on approach). On August 5, 1950, between the dates of the 1950 Rockville Centre and Kew Garden wrecks on the LIRR, there was a train wreck on the LIRR at Hungtington, NY.
Anyway, exactly ten years after these abductions, on November 1, 1984, Maurice Viens, 4, disappeared from a park just beyond what used to be the left field fence of the ballpark for the Brooklyn Dodgers' principal farm club, where Jackie Robinson got his start in professional baseball. He lived on Rue Dorion, as in the Dorion level crossing accident. Later that afternoon, Wilton Lubin, 12, and Sébastien Métivier, 8, were abducted after leaving the church Très-Saint-Nom-de-Jésus on Adams Street between Desjardins and LaSalle Avenues. The bodies of Lubin and Viens were found, while Métivier was never seen alive or dead again. The second deadliest Canadian train wreck is the 1857 Desjardins Canal wreck at Hamilton. The 1981 Tammy Leakey murder in Montreal and the Desjardins train wreck both happened on a March 12, also the date of the St. Francis Dam disaster. The LaSalle hotel fire at Chicago recall is apparently especially significant (to the disaster killers) because it started at 12:15am on a June 5 just as Robert Kennedy was shot at 12:15am on a June 5. The 1985 abduction of Denis Roux-Bergevin in Montreal was also on a June 5. The LaSalle Heights gas explosion happened on March 1, 1965, at the corner of Rue Bergevin and Rue Jean Milot on the island of Montreal. “Rue” sounds similar to “Roux”. The Wellington, Washington, avalanche of March 1, 1910, at Stevens Pass is the third deadliest U.S. railroad incident and deadliest U.S. avalanche, and occurred three days before the Rogers Pass avalanche in British Columbia was caused by the same snowstorm. Puerto Rican extremists shot up the Capitol building, injuring five Congressmen, on March 1, 1954. Sharron Prior was headed to a restaurant on Rue Wellington when she was abducted 29 March 1975 (four days after the Lyon sisters were abducted in Maryland). The 1966 Dorion level crossing accident near Montreal happened on Rue St. Charles, as in Pointe-St.-Charles, where Prior and Leakey were taken. And Pointe-St.-Charles is also closely associated with the Black Rock commemorating the disastrous deaths of thousands of Irish immigrants in nearby fever sheds from typhus.
What I basically wrote in 2021 about (mostly) the Donna Maria Boudreau murder in Fitchburg, Massachusetts.
Since 2015, I have been investigating in my spare time whether murders of young people tend to have in their particulars references to disasters . There seems to especially be such a pattern in murders in Massachusetts from 1973 to 2000.
Donna Maria Boudreau, 18, Fitchburg, May 5, 1973. She was last seen alive on what would have been Leon Czolgosz's 100th birthday. The gun which Czolgosz used to kill President McKinley and the gun which Sirhan Sirhan used to kill RFK were made by Iver Johnson, and thus presumably manufactured in Fitchburg. Czolgosz was born the day after the May 4, 1873, Truesdell bridge disaster (46 dead), which happened next to the high school where Ronald Reagan1 would later go to high school and where the school shooting was thwarted May 16, 2018, by Dixon High Resource Officer Mark Dallas on the anniversary of the Williamsburg, Massachusetts, Mill River Dam disaster (and the fifth anniversary of Mary Richardson Kennedy supposedly committing suicide)--at the time of the 2018 school shooting, Hinckley was living in the even more historic Williamsburg, namely Williamsburg, Virginia. Upstream from the site of the old bridge, Reagan, as a lifeguard at Lowell Park Beach on the Rock River, had kept 77 people from drowning and floating downstream to (I suppose in the mythology of the murderers) feed corpses to the hungry spirit behind the Truesdell Bridge disaster. Brenda LaCombe was last seen alive in 1982 on the anniversary of the Mill River Flood, leaving the apartment building in Lowell, Massachusetts, named after James Bircheno Francis, the illustrious engineer who coauthored the official American Society of Civil Engineers reports on the dam failures behind the Mill River and Johnstown Floods. Francis's flood control gate is adjacent to the apartment building and has saved many lives in Lowell from flooding.
Boudreau was last seen walking on Summer Street near John Fitch Highway. Summer Street, Boston, is where the Great Boston Fire of 1872 (about 30 dead) started on November 9. Moreover, on November 7, 1916, the day President Wilson was reelected, trolley car #393 of the Boston Elevated Railway ran off the edge of the open Summer Street retractable bridge (near South Station, Boston) into Fort Point Channel, in what is still (46 dead) the deadliest US trolley disaster and what was the deadliest Boston disaster until the Cocoanut Grove Fire of 1942. The Bolsheviks came to power with the storming of the Winter Palace on the one year anniversary of the Summer Street bridge disaster (summer is opposite and in some sense opposed to winter). German aircraft sank the Soviet hospital ship Armenia (about 6000 dead) on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Summer Street bridge disaster. The deadliest-ever ship sinking (about 9000 dead) was the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff by Soviet submarine attack on 30 January 1945. Wilhelm Gustloff was sunk on the 50th birthday of the man the ship was named after, a Nazi who founded the Swiss branch of the Nazi Party/Foreign-Organization in Davos, Switzerland, and who was assassinated 4 February 1936. A commonly acclaimed theory (I'm guessing wrong) is that when she sank, the Gustloff was carrying the disassembled Amber Room of the Catherine Palace. When near the capital St. Petersburg, the last tsars tended to stay at the Catherine Palace south of the city during the summer (making it in some sense the de facto summer palace), while staying at the Winter Palace during the winter. The sixth paragraph of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment explains the reason the well-to-do left town during the summer: St. Petersburg smelled bad during the summer. The wallet of Theresa Allore when found contained a ticket to a 7 November 1975 performance of a theatrical production of Crime and Punishment, a ticket that was older than the wallet. Her brother John feels her murder is especially likely to be related to those of Louise Camerand and Manon Dube. Camerand frequented the William Street Armory of the Sherbrooke Hussars, of which she was a member, located formerly next to Winter and Summer Streets in Sherbrooke (Winter Street was later extended to include what used to be called Summer Street, causing there now to be no street in Sherbrooke named Summer Street). Summer Street in Boston also is adjacent to a Winter Street, the streets meeting at the edge of the 1872 fire zone. November 7, 1975, is not just an anniversary—it is the actual day of the public reburial ceremonies of F. Scott and Zelda Sayre Fitzgerald into St. Mary's Ceremony from nearby Rockville Cemetery. When abducted, Manon Dube was walking home after having been sledding behind a bank on Rue Belvedere. The Belvidere tornado happened two days before James Earl Ray escaped from the Missouri penitentiary on 23 April 1967. When the Truesdell bridge was built in Dixon, I believe it was built using girders manufactured at the Truesdells' factory in Belvidere, IL. There are streets named Galt (the alias of James Earl Ray) and King (as in MLK) near where Dube was sledding.
Boudreau was living at the time of her murder at 84 Highland Avenue in Fitchburg. On 10 March 1948, James Earl Ray's twentieth birthday, Zelda Sayre Fitzgerald and eight others were killed by a fire in Asheville, NC, at the central building of the Highland Hospital for the Mentally Diseased. James Earl Ray (using alias Eric Starvo Galt) bought his Mustang in 1967 when he was living on Highland Avenue in Birmingham. In Los Angeles, Ray stayed a couple months at the Serrano Apartments before he stayed at the St. Francis Hotel, and Sandy Serrano is probably the most controversial witness in the RFK assassination—serrano means "highland" in Spanish. Ray was born two days before the St. Francis Dam collapse, for which William Mulholland, the chief of Los Angeles Water and Power at the time, did take the blame. In 1969, the bodies of three young recently murdered women (Marina Habe, Rose Tashman, and Reet Jurvetsen) were found off Mulholland Drive, named after William Mulholland. Rose Tashman was a native of Israel and was last seen in the very early hours of May 19, 1969, stopped on the Highland Avenue offramp of the Hollywood Freeway after suffering an apparent flat tire. On March 18, 1968 (or perhaps late on March 17), Ray abruptly left the St. Francis Hotel to head east to Atlanta via New Orleans. He may well have taken I-10, which would have caused him to pass right next to Redlands, California. On March 18, 1968, Elizabeth Ernstein, a twelve-year old Jewish girl was walking home from Moore Junior High in Redlands to her home in nearby Mentone, California. She did not make it safely—her remains were discovered between Wrightwood and Phelan, California, on May 20, 1969 (the day after Tashman was last seen alive), but it wasn't until 2012 that they were identified as hers. The best that I can tell from the contemporary newspaper account of the location, her remains were found below the intersection of Pipeline Road and Serrano Road. The direct route to her home from her school would be east along Highland Avenue, but for some reason she was last seen a block north, walking east along Citrus—perhaps she had shifted north after having sensed danger on Highland—e.g., maybe on March 18, 1968, Ray did on Highland park, waiting in his Ford Mustang to snatch and murder her. In my opinion, the murder of Elizabeth Ernstein is the most important to understand if one wants to grasp the particular occultism behind the murders of Martin Luther King, Jr., of Robert Francis Kennedy, and of the others (like Donna Maria Boudreau) who seem to have been murdered from basically the same occultism. Quite possibly, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, and perhaps some unknown number of their associates were directly involved in Ernstein's abduction and murder. John Hinckley graduated from Highland Park High School, just four miles north of downtown Dallas, TX.
The body of Boudreau was found in an orchard near a Marshall Road. Like Tashman, Robin Ann Graham was last seen alive after experiencing car trouble late at night on the Hollywood Freeway. She was a freshman at Pierce College and recent graduate of John Marshall High. She vanished 15 November 1970, having run out of gas approximately 9.5 hours after most of the Marshall University (named after John Marshall) football team and many of its supporters was killed in the crash of Southern Airways Flight 932 on approach to Huntington [WV] Tri-State Airport, near the school in Huntington. The 1933 Long Beach Earthquake, the deadliest earthquake in the lower 48 since the Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, happened on James Earl Ray's fifth birthday, and actually the epicenter was in or just off shore Huntington Beach, California. The Tri-State airport is partially homonymous with the Tri-State Tornado, the deadliest in the history of the United States; Ernstein was last seen alive on the anniversary of that tornado, which devastated the Illinois cities of Murphysboro and W. Frankfort especially. Robin Graham's father worked for the LA Department of Water and Power, which (with a slight name change) William Mulholland had earlier led.
A few months ago [written in 2021] I believe I figured out why James Earl Ray and his associates might have been obsessed with the name "Highland"--the recent Highland Park shooting got me to thinking about it. (John Hinckley is a graduate of Highland Park High.) The key is to notice that the 1948 fire at the Highland Hospital for the Mentally Diseased in Asheville, NC, occurred on James Earl Ray's 20th birthday. This fire is especially infamous because it killed Zelda Sayre Fitzgerald, widow of F. Scott Fitzgerald, author of The Great Gatsby, etc. (A total of nine died.) Ray seems to have been very pompous and superstitious about disasters aligned with his birth. There is strong evidence that there is an obsession about the St. Francis dam disaster that happened two days after he was born. Similarly, that when staying at the Serrano Apartments in LA he took dance lessons in Long Beach, despite the length of the drive, can be explained because the Long Beach earthquake, the deadliest to hit the lower 48 since the Great San Francisco quake of 1906, happened on his fifth birthday, and I suppose he wanted to commune with that "whole lotta shaking" of the quake by doing a "whole lotta shaking" there via dancing, or something like that. That 1933 quake also helps explain an interest in his followers in the Marshall plane crash near Marshall U. in Huntington, WV, that happened right before John Marshall High graduate Robin Anne Graham vanished. Indeed, the epicenter of the 1933 Long Beach Quake technically was in or nearer Huntington Beach more than Long Beach. Any "Serrano" obsession is probably just a variant of the "Highland" obsession since in Spanish serrano means "highland", I eventually noticed.
In 2021, I figured about my blog that there probably was not quite enough there for it to go viral even if I advertised it somewhat, especially since I consider it very important not to pander to crazy-about-not-being-crazy people. But obviously, even in 2021 I felt the murder of Ernstein was very key to understanding the assassinations of MLK and RFK. I had made at that time what I figured would probably be my next blog post, basically what I have just posted about Elizabeth Ernstein, but was hesitant to post it. I figured that there's enough strange coincidences there that things could get viral. In particular, there's a danger when showing that evil people have been killing according to some stupid pattern that copycats may be encouraged to kill similarly. I don't mind being patient in gaining acclaim for my opinions. I figured I'd rather just the wiser sort of people take me seriously at that point. The Boudreau case is interesting since it is the first very strong case on the east coast (though the Yvonne Leroux case predates it somewhat and is also quite weird). Around late 1972 or early 1973, the murderers associated with Ray went east, it mostly seems.
There seem to be strong ties between the "disaster killers" and both racism and German (or Prussian) militarism. I think it goes back a long ways. For instance, the 1840 steamer Lexington disaster may have resulted from pro-German or racist (or both!) elements having decided it would make the right sort of omen to kill Hessian immigrant Charles Follen (and the other occupants of the ship) as he was about to begin preaching abolitionist views at his new church in Lexington, Massachusetts. Indeed, it doesn't seem all that strange considering that the 1837 murder of Elijah Lovejoy in James Earl Ray's birthplace of Alton, IL, and the 1838 burning of Philadelphia Hall show to what violent lengths pro-slavery mobs were willing to go against free speech when such speech was against slavery. George Atzerodt, one of the conspirators involved with Booth, was a native German. Lincoln was shot on the anniversary of the 1842 Medora explosion and of the 1857 Baltimore fire, at the time of Lincoln's assassination I believe the worst two man-made disasters in Baltimore city, the big city nearest where Booth was raised in Bel-Air. The Medora was rebuilt and renamed Herald, serving on the Old Bay Line until 1867. David Herold was the conspirator with Booth when Booth was fatally wounded by Boston Corbett the day before the Sultana blew up in what is still America's deadliest-ever ship disaster. A few weeks before Lincoln was shot, the Army Transport General Lyon (as in the Lyon sisters) disaster also killed about 500. Nathaniel Lyon is an interesting figure, having rallied many anti-slavery German speakers in Missouri to fight under him for the Union cause.
Recently [2021] I've been thinking about the January 21, 1893, Wann train wreck in East Alton, Illinois. That wreck was just outside Alton, Illinois, and spectators from Alton were killed in the subsequent explosion. As for the date of it, it's the centennial of the execution of Louis XVI. As for the exact place of it, it was one-quarter mile west of the Wann Depot according to a St. Louis paper of the next day. Well, not exactly west, I'd say, because the train was coming from the south when it was directed onto the wrong track thanks to a misdirected switch. The most probable place of the wreck imho would be about the southern boundary of the complex where the Western Cartridge Company of East Alton would one day produce ammunition, including I believe in 1954 the cartridges which Oswald would use in 1963 in his rifle when shooting JFK. I even wonder if Ray working in Hartford, IL, when he lived in Alton in 1944 could have something to do with the Hartford, CT, circus fire of 1944. The Alton Giant--still the tallest man ever documented--worked for Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey in 1936, and though there is nothing spooky about tallness, that he was from the same town as Ray I suppose might have been something additional Ray could have been pompous about that could have encouraged Ray or his associates to start a fire at their circus in 1944.
I first noticed that there might be a killer who kills over disasters in 2015 not long after the train crash happened near Kensington, North Philadelphia, very close to where the Congressional wrecked in 1943. Before too long this got me to noticing for example that Kathy Lynn Beatty lived at the corner of Eastland and W. Frankfort, in Aspen Hill near Rockville, MD, and that she was attacked (dying a dozen days later on August 5, 1975 from commplications of her injuries) near Rockville, MD, on the anniversary of the Eastland disaster and of the second deadliest W. Frankfort mine disaster, which was of course so bizarre I had to investigate thoroughly. And Eastland happened on Zelda Fiitzgerald's fifteenth birthday, and the deadliest W. Frankfort mine disaster happened on the eleventh anniversary of F. Scott Fitzgerald's death, and the Fitzgeralds are buried in Rockville. The W. Frankfort area suffered the second-highest number of fatalities (second only to Murphysboro) from the 1925 Tri-State tornado, still America's deadliest ever, on the anniversary of which Elizabeth Ernstein was snatched to be murdered.
Somewhat more recent observations I've had about James Earl Ray and the murder of Ernstein
It is worth reiterating what I have mentioned in my last few posts, that the malarkey concerning the Kew Gardens train wreck which seems to have largely motivated Lee Harvey Oswald intersects somewhat with the particulars of James Earl Ray's behavior. Recall that Oswald may have chosen to kill Officer Tippit leaving Car No. 10 on 10th street right after he (maybe) went visited Top 10 Records, because 78 was Tippit's patrol district (and his call sign number on the police radio) as well as the number of dead in the Kew Gardens wreck that happened 13 years to the day before the JFK assassination, and 78 times 10 is 780, the number of the lead train that was rear-ended in the wreck. Highway 10 (or at least the parts that were completed) was probably the highway Ray took when he left California the day (or evening before) of the Ernstein murder to head East, which highway passed next to Redlands. It goes through or next to Phoenix, El Paso, Houston, New Orleans, and Mobile. Ray had earlier gone from California to New Orleans in December 1967, staying a short time supposedly to do some sort of business, riding with Charles Stein, who was picking up two of her sisters' daughters and dropping off some clothes for a friend of Stein's sister. And as mentioned, US 78 was the route Ray would have taken on his round trip from Atlanta to purchase the weapon used to kill MLK, and is also the route Ray would have taken when heading from Atlanta to Memphis when he assassinated MLK. In fact, the Old Rebel Inn where Ray stayed the night before MLK was shot was on US 78 where it is called Lamar Avenue (recall that about seventeen minutes after assassinating JFK, Oswald caught a taxi in front of the Greyhound Bus Station on Lamar Street in Dallas). Also recall that the day Elizabeth Ernstein was killed, Winston Moseley escaped from police custody. Winston Moseley, recall, was convicted of having murdered Kitty Genovese opposite where the official report concerning the Kew Gardens wreck suggests the mistake was made by the motorman of train 174 that mostly caused the wreck. Moreover, he may have first spotted Kitty Genovese about 3am, March 13, as she was leaving Ev's Eleventh Hour Bar in Hollis, where she was a bartender. Converting that time to Pacific time yields midnight between March 12 and March 13. The St. Francis Dam disaster happened at about 11:57:30 on March 12, 1928 (in the eleventh pm hour of the day). Recall that there are many suggestive possible "Murphy" references in the JFK assassination, and that Ernstein was taken on an anniversary of the 1925 Tri-State tornado (the deadliest ever US tornado) devastating Murphysboro, Illinois, more than any other location.
More about the SS Linz
Recall that the SS Linz was sunk by (probably) a mine off the Cape of Rodon on the northern Albanian coast on March 19, 1918, leading to the deaths of 697, including 283 Italian prisoners of war. It was the deadliest loss on an Austro-Hungarian ship during the war. According to Wikipedia, the ship was torpedoed very early, at 00:20, and sank twenty-five minutes later, i.e., at 00:45 am. Albania time is (at least now) nine hours ahead of Pacific time, which means that in California, the ship sank at about 3:45 pm local time on March 18, 1918. Recall that Timothy Bowes-Lyon, 16th Earl of Strathmore, was born March 18, 1918, and was Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne from 1949 until his death in 1972. This of course could relate also to Elizabeth Ernstein since she left school in Redlands, California, at about 3:40 pm local time on March 18, 1968, (one could argue) almost exactly fifty years after the sinking of Linz. And something similar happened with the murder of Martin Luther King, he being killed 50 years to the day after German native Robert Prager was forcibly removed from jail to be lynched, which was also the same day the Second Lord Jellicoe was born in Hertfordshire. Hitler had had high hopes for his hometown of Linz, desiring it to have the best art museum in the world. In his last days he would stare at the model architects had created for a redesign of the city into a Führer city, apparently getting somehow much satisfaction from staring at it for hours. Hitler's Vice Chancellor, von Papen, had told Hindenburg before Hitler became Chancellor that he felt he could control Hitler. It may well be that Von Papen may have felt then that he could convince Hitler that he should not be too ambitious in leading Germany since Austro-Hungary's worst naval disaster happened on a ship named after Hitler's hometown; this and Hitler's desire for power may have soured Hitler somewhat toward alignerism as it had been practiced by Germans during WWI, leading him to substitute other occult nonsense. But during the end days, Hitler may well have been feeling the need to appease the Linz spirits by taking more interest in his hometown, more reverting to the occult superstitions of WWI, which may to a certain extent have been working behind the scenes earlier during WWII to make alignments that weren't quite so obvious as those associated with WWI. For instance, as someone mentioned on Reddit (not something I figured out on my own!), the Nazi invasion of Poland starting WWII happened exactly 10,000 days after the day Titanic sank, which means the Gleiwicz incident was exactly 10,000 days after the day the Titanic hit the iceberg (for whatever reasons aligners tend to go more by when disasters and murders start). You can't rule out even that the loss of Wilhelm Gustloff (an ocean liner as with Linz) with some 9300 dead on what would have been Wilhelm Gustloff's 50th birthday was at least partly a sacrifice to the ocean-liner-disaster gods that Hitler felt he might have had to make in order to appease the disaster gods that in the mind of his last days he might have started to believe had caused what must have begun to seem to him at least on some level an impending defeat. Yeah, I know it was sunk by a Soviet sub, but Hitler may have figured out how to arrange it. It's worth noting that there was an assassination attempt in Ankara, Turkey, against von Papen on February 24, 1942, which is sort of peculiar, since that was the day the Struma, a dilapidated overladen ship carrying Jewish refugees from Romania, sank in the Black Sea off Instanbul, Turkey, after having been denied refuge in Turkey, with about 800 dead (only one survivor). Supposedly Struma was torpedoed by a Soviet sub, from a general policy enacted to restrict possible supply ships headed to Romania. That sounds plausible, but somehow despite current opinion being that the Soviet Union was behind the assassination plot against von Papen, I am skeptical about the latter just like I am skeptical that forces supposedly tied to the Central Powers weren't mostly the instigators of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. But I don't know; it all could be more bizarre than bizarre.
No comments:
Post a Comment