CENTURY MOST FOUL
- A concise, conversational history of the 20th century
by Ralph C. Cinque
1
This is a booklet on the 20th century with the goal of demonstrating the paradox between the tremendous and unprecedented advances of that century which occurred right alongside the most brutal and savage atrocities.
We tend to think that technological and scientific advances will supplant savagery in the world, that as humans become more knowledgeable and scientific, as they understand better the workings of the natural world, leading to unceasing progress in the ability to manipulate materials to fulfill human needs, that barbarity and brutality will naturally fade away.
In a word, technological and scientific advances- the hallmark of the 20th century-represented the forward march of civilization, and as people became more civilized, they should have become more civil to each other, where violence and inhumanity just disappeared. But, it didn't work out that way.
The 20th century was the most savage, brutal and murderous century ever. And if we are going to talk about "Man's inhumanity to Man" the most inhumane thing is to kill people, right? The 20th century was marked by not only the most killing, but the most wholesale killing, the most high-tech killing, the most industrial-strength killing. Really, it was a century of slaughter.
The largest part of that slaughter was enveloped in the two world wars, and for that reason, this booklet will focus a great deal on those wars. I am calling it a "booklet" because I don't know how long it is going to be, and I don't have any length in mind. I am just going to let it flow. And it doesn't matter because this is not a commercial endeavor. I'm not selling it. Whoever wants to read it will read it. I know there will be a few, and the number doesn't matter. I'm doing this mainly to sort out my own thinking.
But, I want to acknowledge that history books are expected to be referenced and footnoted, and this one won' be. And that's what I mean by saying it's "conversational." I will refer to some works and sources, as I am inclined to, but I won't feel obligated to. To be blunt: I am not being paid to do this, and I am only going to do it to the extent that it is enjoyable and fun to do. I'm not going to make it irksome for myself. Why should I?
But, I will tell you that I am going to talk about what happened as truthfully as I can, expressing what I know to be incontrovertibly true about the events of the 20th century. And I am going to write it as if we were conversing about it. I realize that it's not really a conversation since I am the only one talking. But still, I am going to write it in a relaxed, informal way, as if we were talking.
So, to begin, the 20th century, as you know, was a century of assassinations. There were a lot of them. And it started with an assassination, that of President William McKinley. He was assassinated in 1901 in Buffalo, New York. An "anarchist" of Polish extraction, Leon Czolgosz, shot him twice at close range. McKinley underwent surgery and seemed to be recovering but died after 8 days.
Czolgosz was said to be a "lone nut" but, he was a follower of a woman named Emma Goldman who held "anarchist" meetings in New York City. I put "anarchist" in quotes because Anarchism was closely related to Communism. She was investigated for complicity in McKinley's murder but was never charged. However, she was ultimately deported to Russia, and she was there participating in the Bolshevik revolution. The fact is that a great many New Yorkers went to Russia to participate in the Bolshevik Revolution. Leon Trotsky took an army of New Yorkers with him.
But, the question is: was there a conspiracy to kill McKinley? I don't have any solid evidence for it, but my go-to person on this is Professor Murray Rothbard, and he thought so. Obviously, in a book with the scope intended for this one, I am not going to dive deeply into this murder. But, I want to point out how politics is very much a "What have you done for me lately?" affair because McKinley had given the Establishment what it wanted, which was the war on Spain, which of course, was just a land grab. It's ironic that McKinley pined about freeing the poor Cubans, but once we got control of the Philippines, there was no freedom for them. Do you know how long the Filipino insurrection lasted and how many Filipinos we killed? It began with a full-blown war that lasted for 3 years, which the U.S. supposedly won, after killing 200,000 Filipinos. But, we won it the way we won against the Taliban in 2001. And, it was followed by the same thing: a guerrilla war that went on for decades. Do you know how long it took us to grant independence to the Philippines? Until 1946, with lethal conflict throughout. But, I digress.
The main thing I want to say about McKinley is that he had something in common with JFK, and that is: they were both forced to accept Vice Presidents whom they didn't like; didn't get along with; and didn't agree with. For JFK, it was LBJ, who threatened to go public with JFK's terrible health status and drug addictions unless he was put on the ticket. For McKinley, it was Teddy Roosevelt. But wait a second: let's throw in a third: Ronald Reagan who was pressured to accept George HW Bush as his Veep after a nasty primary campaign. And then what happened? Another lone nut, John Hinckley, the deranged son of a close friend of Bush, shot Reagan. Or did he? Was it perhaps a Sirhan Sirhan situation? Then again, maybe it was exactly what they said it was, but you can't blame me for being suspicious. But again, I digress.
McKinley was a Rockefeller Republican. Teddy Roosevelt was a Morgan Republican, as in JP Morgan. So, what was the difference between what Rockefeller wanted and what J P Morgan and other Wall Street bankers wanted? The difference was: Rockefeller wanted rapprochement with Germany, while Morgan wanted rapprochement with the UK. Which country were we going to be best friends with? Well, obviously, sharing the same language with the UK was a significant bond. But, at the turn of the century, the busiest and most economically robust shipping lane in the world was the one between Germany and the U.S. Do you see where this is going? The fact is, and it is undisputed: the build-up to World War 1 started very early. The UK had it in for Germany. And if you really want to date it, you have to go back to the Franco-Prussian War in the 1870s, which Germany won. Prior to that war, Germany wasn't even a cohesive country. There was Saxony, Bavaria, Prussia, etc.,- which were German-speaking independent states. And just as in the U.S. where the Revolutionary War caused the uniting of the colonies, the same thing happened in Germany. The modern German state was born out of that war, and it took off (economically) like a bat out of hell. And the UK was left breathless. And the Brits started plotting to provoke a war with Germany by the 1890s. It took them until 1914 to pull it off, but it shows you how diligent they were. Stiff upper lip. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.
So, installing Teddy Roosevelt succeeded at cementing the "Great Rapprochement" between the US and the UK. It was something very much desired by the British for a long time. And it paid off right away because when they launched their Boar Wars against the Africaners in South Africa, which they arguably won, Teddy was kind enough to send them a lot of material support, and I mean shiploads of guns, ammunition, bombs, etc. With all that help, the British won, but it still wasn't easy. The Boars, who were descendants of the Dutch, put up a hell of a fight. Ultimately, it took 500,000 British boots on the ground to defeat them. They also put thousands of Boar men, women, and children in concentration camps where they died wholesale of exposure, starvation, and disease.
And by the way, if you haven't seen the movie Breaker Morant which is about the Boar Wars, you really should. It's a great film and one of the best courtroom dramas ever.
But, let's move on to 1905 to the second 20th century assassination, that of Jane Stanford. She and her wealthy husband Leland, a former governor and senator, and before that a lawyer and railroad tycoon, had founded Stanford University, which was named after their deceased son Leland Jr., who died of an infection in Italy at the age of 15. And Stanford Univeristy was tuition-free: it was a gift to the young people of California. Of course, that didn't last, and, neither did Jane. She was murdered by strychnine poisoning. First, they tried to kill her in Palo Alto, but she tasted it in the water and spit it out. But, then they got her in Hawaii where she went for sanctuary.
The first book about her murder was The Mysterious Death of Jane Stanford by Robert Cutler MD, a neurologist who taught at Stanford. That was followed by Calling All Angels by Stephen Requa. Both are very good.
So, who killed her? The strychnine was mixed into some baking soda that was brought to her for indigestion. It was her maid who brought it to her: Bertha Berner. And Bertha was having an affair with the President of Stanford University, whom Jane Stanford was about to fire, David Starr Jordan. And David Starr Jordan was one of the leading and most vocal Eugencists in this country.
Eugenics, the belief in white race superiority and the need to limit the reproduction of other races, was big: both here and in the UK. It was big in those two countries long before it was big in Germany during the Nazi era. Theodore Roosevelt was an outspoken eugenicist. Here is a quote by him:
“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce. It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding . . . We fail to understand that such conduct is rational compared to the conduct of a nation which permits unlimited breeding from the worst stocks, physically and morally . . . Some day we will realize that the prime duty—the inescapable duty—of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.”
Eugenicists sought and practiced involuntary sterilization. Winston Churchill, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Alexander Graham Bell were eugenicists. Charles Darwin's grandson led the Eugenics Society in the UK.
But, the worst thing about the murder of Jane Stanford is the way the entire U.S. press supported the phony story that she died of a heart attack. Even then, in 1905, there was complete control, and it's scary to contemplate. You know how the whole U.S. media fell in line to support the phony story that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK in 1963, but the same monolithic media compliance and control occurred in 1905. And in that case, a medical board in Hawaii had determined that she died of strychnine poisoning, and it wasn't suicide but murder. But, that was not going to be the official story; no way, no how.
Why was Jane going to fire David Starr Jordan? She was opposed to Eugenics, for one thing. But, I think there was more to it than that. The Establishment realized that Stanford U. was destined to be the leading university in California. It was going to be California's answer to the Ivy League colleges of the East. And they knew how important universities are in shaping public opinion and determining what gets accepted as true, as per history, science, and many other things. Jane Stanford was a firebrand. They couldn't trust her. She wasn't a team player. They didn't want an independent Stanford University. They wanted a Stanford University that would support their values, about Eugenics, about past and future wars, and more. So, she had to go. But again, it's scary that the whole U.S. media was in lock-step in support of the false narrative. It's scary because it was before the FBI and the CIA. When we talk about it in relation to the Kennedy assassination, it's linked to the way those intelligence services had infiltrated the media: through and through, organization by organization. But, how was it accomplished in 1905? Well, basically, we are talking about newspapers, and there was William Randolph Hearst who owned a hell of a lot of them across the country. He just had to snap his fingers, and his papers were going to spew whatever he wanted. And he had a longstanding feud with Leland Stanford that went way back. They were California tycoons who did not get along. But, what about the non-Hearst papers? They all went along with the white-wash too- every single one of them. And that, to me, is scary.
OK, let's leave it at that for now. This first chapter has gotten me through the first 5 years of the century most foul. And by the way: the title is a paraphrasing of the new Bob Dylan song about the Deep State murder of JFK: Murder Most Foul.
But, I want to acknowledge that history books are expected to be referenced and footnoted, and this one won' be. And that's what I mean by saying it's "conversational." I will refer to some works and sources, as I am inclined to, but I won't feel obligated to. To be blunt: I am not being paid to do this, and I am only going to do it to the extent that it is enjoyable and fun to do. I'm not going to make it irksome for myself. Why should I?
But, I will tell you that I am going to talk about what happened as truthfully as I can, expressing what I know to be incontrovertibly true about the events of the 20th century. And I am going to write it as if we were conversing about it. I realize that it's not really a conversation since I am the only one talking. But still, I am going to write it in a relaxed, informal way, as if we were talking.
So, to begin, the 20th century, as you know, was a century of assassinations. There were a lot of them. And it started with an assassination, that of President William McKinley. He was assassinated in 1901 in Buffalo, New York. An "anarchist" of Polish extraction, Leon Czolgosz, shot him twice at close range. McKinley underwent surgery and seemed to be recovering but died after 8 days.
Czolgosz was said to be a "lone nut" but, he was a follower of a woman named Emma Goldman who held "anarchist" meetings in New York City. I put "anarchist" in quotes because Anarchism was closely related to Communism. She was investigated for complicity in McKinley's murder but was never charged. However, she was ultimately deported to Russia, and she was there participating in the Bolshevik revolution. The fact is that a great many New Yorkers went to Russia to participate in the Bolshevik Revolution. Leon Trotsky took an army of New Yorkers with him.
But, the question is: was there a conspiracy to kill McKinley? I don't have any solid evidence for it, but my go-to person on this is Professor Murray Rothbard, and he thought so. Obviously, in a book with the scope intended for this one, I am not going to dive deeply into this murder. But, I want to point out how politics is very much a "What have you done for me lately?" affair because McKinley had given the Establishment what it wanted, which was the war on Spain, which of course, was just a land grab. It's ironic that McKinley pined about freeing the poor Cubans, but once we got control of the Philippines, there was no freedom for them. Do you know how long the Filipino insurrection lasted and how many Filipinos we killed? It began with a full-blown war that lasted for 3 years, which the U.S. supposedly won, after killing 200,000 Filipinos. But, we won it the way we won against the Taliban in 2001. And, it was followed by the same thing: a guerrilla war that went on for decades. Do you know how long it took us to grant independence to the Philippines? Until 1946, with lethal conflict throughout. But, I digress.
The main thing I want to say about McKinley is that he had something in common with JFK, and that is: they were both forced to accept Vice Presidents whom they didn't like; didn't get along with; and didn't agree with. For JFK, it was LBJ, who threatened to go public with JFK's terrible health status and drug addictions unless he was put on the ticket. For McKinley, it was Teddy Roosevelt. But wait a second: let's throw in a third: Ronald Reagan who was pressured to accept George HW Bush as his Veep after a nasty primary campaign. And then what happened? Another lone nut, John Hinckley, the deranged son of a close friend of Bush, shot Reagan. Or did he? Was it perhaps a Sirhan Sirhan situation? Then again, maybe it was exactly what they said it was, but you can't blame me for being suspicious. But again, I digress.
McKinley was a Rockefeller Republican. Teddy Roosevelt was a Morgan Republican, as in JP Morgan. So, what was the difference between what Rockefeller wanted and what J P Morgan and other Wall Street bankers wanted? The difference was: Rockefeller wanted rapprochement with Germany, while Morgan wanted rapprochement with the UK. Which country were we going to be best friends with? Well, obviously, sharing the same language with the UK was a significant bond. But, at the turn of the century, the busiest and most economically robust shipping lane in the world was the one between Germany and the U.S. Do you see where this is going? The fact is, and it is undisputed: the build-up to World War 1 started very early. The UK had it in for Germany. And if you really want to date it, you have to go back to the Franco-Prussian War in the 1870s, which Germany won. Prior to that war, Germany wasn't even a cohesive country. There was Saxony, Bavaria, Prussia, etc.,- which were German-speaking independent states. And just as in the U.S. where the Revolutionary War caused the uniting of the colonies, the same thing happened in Germany. The modern German state was born out of that war, and it took off (economically) like a bat out of hell. And the UK was left breathless. And the Brits started plotting to provoke a war with Germany by the 1890s. It took them until 1914 to pull it off, but it shows you how diligent they were. Stiff upper lip. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.
So, installing Teddy Roosevelt succeeded at cementing the "Great Rapprochement" between the US and the UK. It was something very much desired by the British for a long time. And it paid off right away because when they launched their Boar Wars against the Africaners in South Africa, which they arguably won, Teddy was kind enough to send them a lot of material support, and I mean shiploads of guns, ammunition, bombs, etc. With all that help, the British won, but it still wasn't easy. The Boars, who were descendants of the Dutch, put up a hell of a fight. Ultimately, it took 500,000 British boots on the ground to defeat them. They also put thousands of Boar men, women, and children in concentration camps where they died wholesale of exposure, starvation, and disease.
And by the way, if you haven't seen the movie Breaker Morant which is about the Boar Wars, you really should. It's a great film and one of the best courtroom dramas ever.
But, let's move on to 1905 to the second 20th century assassination, that of Jane Stanford. She and her wealthy husband Leland, a former governor and senator, and before that a lawyer and railroad tycoon, had founded Stanford University, which was named after their deceased son Leland Jr., who died of an infection in Italy at the age of 15. And Stanford Univeristy was tuition-free: it was a gift to the young people of California. Of course, that didn't last, and, neither did Jane. She was murdered by strychnine poisoning. First, they tried to kill her in Palo Alto, but she tasted it in the water and spit it out. But, then they got her in Hawaii where she went for sanctuary.
The first book about her murder was The Mysterious Death of Jane Stanford by Robert Cutler MD, a neurologist who taught at Stanford. That was followed by Calling All Angels by Stephen Requa. Both are very good.
So, who killed her? The strychnine was mixed into some baking soda that was brought to her for indigestion. It was her maid who brought it to her: Bertha Berner. And Bertha was having an affair with the President of Stanford University, whom Jane Stanford was about to fire, David Starr Jordan. And David Starr Jordan was one of the leading and most vocal Eugencists in this country.
Eugenics, the belief in white race superiority and the need to limit the reproduction of other races, was big: both here and in the UK. It was big in those two countries long before it was big in Germany during the Nazi era. Theodore Roosevelt was an outspoken eugenicist. Here is a quote by him:
“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce. It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding . . . We fail to understand that such conduct is rational compared to the conduct of a nation which permits unlimited breeding from the worst stocks, physically and morally . . . Some day we will realize that the prime duty—the inescapable duty—of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.”
Eugenicists sought and practiced involuntary sterilization. Winston Churchill, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Alexander Graham Bell were eugenicists. Charles Darwin's grandson led the Eugenics Society in the UK.
But, the worst thing about the murder of Jane Stanford is the way the entire U.S. press supported the phony story that she died of a heart attack. Even then, in 1905, there was complete control, and it's scary to contemplate. You know how the whole U.S. media fell in line to support the phony story that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK in 1963, but the same monolithic media compliance and control occurred in 1905. And in that case, a medical board in Hawaii had determined that she died of strychnine poisoning, and it wasn't suicide but murder. But, that was not going to be the official story; no way, no how.
Why was Jane going to fire David Starr Jordan? She was opposed to Eugenics, for one thing. But, I think there was more to it than that. The Establishment realized that Stanford U. was destined to be the leading university in California. It was going to be California's answer to the Ivy League colleges of the East. And they knew how important universities are in shaping public opinion and determining what gets accepted as true, as per history, science, and many other things. Jane Stanford was a firebrand. They couldn't trust her. She wasn't a team player. They didn't want an independent Stanford University. They wanted a Stanford University that would support their values, about Eugenics, about past and future wars, and more. So, she had to go. But again, it's scary that the whole U.S. media was in lock-step in support of the false narrative. It's scary because it was before the FBI and the CIA. When we talk about it in relation to the Kennedy assassination, it's linked to the way those intelligence services had infiltrated the media: through and through, organization by organization. But, how was it accomplished in 1905? Well, basically, we are talking about newspapers, and there was William Randolph Hearst who owned a hell of a lot of them across the country. He just had to snap his fingers, and his papers were going to spew whatever he wanted. And he had a longstanding feud with Leland Stanford that went way back. They were California tycoons who did not get along. But, what about the non-Hearst papers? They all went along with the white-wash too- every single one of them. And that, to me, is scary.
OK, let's leave it at that for now. This first chapter has gotten me through the first 5 years of the century most foul. And by the way: the title is a paraphrasing of the new Bob Dylan song about the Deep State murder of JFK: Murder Most Foul.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.