Comments
  1. We learn that Leon Czolgosz struggled to make a living due to the harsh inequality of industrialized American society. It is also interesting to think of anarchists as an international movement across Russia, Europe, and the United States the later decades of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Russia had the nihilists who killed Tsar Alexander in 1881 with a bomb. Lenin's brother was hanged in Russia for being one of the assassins who killed the Tsar. Many Russian nihilists killed hundreds of political leaders in Tsarist Russia in the decades prior to World War One, especially after the disasterous 1904-05 Russo-Japanese war and bloody violence of the failed 1905 Revolution. It is also a sad realization that the class inequality and socialistic beliefs that drove Czolgosz to assassinate President McKinley in Buffalo in 1901are still issues in American society today. The Italian King was assassinated in 1900 by an Italian-American radical socialist named Bressci. Some people think the assassin Bresci may have inspired Czolgosz to assassinated McKinnley.

    Theodore Roosevelt was nearly assassinated in 1912 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, Bosnia by Gavrilo Princep of the Serbian nationalist Blackhand terrorist group. This event caused the spark that ignited World War One. Tsar Nicholas II and his family were killed in Ekaterinburg in 1918 plunging Russia into a bitter deeper Civil War killing millions. It is important to note that not all socialists are radicals nor all radicals soccialists either. Nihilism was a word I was waiting for here in this C-Span interview but it never quite came out. The Briggs laws in Massachussets requiring psychiatrists give a person accused of a violent capital crime to undergo a mental health examination for their trial.

    https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/italian-american-assassinates-italian-king

  2. I figured it out. Roosevelt, like Wilson were linked to the UK and European interests where Morgan and Rockerfeller were clearly American interest that they sought to do something about as they were the leaders of their direct competition. So if McKinley is their guy and he is killed Roosevelt who licked the boots of British Imperialist ideals, and keep in mind what I am really saying. I am saying Roosevelt was very much a guy who the founding fathers would think is a Tory and Pro-England, but obviously by the time of Roosevelt things had changed, yet the Eastern Establishment had long ties to England even after the Revolutionary War and anglophilic ideology and affinity ran deep. Roosevelt was 'their guy', and one linked firmly with the UK mentality. He was poised to become president if something should happen to McKinley and something did, but what then happened to the United States? Well, other than the flirting with Empire, the adventure in Latin America then happened, and the Panama Canal and global trade which the US financed, so if you are from Europe why pay when you can get the Yanks to do it and when European conflicts happen it is the US loaning out money which all drains the US Treasury and fuels national debt. Then you get to the gold being made illegal by 1933 and you get this history of American fleecing that all get set in motion by this assassination. Those then behind Roosevelt were direct competitors and those in the UK and other places of Europe who seek to control and influence. Those behind Roosevelt might do so indirectly as his actions and becoming president due to the like-minded ideology they don't need to directly control him. Yet, notice how they present Roosevelt as beyond influence, but he clearly is doing things aligned with an ideology that is influenced by those other interests. Meaning, like any ideologue they don't need to directly control him. Just set back and his actions will naturally do what you need done that will benefit you. Yet, this road of European subversion I think does have direct links to his administration and they did have direct influence. The whole way Roosevelt then is presented is one, like the way he manufactures a self-image, is one that does not reflect the actual reality of the forces he champions and the true processes at work which lead to the Deep State that is firmly linked to the UK and Europe in a way the Founding Fathers never would have wanted and thought quite against the very founding principals.

    If you were for European interests (which keep in mind at the time meant things like UK interest), and companies then and want competitive advantage or to weaken a commodity like steel then weakening these US corporate giants would do so by breaking up their monopolies or near monopoly which then for you in your nation would only help you. Keep in mind I purposely did not get into who was running the UK at the time. If you don't know you should go and read up on that topic. The epicenter of all things New World Order or rather the re-invention of concepts like New World Order by the Old World Order seemed to converge so the take over of the United States policies, and its currency, and all that is directly linked to the UK at this time and those who were the powers that be. Those who you will learn about are those interjecting this ideological influence on people like Teddy Roosevelt.

    Progressives love to re-write history and I think this story and the myth of Roosevelt then is the place to start with the true history of the United States and the real reasons and history behind the Deep State. Like, Andrew Jackson, the 'sins of the United States, are really the sins of individuals like Roosevelt and the policies individuals, and the forces behind them, set into place. It is then misplaced to attribute those foul deeds to the United States itself as a project, but rather to rightly put it on those who set the United States on that path which betrays the very project it was set up to be. Keep in mind the myth and the reality are not the same, and the stated reasons or goals and the actual reasons and goals are not the same. Always keep that firmly in your mind. That is true when it came to the War on Terror and Iraq and it is true here with what seems like an completely unrelated event as the assassination of McKinley.

    At the end of the day to control the United States one merely needs to control its institutions and that is exactly what then takes place and erecting the New Federalism and why today you see the Universities function like they do since it is the administrations and places like the Department of Education or Labor that are the epicenter. There is a direct link then that can be drawn from someone like Roosevelt to this new ethos you see at work today and the literal growth in the federal system and bureaucracy and how 'necessary' it was made to seem. To justify a crusading mentality you need enemies and demons and today those demons are things like 'racism' and 'sexism' and all of those ideas, low and behold, are found in places like Europe before you find them here, yet New York City is the capital of communist ideology. That is not an accident. Think of Sweden as a social experiment.

    To win the culture war a stark uncovering of the reality of Roosevelt I think is in order. That culture war didn't start today but way back then and its origins can be found even earlier but the issues of his day are the issues of today. Times change and the stay the same. What is different is the institutional history that is in many ways much more important.

    How did institutions change when these people and their policies were implement. I think a history that focuses on that will grant us a more complete and accurate assessment. The project of presenting a Progressive history is a key measure of how the Fictional Reality that the current system rests upon remains and strengthens.

    Also look at the way once caught the prosecutor of Czolgosz felt the details of the case should be concealed or not well known to the public. That is odd, and that supports the central insight that something was afoot. Ultimately Roosevelt helps promote Angloimperialism, aka British Imperialism in particular with a like-minded US who joins the fray with its own imperialist ambition which is counter to the stance the US has when it does things like try and create an Open China free from the domination of any single European power, or how he modifies the Monroe Doctrine. Putting Roosevelt in place set up the correct dominoes.

  3. So we get Lincoln assassinated and up till then no real security in the way we think of it today but the idea is after that a real attempt at security was made, yet with Garfield and then McKinley it appears whatever zeal for security was then, I would suspect, purposely watered down. So they can't search people for guns who come into an event. Not that this is a perfect way, but then a guy who simply puts a gun in his sleeve probably would not have occurred. Plus, when Roosevelt himself is then almost killed it would appear those in charge had a level of incompetence or some fundamentals of protocol were not being implemented. To me, little things like that are strange.

  4. What they had economic migrants back then. Imagine that. Turns out socialism was alive and well back then as it was today. Same issue, same problem. Electing Obama let the floodgate open of socialist minded immigrants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *