Those were the good old days

When La Droit de Seigneur was in effect, an ordinary man could expect to marry a wife that had only slept with one alpha male.

When the Spanish inquisition was operating, they shut down free lance witchfinders.

In 1992, I visited Cuba and remarked how Cubans walked small, walked in little steps, took up little space. I could see the fear pressing them down, squeezing them, making them little.

Today, I see white males walking small, taking small mincing little steps, keeping their hands close to their bodies. The statistics show falling testosterone and falling sperm production, but you don’t need statistics, you can see the that the testosterone has drained out of white males, while blacks walk large, as if they are aristocrats and whites are peasants, and women casually talk over their boss and interrupt him.

Boys are staying home, staying in Mum’s basement. There is no place for them in the world.

35 Responses to “Those were the good old days”

  1. peppermint says:

    La Droit du Seigneur is an evil-minded anti-aristocracy hoax that is totally out of line with actual White behavior, in which Henry VIII needs to become a protestant and cause the leftist spiral of Puritanism just to divorce a barren woman and marry someone he hoped would secure the kingdom with a son. It was not permitted for a man to charge his wife with adultery if she was a barmaid, but illegitimate children were shunned.

    The only White civilization ever to have polygamy is the cult of Mormons, which could survive because they are on the outskirts of White territory. If they had been in Europe, they would be conquered by neighboring tribes due to the lack of social cohesion inevitable to polygamous societies.

    What you meant to say is, today’s world is worse than the wildest dreams of the haters of the Ancien Regime.

    • Rollerblades says:

      There is limited, scare evidence for it happening ocassionally in the early to mid middle ages in Western Europe. After 1100 it seems to have almost completely disappeared.

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      >Mormons
      >civilization

      >Lived as semi-polygamous minority from 1830 to 1847
      >Lived in Utah from 1847 to 1890
      >Monogamous from 1890 to present

      This isn’t a civilization. It’s a minority religious group that moved to Utah, and managed to stay semi-independent from Washington DC, and cult-like for about 40 years.

      • B says:

        The Mormons didn’t just move to Utah-they were driven there by their fellow Christians.

        Polygamy (as a typical case) is unworkable unless the typical married guy is willing to see most of his sons die in a war or remain unmarried. The Mormons had a strong case for it until their male-female ratio recovered from their losses.

        Personally, I might take a second wife eventually, if the finances permit it, but would probably take a young widow or something along those lines. The ideal situation in a society is that everyone is married from an early age, and polygamy does not allow for this unless you either are in a state of war all the time, or recovering from one (or have conquered a bunch of people recently and taken female captives.) In any case, to have 5-12 children, you don’t typically need more than one woman.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          >The Mormons didn’t just move to Utah-they were driven there by their fellow Christians.
          And a thief doesn’t move to jail. He’s put there by his fellow citizens.

          American Protestants were the ruling class, and it was reasonable for them to persecute people who seriously deviated from their moral norms.

          Jewish polygamy is not in the same category as Mormon polygamy. For Mormons, polygamy gave you rewards in the afterlife – people who had fewer than three wives couldn’t get into the celestial kingdom. Basically, polygamy was mandatory for any man who wanted to be an upstanding member of the church.

          The end result of this is that Mormon men spent their time in war and mission work (which were often the same thing), to try to steal other men’s wives and daughters. And they exiled many of their young men, creating problems for the rest of society. You’ll find the same pattern in Fundamentalist Mormons today.

          >Polygamy (as a typical case) is unworkable unless the typical married guy is willing to see most of his sons die in a war or remain unmarried.
          In the civilized world, I think the typical case of polygamy involves an exceptional man, who due to wealth or status, can afford multiple wives. And his sons are largely monogamous, because his wealth is either divided among them, or given to the firstborn.

    • Jacob V says:

      Mormon polygamists built up an amazing civilization in the Rocky Mountains. Not too offended at the term cult, as it properly applies to the religious fanaticism that Jesus started as well. They were indeed conquered by the US government, and forced to assimilate to mainstream culture in the 1880s and 1890s.

      Polygamy to me is about kingdom building. In a society where men are feminized, and have little desire for a large posterity, I see plural marriage as alphas taking the talents that betas would have failed to use, and multiplying said talents, according to the parable by Jesus. I hope to someday have 30+ children, as my teacher does.

      What’s more interesting than polygamy is Joseph Smith’s teachings on government and family order (polygamy was just an appendage of it). Few historians catch it, but the Council of Fifty was a family kingdom of Joseph Smith’s sons through the Law of Adoption, a theocracy that unfortunately fell into oblivion because of its secrecy. John Taylor attempted to revive it in the 1880s, but after his death the Church caved to the government and the C50 ceased to exist. There’s a remnant that trace authority from it today through Benjamin F. Johnson.

    • Markus says:

      Aristocrats reproduced outside their social class even if such law has never existed.

    • Exfernal says:

      The only surviving fruit of marriage between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon was a girl. How could you argue that the sex of a child has anything with its mother and nothing with its father?

      The blame in the whole affair should fall in entirety on Henry VII for successfully circumventing existing laws of the time concerning Catherine’s dowry through subverting the canon law against widows marrying the brother of their deceased husband. With a wife younger than himself and unaffected by a deadly disease his chances of securing a heir would be decidedly higher.

  2. Irving says:

    >blacks walk large, as if they are aristocrats

    Blacks tend to have a vastly inflated sense of their self-worth, and this is true in all times and places. The idea that blacks feel like aristocrats because of the particular circumstances of our time, which is what you seem to be implying, for the most part isn’t true, although it might for the affirmative action beneficiaries among them.

    At the same time, though, given that I am — as B once put it — a “mud”, I’ve had ample opportunity to get to know other blacks at a fairly intimate level, and the one thing that I can say is that many if not most blacks are generally willing to privately admit that, as a group, they really aren’t of a comparable intellectual or behavioral quality as whites or pretty much any other group. So the idea that blacks think of themselves as aristocrats compared to whites seems particularly off base, at least in my opinion.

    • Dave says:

      I have to agree with Irving here. As a bonafide white man who has had close relations with a broad range of black folk, both professionally and socially, I believe that many black people have a real inferiority complex in regards to whites. I’ve lived in NYC for 25 years and despite the swagger and superficial air of superiority that many black men project, once you have their confidence through years of socializing many will admit that they know whites are intellectually and organizationally superior. Many working class blacks have blurted this out before I even knew them that well.
      Many black people may not be bright, but they’re not blind and they know how to read people, and they draw the appropriate conclusions.
      On some level I think many blacks are as exhausted by the societal charade as we are. Yes, they benefit from this game in many ways, and some percentage of black people are motivated by feelings of racial revenge and resentment and will never drop the mask for fear of losing a lucrative career ( think Ta-Nehisi Coates ), but the average black person, after their hormones calm down a bit in their thirties, know that they can’t replicate or even maintain what we’ve built.
      Now, if you bring this up with the average black person upon first meeting, you won’t get this response. I encountered these admissions years after socializing with only a few exceptions. In my opinion much black anger actually stems from this knowledge, and the realization that most blacks can only compete with us when we give them special preferences and treat them like children and never really tell them what we’re really thinking about black dysfunction and failure. They’ve been engaged in a collective temper tantrum for 50 years and they can’t believe we actually put up with their bullshit.

      • Irving says:

        Dave,

        I would qualify what your saying with the proposition that the only blacks that are really motivated by racial revenge and resentment are those very small number of blacks that benefit from the current “societal charade”, as you’ve put it. Underclass blacks, which is to say most blacks, don’t know anything about white people, except for the fact that white people are wealthier and smarter than they are. The fact that they tend to mock genuinely capable and intelligent blacks for “acting white” is telling in this regard.

        That said, there is a considerable number of blacks that are smarter than most blacks but not quite as smart as the smartest whites (thin blacks with IQs of 105 to 120), and these blacks tend to be the major beneficiaries of affirmative action. They attend the top schools, they get cushy rent-seeking jobs in the government and at non-profits, etc.. In my experience, many though not all of these people tend to have a truly venomous hatred for white people. Steve Sailer has a theory that these blacks, though they already have an inferiority complex that is native to most blacks to begin with, have that inferiority complex amplified by a factor of a million by being placed in largely white educational and professional environments where they, despite their best efforts, are constantly being reminded of the intellectual inadequacy (he applies this theory in particular to Michelle Obama, who in many ways is emblematic–as is Ta’nehisi Coates, in my opinion–of the kind of black person that I’m talking about, in a particularly apt way). In many ways, these blacks resemble what your typically, virulently anti-gentile, anti-white Jew would be, provided that he was considerably less capable and intelligent.

        • Irving says:

          >In many ways, these blacks resemble what your typically, virulently anti-gentile, anti-white Jew would be, provided that he was considerably less capable and intelligent.

          excuse me, I meant to write “your stereotypical virulently anti-gentile, anti-white Jew would be, provided he were considerably less capable and intelligent.”

        • Dave says:

          I agree completely.

      • B says:

        >given that I am — as B once put it — a “mud”

        I was saying this tongue in cheek.

        >In my experience, many though not all of these people tend to have a truly venomous hatred for white people.

        These are what the Reverend Manning refers to as “pinch-nosed nigroes.” Mulattos who hate themselves and thus hate both of their halves. They despise blacks, who they see as below themselves (hence the brown paper bag test) and whites, whom they envy and hate for being above themselves. They simultaneously emulate what they see as upper class whites (hence the “pinched nose”) and hate them.

        Examples include Obama and his circle-Jarrett, Holder, etc.

        Incidentally, mullato comes from the Spanish “Muladi” or “Wuladi,” meaning, offspring of conquering Arabs and native Spaniards. The root is l-d, the same as that for the Hebrew “yeled,” child, or “leda,” “birth”. These formed their own social class in Islamic Spain and North Africa. Ibn Khaldun was one, apparently.

        I’ve served with some intelligent blacks. They had no illusions about reality and were willing to speak frankly, without offense.

        • Irving says:

          B,
          You’re point about mulattos is well-taken. Though the category of blacks that I was speaking of above are not entirely composed of mulattos, many of them are mulattos, and in particular there are more than a few — to use the words of Mike Enoch — “frizzy-haired mulatto girls” among them who tend to be not only viciously anti-white but also the most dedicated and uncompromising SJWs that you can possibly find. Catherine Lhamon, the “assistant secretary” at the Office of Civil Rights, is really the person responsible for forcing universities to accept the new feminist dogmas about rape and “sexual assault”, thereby making her also responsible for the ruined lives of young men across the country who have been targeted by these new rules, and she is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Just put her name in Google to see what I’m talking about.

          Interesting — I had no idea that Ibn Khaldun was half-Spanish. I thought he was a Tunisian.

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      >the idea that blacks think of themselves as aristocrats compared to whites seems particularly off base, at least in my opinion.
      It is possible to act like an aristocrat, while not feeling like one. Do you think all European Kings had an inflated sense of self-importance? Probably most of them, but all of them?

  3. Mycroft Jones says:

    I don’t think Droit de Signeur ever existed as a formal practice. Instead, the gentry fucked whichever woman they wanted, without consequences.

  4. Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur

    >There is no direct evidence of the right being exercised in medieval Europe, though there are numerous references to it.
    >In the nineteenth century, many French people believed that several immoral rights had existed in France during the Ancien Régime, such as the droit de cuissage, the droit de ravage (right of ravage; providing to the lord the right to devastate fields of his own domain), and the droit de prélassement (right of lounging; it was said that a lord had the right to disembowel his serfs to warm his feet in).

    Leftist Propaganda, through and through.

  5. B says:

    >There is no place for them in the world.

    There is no place for any man in the world, unless he makes a place for himself. The problem these boys have is that not that mean blacks and women are oppressing them. It’s that they don’t have men teaching them how to carve out a place for themselves.

    About 4 years ago, I lived in a decaying city in the Northeastern US. On Shabbat, I had to walk to the synagogue for about 4 miles through a mixed-race area. Packs of chattering black teenagers would shut up, avoid eye contact and make way for me as I walked through them on the sidewalk. I guess they just got that feeling that any benefit from choosing me would be outweighed by the price I’d make them pay, consequences be damned.

    Never had any problems. As a man, you make a place for yourself.

    Blacks swagger and strut and screech and cackle because they were raised by their bitch mothers without a father around, and therefore their idea of masculinity is screeching, flamboyant bitchhood. Not because they are aristocrats.

    All of this is not to deny that the cops take the side of the criminal, that whites are emasculated, etc. They are the ones doing the emasculating to themselves and their own kids. Being a man starts with being willing to pay the price for your own dignity.

    Related vignette: http://www.jameslafond.com/article.php?id=3583

      • B says:

        TL;DR. Lots of whining in the first 3 installments. Does it get better?

      • Art says:

        I stopped reading at the point where he placed the blame for his illiteracy not on his family but on Hispanic teachers.
        Is it worth reading further? What do you find interesting about these essays?

    • jim says:

      About 4 years ago, I lived in a decaying city in the Northeastern US. On Shabbat, I had to walk to the synagogue for about 4 miles through a mixed-race area. Packs of chattering black teenagers would shut up, avoid eye contact and make way for me as I walked through them on the sidewalk. I guess they just got that feeling that any benefit from choosing me would be outweighed by the price I’d make them pay, consequences be damned.

      Supposedly you have been everywere and done everything. This is another anecdote of a great many that I do not believe.

  6. Alan J. Perrick says:

    The witchfinders aren’t actually looking for witches today, though. That is really only clever phrasing to give religious description to that which is very secular, in other words the permissive (irreligious and secular) doesn’t accurately compare to the impermissive (religious).

    A.J.P.

  7. Bob Wallace says:

    What fantasy land to you live in? My father grew up in the ’40’s and ’50s and women were as big of sluts back then as now. And it had nothing to do with those non-existent “alphas.”

    Almost all the blacks know have IQs of less than 90 and collapse on the spot when you tell them to take a bath.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Mr Wallace,

      I agree and have noticed that people confuse unattached psychopaths with alphas, but an actual alpha would not be taking so many risks that irreparably endanger his environment where he has had such “success”.

      Best regards,

      A.J.P.

    • jim says:

      What fantasy land to you live in? My father grew up in the ’40’s and ’50s and women were as big of sluts back then as now.

      While women have always been sluts (check the divorce of Queen Caroline) back in the fifties, and even in the sixties, they were under powerful social pressure to conceal the fact, and being discovered was apt to have serious social consequences.

  8. Kudzu Bob says:

    >Blacks swagger and strut and screech and cackle because they were raised by their bitch mothers without a father

    You know, I *had* wondered what the cause must be. Such terrible, no good, very bad luck, to just happen to grow up fatherless like that, the same as their cousins in Haiti and in Brazil and in Europe and even in the African motherland. For a while there I had been starting to worry that genetics possibly have something to do with it. I’m sure I speak for all of Jim’s readers and even Jim himself when I say thanks for clearing that up for us!

    • B says:

      Did the genetics change drastically between the 1950s, when most blacks grew up with a father and mother, and now?

      Is there some sort of genetic sweep that occurred in the meantime?

      When I look at pictures of blacks marching in the 50s and early 60s, they’re all neatly dressed, with haircuts. The women wear modest clothing. Today’s Black Lives Matter protesters present a different picture.

      Did evil Jews time-travel back with CRISPR gene therapy kits and infect blacks with bad genes which now make them prone to wearing pants that sag off their ass and hooker uniforms, with retard hairdos?

  9. […] also offers a brief reflection on The Good Old Days. Finally, Jim’s Big Piece this week: The Anti American empire. Anti-(a certain […]

  10. Paul says:

    Well the women of the Good old days were certainly so much more Nicer and a hell of a lot Easier to meet at that time since today many of them are very selfish and spoiled more than ever before since they really want the Best and will Never settle for Less.

Leave a Reply