Ius Primae Noctis

Through a proper analysis of medieval marriage customs a more lucid understanding of the ancient fertility traditions of the Aryans can be reached. Not only do we propose that history reveals a theomachy, but also that Christianity, as reached in its fullness during the Middle Ages, is evidently a collection of eugenic fertility sacraments which uprooted those bestiality cults that had so consumed the heathen world. Many further articles will be published concerning the topics of Christianity, Paganism, the Myths, and the concepts of Virginity, Legitimacy, and Fine Birth. In this essay we will try to maintain focus on the particular wedding customs of Ius Primae Noctis and the Bedding Ceremony. It is aggravating to write so selectively, choosing not to reveal so much valuable information so as to save it for later, just as much so as to constrain the passage to one detail that is better presented in the context of a whole picture. We can clearly observe that the Medieval Church, which ruled the Germanic realm, was preoccupied with emphasis on virginity, the first born son, prohibitions on divorce, as well as the distinctions between commoners and nobles as separated by the feudal codes. Many are unaware that Clerical Authorities and Feudal Lords were privileged to deflower brides on their wedding nights. This detail may come as a shock to those who presume that such a practice puts the “sanctity of marriage” into question, for those who know better the practice verifies that the knowledge of the epigenetic,especially of Telegony and Michrochimerism, informed breeding practices. The nobleman or bishop of any given township would have been kith and kin of the townspeople, his donation of his nobility or dignity to the bride-to-be would have insured uniformity in reproduction, would have kept the maintenance of paternal government (in quite the literal sense) and would have solidified the familial community of the kingdom. We all know that king and queen were considered as the high father and mother of the kingdom, this was not some kind of capitulation to an outsider or stranger. The feudal hierarchy was composed of rings of more or less related population, the core, or nucleus, being the thoroughly purebred royal family, followed by the nobility of various degrees and the commoners. Commoners were of unrefined breeding, being more likely to have internalised foreign blood, yet the finest among them were able to marry a class up and so on, meaning that such a system was of interrelatedness, with the most secure in their consanguinity as the chiefest. This brings us to the Bedding Ceremony wherein a witness would view a married couple’s consummation, most often this witness would be the Bride’s father, other variations include a Priest, Brother, or Immediate Family as witnesses. Even today do we have a father walking his wedded daughter down the aisle, having her first dance, and giving his blessing to her Groom, .eg; he forfeits her pudenda. Why do women desire their fathers? Fathers their daughters? Husband as Father? This is neither a mistake nor a perversion; it’s a healthy instinct encouraging like-begetting and familial trust. Both Ius Primae Noctis and The Bedding Ceremony echo an archaic taboo (as best attested to by Anthony Ludovici and Sigmund Freud) where the alpha-male patriarch would sleep with his daughters, granddaughters , nieces, grand nieces, daughters in law, et cetera.

“For I must confess that depending on the condition of my glands and ganglia, I could switch in the course of the same day from one pole of insanity to the other-from the thought that around 1950 I would have to get rid somehow of a difficult adolescent whose magic nymphage had evaporated-to the thought that with patience and luck might have her produce eventually a nymphet with my blood in her exquisite veins, a Lolita the Second” – Humbert ( Lolita, 123)

This, we have called, The Perpetual Orgasm, the idea that through inbreeding a man can achieve salvation through the loins of his progeny (so to speak). This intergenerational incest did not simply vanish, the memory lives on in the unconscious (Again, See Freud’s theories concerning Penis Envy, The Oedipal Complex, etc). The familial caste system as we have discussed it had replaced such formulations of primitive mankind (See Friedrich Engles’ “Origins of Family, Private Property, and The State”). As the biblical Hebrews understood it, Idolatry and Fornication were identical practices, there came a time when one’s progeny was not his father’s progeny, ie a kilayim-mamzer instead. It is no wonder that the stories of Adam and Eve, Lot and His Daughters, Judah and Tamar can be bound in the same leather as the pentateuch’s apparent prohibition on incest (except as it relates to cousins). Such prohibitions were enforced by the Clerical Establishment of both the Old Temple Religion and Christianity, and were done so, not in principle, but for pragmatic purposes of avoiding insecure breeding. Those who blame recessive genetic disorders on inbreeding are correct to the degree that endogamy internalises traits. Ill fruit is begotten by an ill tree, there’s no need to throw the baby out with the bath water just because the bath water has been soiled.