heretical.com

Eunice Johns, age 9, and her husband, Charlie Johns, age 22    

‘The very definition of generacy. He literally generated seven white people each of whom grew up with a mother and father.’

 

This January 1937 photo from Sneedville, Tennessee, shows Eunice Johns, age 9, and her husband, Charlie Johns, age 22. The groom gave his wife a doll as a wedding gift. The new husband and wife planned to build a cabin, and, as Charlie Johns phrased it, “go to housekeepin’.” This couple illustrates the cultural relativity of life stages, which we sometimes mistake as fixed. It also is interesting from a symbolic interactionist perspective – that of changing definitions.

The marriage lasted. The couple had 7 children, 5 boys and 2 girls. Charlie died in 1997 at age 83, and Eunice in 2006 at age 78. The two were buried in the Johns Family Cemetery.

 
In Praise of Young Brides
 
Anonymous, 31 December 2016 (ID 8e6178, No. 8642890, edited). In Britain, a white man even talking to an underage girl can be in legal jeopardy, rather emphasising the author’s point.



Nothing disappoints me more about /pol/ than the fact that it is supposedly redpilled, except there is no difference between its thoughts on pedo/hebe/ephebophilia and what you would hear on the most pozzed mid-80s newscast during the height of the Satanic daycare sexual abuse panic. For all of you agecucks out there, a few questions:

  1. How do you explain the fact that age of consent laws were the first thing on the agenda for Jewish and Jewish-backed first-wave feminists once they got going? (Age of consent laws were pushed by early feminists even before women’s suffrage.) We know that one of the main long-term mutual aims of feminists and Jews has been to destroy the family unit and harmony between the sexes. Why was pushing an age of consent so important to them then? Why did they just magically happen to do one “good thing” before going on to then destroy society?
  2. Some of the greatest men in history lived in times when the age of consent was low. (The age of consent in colonial Delaware was only 7. And no, you can’t use the “people didn’t live as long back then” excuse because that’s not even true. When you account for infant mortality, people who survived past their vulnerable toddler years generally lived to at least a reasonable 60 or so on average.) Were these men degenerates? Do you really think the men who built the foundations of Western society and created the strength of the family unit in the first place were less knowledgeable about the proper relations between men and women than us? Did they just hate children or not care about their mental wellbeing? Or were they too stupid to notice the wives they took at very young ages growing up to be “traumatized” by the sexual contact they had with them? And all of these fathers willingly married their daughters off into “horrific sexual abuse” with no reservations? All of those hypotheses seem unlikely, and the picture above shows an example of a happy marriage between an older man and a younger girl from prior times. Does this guy look like a degenerate to you? It’s pretty obvious he’d kick the ass of most people on /pol/ for insulting his wife or his marriage and not feel bad about it. You think that in today’s degenerate times you could even hope to have a marriage half as successful as his? But you’re going to judge him?
  3. As we know, the mainstream media nowadays pushes nothing but degeneracy and filth. Everything they say is perfectly crafted to manipulate the white race into destroying itself. And yet their views on pedo/hebe/ephebophilia and age-disparate relationships line up perfectly with /pol/’s. (No, a few clickbait articles on Salon do not erase the vast amount of effort over decades the mainstream media has spent decrying age-disparate relationships.) Why are you believing what the bluepill media tells you hook, line and sinker on just this one issue? They’re trying to destroy your society, heritage, and culture on every other issue, but they just happen to be right about this one thing? Or do you think it’s somehow some sort of coincidence that you have such strong feelings about possibly the most propagandized-against issue in human history?

The Jewish agenda is universal promiscuity. The floodgates on girls becoming sexually promiscuous at a young age (as opposed to sexually active in a stable marriage as in the past, which is a key distinction between modern Jewish whorification and the normal, loving, age-disparate relationships of former times) have already opened. The slutification of adult women trickles down to younger girls. The point is, only white people have enough of a moral compass to restrain themselves from having sex with sexually attractive females deemed unsuitable. The moral prohibitions the media promotes are for white men only. Non-whites get to do whatever they want because they don’t care.

Admit it white man, following the age of consent amounts to nothing more than “Give Tyrone, Paco, and Muhammad a turn first.” That’s exactly what the media is trying to manipulate you into doing by meeting you half-way and exploiting your natural empathy for children and young people via fake science. (Rind et al., ‘A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,’ a study that slipped through the cracks and showed that the effects of so-called child sexual abuse were exaggerated, was the only scientific study every officially condemned by the US congress even though they cited no specific flaw in it.)

The truth that we can see in our daily lives is that women only truly have any sort of respect for men that they originally formed a relationship with when they were younger, in the same way that (most) women, despite their whorish ways, tend to have some respect for their father. As they grow older, their ability to form paternal attachments wears off, and they lose the ability to truly respect a man (other than on a primal level of having a temporary lust for chad so long as he never shows any emotional vulnerability or human qualities) ever again. This paternal respect, in which a woman follows the man as opposed to falsely viewing herself his equal, is a key element in proper romance between men and women, which is why our truly redpilled ancestors who were completely untouched by Jewish propaganda married young women. It was simply obvious to them. They knew that leaving women to sit until they turned ages like 18 simply made them spoiled and bitter. You ever seen a really hot girl with an average/somewhat ugly dude? I have too, and most of them met when the girl was very young. He is no chad, but because he formed such a crucial part of her development, she is attached to her partner in a way that she never could be to chad, and wouldn’t dream of leaving.

We also know that the ideal breeding age and age of peak fertility, scientifically speaking, for a woman is around 13 or 14. So what do you trust to lead you toward proper breeding habits, Jewish propaganda or your own “lying" body? Adhering to the ridiculous age of consent of 18 (or even 16 or 17) is suicide for the white race, and one of the primary causes of the breakdown of modern relationships. A man should begin courting a girl as soon as possible, to ensure that a proper paternal attachment between him and her is formed, and should begin engaging in sexual conduct with her as soon as her biology deems she’s ready. (And as long as he stays loyal to her for life as she should, after decades of such contact with him, it won’t matter one bit to her whether she started at 14 or 18.)

The primary goal of a woman/girl in life is to find one man, and devote the entirety of her feminine resources to him (affection, loyalty, sex, child-rearing, housekeeping, etc.) to support his masculine endeavors throughout his life. This is the way we are programmed, and any other relationship arrangement is inferior. And it doesn’t make any difference whether she starts at 12 or 18, other than that waiting until 18 gives her no stable male romantic influence to lead her through puberty and into adulthood, allowing for all sorts of degenerate influences to crawl into her life and lead her astray from her proper path. Quit getting kiked /pol/. Don’t take my word for it. Instead of trying to make a diamond out of the coal of washed up, legal whores, find a 13 or 14-year-old QT and flirt with her a bit. You don’t even have to do anything that will put you at legal risk. Just court her a bit, and feel the difference between a girl who still has that uniquely feminine natural respect and admiration for you and your average adult stacy slut. I guarantee you that it won’t be long before you’re ready to find one and help develop her into a proper woman to eventually marry, cementing your place in her mind for life and creating an unassailable bond between the two of you. Or you can keep hunting in the trash can for Jamal’s leftovers. It’s your choice.




Eunice Johns, age 9, and her husband, Charlie Johns, age 22


TIME Magazine, 15 February 1937

In Washington, D.C., the American Youth Commission declared that a survey made in Maryland showed that, of 6,642 young women questioned, one had been married at 10, one at 11, two at 12, 12 at 13, 36 at 14. Census records of 1930 listed 4,241 U.S. married women under 15, with ten States recognizing the old Anglo-U.S. common law marriage ages: 12 for females, 14 for males.

These facts came to light and U.S. preachers, welfare workers and lawmakers beat their breasts last week because, on a backwoods road near Treadway, Tenn., a hillbilly parson named Walter Lamb had joined in wedlock Hillbilly Charlie Johns, 22, and Eunice Winstead, 9 (TIME, Feb. 8). Newshawks sought out Parson Lamb, a husky, red-headed Baptist living with his wife in a two-room cabin in Hancock County, only county in Tennessee which has no telephones, no telegraph, not a foot of paved highway. Said Preacher Lamb, who for some years has lived only a mile away from the Winstead family: “I didn’t know she was so young. Nine’s a little early. Anyway, they had a license and she told me she was old enough to know her own mind.... It’s hard to get bread and meat in this section, so I thought so long as some other one was going to marry them, I might as well do it. I just told them to join hands and stand in the middle of the road. It was outdoors. I didn’t even take my hat off. I just stood in the middle of the road, said the marriage ceremony, and it was over. I don’t charge anything for marrying people, but they gave me a dollar, which was all right, considering they got value received, I guess.”

“Winsteads marry young,” said Mrs. Lamb, cracking hickory nuts by her fireside.

In his cabin where he had taken his elfin, impubic bride “so’s I can raise her up right,” gangling Groom Johns declined $500 for newsreel poses, oiled his shotgun, muttered about “furriners” coming into the mountains, exploded: “They’re a-sayin’ they’re goin’ to take Eunice away from me. They’re a-sayin’ the law-makin’ men in Nashville is makin’ a law sayin’ my marriage ain’t legal. They’ve scared Eunice to death talkin’ about sendin’ her to reform school. I’m that pestered I can’t plant my tobacco crop nor git no work done. All I know is they ain’t goin’ to take Eunice away ’thout it’s over my dead body.” Eunice’s mother – a grandmother at 33 – explained that a neighboring family had “put the peep” on her 16-year-old son Herbie who wished to marry Clarey Johns, 24, that “Charlie was afeered we would do the same on Eunice.” But, said she, “This thing is all right with God. I know. A man who has God’s word married my daughter.... They don’t actually live as man and wife. Why, she’s still my child, just my little baby. He treats her just like always, except they sleep in the same room now.” Said Father Winstead: “What God hath joined together let no man put asunder. I wouldn’t put my soul in danger of hell-fire to bust up the marriage of a couple of young ’uns that love each other.”

Said Father Johns: “These two youngsters sort of put one over on the old folks.”

As Tennessee officials discovered after hunting for legal means to void the marriage, the youngsters had put one over on the State. Since the parents approved, nothing could be done about it. Hastily drafted and passed by the State Senate was a bill setting the marriageable age for Tennessee females at 14.



TIME Magazine, 31 May 1937

Married. Clara Johns, 24, elder sister of Charlie Johns, the Sneedville, Term, hillbilly who four months ago married Third-Grader Eunice Winstead, 9 (TIME, Feb. 8); and Herbert Winstead, 17, Eunice’s elder brother; at New Hope, Tenn.



TIME Magazine, 23 August 1937

One of the most troublesome children in Tennessee is Mrs. Eunice Winstead Jones, 9. When her marriage last winter to a lank, 23-year-old hillbilly named Charlie Johns provoked a national scandal (TIME, Feb. 15), Tennessee hastily enacted a law prohibiting the marriage of persons under 14. Last week Eunice Johns caused Tennessee to change another law, when in Nashville State Educational Commissioner William Arthur Bass ruled that neither Eunice nor any other “married children” would have to go back to school in the autumn.

Eunice left her school in Sneedville this spring when Teacher Wade Ferguson switched her for “jumping around.” What Teacher Ferguson had to contend with was revealed last week by Eunice’s father-in-law, Nick Johns, who turned up in Treadway to inquire about the possibilities of an annulment. He snorted: “She can’t learn nothin’ in school and she can’t learn nothin’ at home. I tried to learn her at home, but she don’t even know her ABC’s. She can’t count to 25 and she don’t know the day of the month or week.”




      Main Directory      

–– The Heretical Press ––