Incest is the highest expression of self-love, the very drive of racial evolution. For that reason, we must clear away the lies and antiquated misconceptions.
It is the key to promoting a way of life and love transcending the division between a morally corrupt liberalism and an equally degenerate but more socially acceptable conservatism, embodying the Left/Right dichotomy, and far from being detrimental to health incest when done right brings about the genetic regeneration of the race.
Cultural values usually never last beyond a few centuries, often degenerating before. Men live too short lives to expect any better. The only thing that overcomes time - beside the pyramids - is blood and the quality of any culture comes down to that. We profess that consanguinity is a natural fact meant to go hand in hand with a healthy selection, and that the absence of both is now creating tens of millions of degenerates at an alarming rate, signing the end of humanity if incest doesn’t come back on a large scale to make the Nordic race pure again.
Bronze Age Europe
Classical European cultures all over the continent stood in fact in complete diametrical opposition of the Abrahamic religions that spread from the Orient like a plague (and whose effects could be argued to be worse than the plagues themselves). This carefree morale that founded Western culture was as distant from the common globohomo LGBTIQ+ pleasure-obsessed and self-centered modern cult of utter degeneracy praised in today’s liberal circles, as to conservative
Magic was a prominent part of culture: Seiðr, Spà, Galdr, Runesseiðr, sorcery, however we want to call it… Today we call it the metapsychics, or ESP for extrasensory perception. But it always existed in known history and beyond, down to our ape ancestry as opposed to most other lower lifeforms, knowing only breeding.
Even in what we consider as modern neo-Liberal and progressive European countries such as Germany, incestuous couples and individuals are a heavily prosecuted group, with their basic human rights removed upon the revelation of this deviancy in the eyes of the supposedly progressive state.
Reading from Norse Sagas, it appears clearly that in the original pan-European Nordic society that traditional social structures (marriages, trade) were merely formal customs, somewhat necessary to the functioning of society but of secondary importance in comparison to honor, bravery and integrity were paramount values.
Freya and Freyr were twin god and goddess of sex and fertility, and lovers while married to others, while Odin’s wife Frigg, routinely slept with Odin’s three brothers in his absence, with his approval and this was no secret. A give-and-take sort of agreement given Odin’s own famous disregard of faithfulness. While Loki changed into a female horse, got humped by males and gave birth as a horse. Promiscuity was the norm among the gods.
Norse gods were especially fond of incest and commented on it, being very self-aware, unlike Greek gods, despite even more incestuous couplings, instead appearing closer to impersonal archetypes than living people and role models. This hints at the fact blood relationshps among gods were, beyond symbols, but a definite part of of real life. If the gods themselves embraced freely their own deviancy, and it didn’t hinder Norsemen and women to worship them. When all gods are debauchees,
debauchery is close to an ideal.
We can deduce, that these myths reflected the on-going fight, on a near conscious level, between the desire to fuck the brains out of your wide-eyed long-haired aryan sister mindless, and economic and social imperatives (clan politics, marriages) straying more and more from the immediate satisfaction of human needs, growing more and more parasitic, sucking people’s life and demanding more and more submission of the invividual. For Norse people (and Egyptians up to Roman times), before Christianity took over, this fight between society and men’ wilderness had not been completely lost yet.
Levi-Strauss and the Structuralists
The almost unanimous point of view in scientific circles, and beyond that the
popular wisdom seems to be universal, is that incest is hated by nature, and fundamentally bad… Levi-Strauss even spread the idea, common today, that the whole of human civilization was the product of two things: cooking (there he was perhaps right), and the incest taboo, conceived as a victory over nature.
[ - Leslie- ] Whites(1948) proposes that the rule of incest, in the strongest (taboo) terms, requires that individuals and groups seek economic and military cooperation through the institutions of family and marriage when other institutions such as government and economy (the state) are absent. Going outside one’s family and immediate group to seek a partner is rewarded with access to sex and other adult status and privileges. These rewards provide a more personal incentive to extend social ties, going beyond the economic and military needs of the kinship group, community and/or society. The strength of this rule suggests the urgent cultural need for such alliances. Exceptions to these rules are relatively rare, and punishments usually harsh.
The principle being that without this taboo (and the impossibility to be happy with your own relatives or members of your local community) there would be little to no incentive to meet with members of other families, hence to form a society. It entails that The origin of society itself (vs the mythical
free-for-all animal state) originates, according to this Jew, from the decision of all communities from a certain degree of development, to practice the exchange of wives.
- On the basis of Levi-Strauss, Witte formulated the alliance/cooperation thesis :
- The more a society feels the need to establish a connection to the outside world, the more the incest taboo expands in scope (the number and variety of prohibited mating partners, in degrees of relatedness or even social roles such as a step-parent) and in the harshness of punishments applied to violators.
On the other hand, the development of social institutions such as commercial networks (religious or a state bureaucracy) would gradually make the taboo obsolete by replacing the kinship system as the primary alliance-building institutions. The less incest is practiced, the weaker the perceived threat of family power becomes, and so the taboo fades, being instead internalized: France does not condemn adult incest, yet the revulsion still rules.
In the same way these alliances are sometimes fundamental in a strategy of avoidance of the conflicts at the primitive ones:
To Goodenough (1953) asked a tribe of the highlands of New Guinea
Can you marry with such a group? their positive answer was often
Yes, we fight. These theses have a certain merit, but they also become full of contradictions as soon as one wants to lend them an absolute or even worse, evolutionary character, assuming a universality that is wholly invalidated by the facts.
Sigmund Freud (a Jew keenly aware of the peculiarities of his own culture and hypocrisy of this time) thought, on the contrary, that our natural instinctive drive would rather have us pursue and appropriate our daughters, mother and sisters, freeing us from the need to establish a properly human relationship with others or to restrain our behavior in any way.
Freeing us from the shackles of unnatural social constraints, absolutely. At the core we remain animals. Modern human relations, have always been built on a fundamental inner want, both creating the handicap and providing the clutch, in the form of institutions, such as marriage and religion (at least the neurotic part of it). Sexual repression, coextensive with the progress of culture sublimated more and more sexual energy into forced outbreeding - prohibiting the fulfillment of Oedipus (the subconscious romantic affinity for our parents) renders man forever incapable of total and ineffable abandon in love, the dissolving into the Id (in French the
It, the well of instincts and desires), incapable of regaining the undivided unity of the child suckling its mother.
At the same time, civilization would guarantee order and calm, an order that domesticated external nature (wild animals, crops, etc.) as much as it did our internal nature, allowing one to no longer be at the mercy of other tyrannical
I’s, who are as little inclined to take your interests into account as you are to take theirs.
On the other hand… Sociobiologists, a school nowadays very popular, simply postulates an instinctive horror of incest, a kind of negative imprinting from those raised with us, that evolution must have selected to avoid consanguinity. Yet upon further analysis this stance appears as groundless as farcical, both from a social and biological standpoint as is demonstrated in the next section.
The limit of acceptable endogamy changes a lot from place to place and time to time, and even in cultures with strong consciousness about the
danger of incest, we may find the actual repression not matching its description, and in some context absent. Starting with structuralists: They confused love (and sexuality) with marriages, while until the XVIIIth century in the West the general rule has always been their separation.
The idea that the social order can only be maintained by forcing young men into obedience in exchange for sexual satisfaction in the form of marriage, is silly. After all, of either sex men have always been (by far) the least bound by marital ties, as obvious with the omnipresence of prostitution at all times, or other extramarital loves including homosexual ones. In fact such outlets were often encouraged especially in the upper classes, as the guarantors of social order. When push comes to shove, one’d rather fuck a random hoe than the mayor’s daughter !
Roman patricians, the poster child of patriarchy, conceived marriage as a necessary evil to ensure the continuity of the state.Hardly as a moral matter. In antiquity the fidelity of Roman men has never been required before Christianity, while for women the concern was expressly to avoid polluting the family bloodline, with genitors whose value no one could ascertain.
On the other hand, adoption was common especially among nobles, even for girls despite their absence of matrimonial use. This must be replaced in its original context where pure Patricians had to suffer the racial danger (and potential sexual predation) of inferior swarthier plebeians. This suffices to show that marriage was originally and for the longest time, a very natural eugenic urge to ascertain an offspring’s racial purity or worth (notions originally synonymous) and not a neurotic need to enforce some egotic need for possessivity as displayed by the likes of Islamists. Many literary examples leads to fairly different and carefree portrait of Roman morals1. Saturnalia also regularly saw real orgies take place, without participants being held responsible.
And beyond the dramatic importance incestus has in Roman legal and religious (synonymous words for them…) writings, we should stop and consider what consequence and punishment it really brought.
Incestus meant a wild varieties of things, but mostly two. Sex with a Vestale, punished by death, and intercourse within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity, including first degree incest.
The latter was merely punished by relegatio which meant
the mildest form of exile, involving banishment from Rome, but not loss of citizenship, or confiscation of property.
But evidences show that in Rome for incestuous couples willing to live outside Rome itself but anywhere else in any other city, there seemingly was no real consequences.
Epictetus praised a stoic senator who heard he had been condemned in his absence:
- To exile, says he, or to death?
- To exile
- What about my property?
- It has not been confiscated
- Well then, let us go to Arica [ - first stop outside Rome- ] and take our lunch there.
The real engine of social change has always been the perception of the sacred and the transcendent, projected on all sorts of things. Sex when it comes to deep cultural changes, takes it value much less from the procreative side of things, than to its innate association with the sacred. The idea that men may be possessed of transcultural innate desires driving piloting history is just not conceivable for sociology, explicitely denying any transcendance, in the purest marxist/Jewish tradition.
As a matter of fact the overwhelming majority of cultures studied so far that do condemn incest both ancient and extant only concern themselves with marriages (relative to whatever kinship system is in usage), not sexual relationships themselves. I could only find one researcher realizing the incongruity of what amounts to a grave and systematic case of cognitive dissonance or conceptual myopy, leading to a complete disregard of love outside matrimony as a culturally-significant reality.
Some scholars see the requirement to marry outside the close kinship group as derived from prohibitions on sexual relations, while others assume that the rules governing this choice of spouse (exogamy) account for the prohibitions on sexual intercourse.
It goes without saying that if society has established a permanent prohibition against a sexual relationship between two individuals, no marriage between them will be possible. But a marriage prohibition does not necessarily imply a prohibition against a sexual relationship. Marriage, to mention the most important difference, is usually a public affair which establishes relationships between groups.
History and anthropology suffer greatly from the over-reliance on texts, considered as an objective source of information on people’s thinking, instead of what they really are, normative discourses made by and for a certain class, a story we wish to tell about ourselves or others.
In Greece, (in Athenes at least) only incest through the maternal line was considered, so half-siblings from the father side could marry several famous philosophers could openly discuss that topic, which after all did not have the ominipotence we would assume from the same people that gave us the Oedipus complex.
[ - 29- ] There is one thing, however, that I forgot to say about Oedipus: He did not go to Delphi to consult the oracle but fell in with Teiresiasand suffered great calamities from that seer’s divination on account of his own ignorance. For he knew that he had consorted with his own mother and that he had children by her; and subsequently, when perhaps he should have concealed this or made it legal in Thebes, in the first place he let everybody know the fact and then became greatly wrought up, lifted up his voice and complained that he was father and brother at once of the same children, and husband and son of the same woman.
[ - 30- ] But domestic fowls do not object to such relationships, nor dogs, nor any ass, nor do the Persians, although they pass for the aristocracy of Asia. And in addition to all this, Oedipus blinded himself and then wandered about blind, as though he could not wander while still keeping his sight.
[ - 205- ] And with us it is sinful [athesmos] to marry one’s mother or one’s own sister; but the Persians, and especially those of them who are reputed to practice wisdom – namely, the Magi, – marry their mothers; and the Egyptians take their sisters in marriage.
[ - 234- ] For just as, if we had been ignorant, say, of the custom amongst the Egyptians of marrying sisters, we should have asserted wrongly that it was universally agreed that men ought not to marry sisters, – even so, in regard to those prac- tices wherein we notice no discrepancy, it is not proper for us to affirm that there is no disagreement about them, since, as I said, disagreement about them may possibly exist amongst some of the nations which are unknown to us.
Samewise, Plato’s Republic describes a rational society in which knowing telling apart one’s siblings was discouraged, and actual incest sanctioned by the gods. Stoicists and Cynics also criticized the arbitrariness of the taboo.
his co-guardian as an outsider?” “By no means,” he said; “for no matter whom he meets, he will feel that he is meeting a brother, a sister, a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, or the offspring or forebears of these.” “Excellent”
The relationships in the entire city will be as tangled as those in the family of Oedipus. And Socrates asks for divine sanction for such incestuous loves. Given that there will be many erotic improprieties in this city—as Aristotle makes clear (Politics II, iv)-it seems that Socrates’ approach to the matter is quite light-hearted.
Thus it stands to reason that such concepts were not, in fact, horrifying to contemplate for Greeks, which did not harbor such a horror after all. It seems that they only abhor mother-son relationships, and well-known philosophers (Stoics in particular) did run counter this taboo, of course without any repercussion. Like there was no law against pedophilia, it seems Greeks cared far more about the respect of personal property and political rights than we do, and people were absolutely free as long as it did not impege on anyone nor defile the few religious places.
Lastly, several cultures far from fearing it, openly worshiped incest for everyone. The most notorious (not the only one) were the Persians have been known since classical Ancient Greece (around 500 BC) to mate and breed with their relatives, priests, until they decided to convert every single Persian. The very essence of religion is incest: it is the first and foremost good deed to accomplish, the most miraculous above all else, and that by which one converts to Zoroastrianism2.
It seems that while incest wasn’t uncommon before the Sassanid period not everyone agreed to the transition to a new religion be described an self-proclaimed, unrestrained, obsessive State-mandated inbreeding worship hell-bent at converting the people to daily orgasms in their female relatives, basically pushing what was before mandatary of priests in the Achemenid period3 onto everyone else, while - if we are to trust the texts - repressing all forms of sexuality to an insane degree, including oral and anal sex with however.
Not everyone were on board immediately as the texts kept memory of this conflict, hinting at quite turmoils indeed45. But priests pressed on unshamed and succeeded. The purpose afterall, was nothing less than the salvation of the individual, the community and all of humanity forever and ever6.
Incestuous intercourse had the same value regardless of age7, though whether that include prepubescent children is not clear, as nowhere did I find mention of an age limit for sexuality. Consanguineous coitus was believed to have a magical power to destroy all demons and improve the physical reality through its unseen metaphysical counterpart, from which good harvests, good rulership and good forture overall would ensue. If everyone was to do it, the world would advance that much faster toward its ultimate regeneration at the end of time and the disparition of evil.
Extensive experiments were conducted in this spirit long before our modern methods and concepts of genetics and molecular biology were developed. Helen Dean King (1869-1955), showed that the failures and degeneration first encountered in her inbred rat farm were not only due solely to their poor nutrition, but also prove reversible as nutrition changed.
Laboratory mice tolerate this kind of reproductive regime for generations, also without side effects, or so weak that they are invisible to natural selection (leaving for example to the mother, whose sense of smell is very good, the care of rejecting the abnormal young). In fact, genetic variety is the enemy of breeding and of any selection insofar as it hides the traits we are looking for and that we have spent years or decades to bring out.
The Amish and Mennonite peoples have a high rate of intermarriage within their individual communities, with a resulting high incidence of inherited disorders. Many of these disorders, such as cartilage-hair hypoplasia, Ellis-van Creveld syndrome, and others, are rarely seen outside these communities.
Health among the Amish is characterized by higher incidences of particular genetic disorders, especially among the Old Order Amish. These disorders include dwarfism, Angelman syndrome, and various metabolic disorders, such as Tay-Sachs disease, as well as an unusual distribution of blood types.
Most deleterious mutations are associated with a defective gene failing to produce a function protein, or any protein at all. When said mutations are inherited from one parent only, they usually do not express so the issue is naturally when family members whose recent common ancestor (a fortiori, their parent) had the mutation, breed with one another, giving their child a high probability of inheriting the defective gene on both genes of a pair of chromosomes (homozygosity).
The biggest cause of incest’s misdeeds, is the refusal to let natural selection apply, the interference of religious, social or ethical considerations, such as taking care of abnormal babies, or weak children.
This kind of attitude, which places greater value on individuals than on the vital qualities they manifest, is an old Christian legacy and beyond a Judaic one. For an orthodox Jew there is nothing more sacred than a Jewish life.
Instead, Pagan beliefs and the firsthand experience of extrasensory perception teach us the immortality of consciousness. Ergo, for those with the misfortune of a terrible birth, physically disabled or worse, intellectually, death is not a problem because their souls will find a better body.
Not to sterilize (at least) the disabled and handicapped is the end of natural selection. Defective genes pollute the good ones and good health, strength, intelligence, any desirable quality, become in a few decades of intensive indiscriminate breeding, a thing of the past.
The humane and logical solution is sterilization and adoption, a policy still followed by many civilized nations until the 1960s. It is an absolute necessity, as mere inbreeding without selection only cause defective alleles to settle and increase in frequency in human groups like the Amish, and physically degenerates individuals multiply. In the case of domestic animals, we select but for arbitrary economic or aesthetic criteria instead of renforcing fitness, resulitng in degenerate races incapable to compete with their wild equivalents without the care of men, or survivce at all.
When homozygosity of bad alleles occurs in a offspring this may be for the unfortunate parents, this comes with some perks: the more genetic flaws are highlighted, the easier the selection and thus their elimination from the patrimony for the generations to come. Complete (properly incestuous) inbreeding allows this. It is incomplete inbreeding which degenerates us, in a society in which thanks to technology and agriculture survival does not depend on individual fitness any longer, by not lowering survivability enough to screen out bad alleles.
- This phenomenon is called genetic purge 8:
- Some lines concentrate the defects, others the qualities, and those drawing the shortest straw will be eliminated by predators, because of a reduced fitness. In fact the bulk of natural selection acts before birth in the womb, making the whole thing much less bloody than we tend to imagine.
In the animal world, it is the universal occurence of incest that we observe, not its taboo. All types, vertical (intergenerational) or horizontal (intragenerational, typically between uterine germans… brothers and sisters), a fact much more common knowledge and noticed in the early XXth century. Strangely enough Nature seems to change according to our certitudes of the moment…
Although we still find honest research showing undeniable facts, there is a terrible omerta on the subject. Well known is the fact among those who have observed tigers for instance, that brother-sister incest isn’t a rare occurence.
Beside, men have have had the leisure to observe these same experimental results (of the innocuity of inbreeding in animals) for millenia - eons before any notion of genetics or degeneration could ever cross their mind - through the practice of husbandry and livestock farming from the early Neolithic age circa 13 000 BC: it is the benefits of inbreeding and endogamy in improving any and all benecial traits (strength, resilience, size, productivity) which has been obvious to all. The starking incongruity between this fact and the current diffusion of incest taboos was keenly noted by Lévi-Strauss. But I find fictional exposition always better at conveying points with inspiring:
- What’s really wrong with it?
- You breed too close, you get faulty offspring. Idiots and dead babies without heads and all that.
- Isn’t it wonderful? … It’s something everybody just knows. You don’t have to look at the evidence.
- Where do you go for evidence ?
- To dinner, for one place, where you’ll eat idiot pig or feebleminded cow. Any livestock breeder will tell you that, once you have a strain you want to keep and develop, you breed father to daughter and to granddaughter, and then brother to sister. You keep that up indefinitely until the desirable trait shows up recessive, and you stop it there. But it might never show up recessive.
But more importantly, what we just established here had actually been the unanimous opinion among scientists all along until 1963.
From 1868 to 1963, it was the unimanimous scientific opinion that the incest taboo was unfounded and inbreeding harmless to excellent9.
Those very same conclusions based on genetics we just established, have actually always been common sense for any sensible mind, and Levi-Strauss and Leslie White10 themselves agreed on the inexistence of any biological foundation, and that the only reason inbreeding could cause cause issues - if it was to cause any - was because it highlighted flaws already present:
East’s work has indirectly established that these supposed dangers would never have appeared if mankind had been endogamous from the beginning.
The temporary danger of exogamous unions, supposing such a danger to to exist, obviously stems from an exogamous or pangenetic tradition, but it cannot be the cause of this tradition.
It is very important to realize that Darwin and Westermarck had been previously ridiculed for their fear of consanguinity, on the ground that husbandry and cross-breeding on the contrary had proven through the ages extremely potent in improving all desirable qualities in breeds.
Opinions switched suddenly with the publication of new genetic molecular studies. Information leading authorities to conclude that
the ratio of deleterious and lethal recessive genes to selectively advantageous genes is very high indeed and
the biological advantages of the familial incest taboo cannot be ignored. While in reality what was ignored was the wild disparity in genetic quality between both ethnicities and groups within them.
Studies made with South India Pakistan an Japan, all countries of doubtful if not disgusting racial origins - plus only allowing incomplete incest and refraining from any form of eugenics - rated the excess mortality at 16 to 20% and the total morbidity fo first degree incests to 22 to 36%9.
As shown later by non-extrapolative but concrete statistics with real incestuous partners of a decent stock debunk those delusional figures . If the specter of national-socialism and World War II had not plagued everyone’s minds, the inanity of averaging such figures over whole population - then generalizing to all humanity - would have struke as nonsensical from the get-go.
Incomplete selection (such as laws favoring cousin marriages but not closer, or marrying according to wealth and not hereditary qualities) amounts to constantly stirring up the blood, increasing heterozygosity, blurring the line between good blood and bad blood. To get rid of genetic flaws, they must be allowed to express themselves, or no selection can occur, hence no improvement, and the eventual fixation of bad but non-lethal traits.
Hence Pakistan, other Arab countries and the Habsburg family, all being the results of partial consanguity with actively impeded natural selection. On the contrary, inbreeding not only occurs frequently in natural populations but is in fact characteristically adaptive in many social, territorial, long-lived, low-birth-rate populations. Shields gives several examples of close inbreeding in great ape species.
Philopatry (living and reproducing in the same place) and endogamy (reproducing with those close to you genetically), leads to inbreeding whether it be animals or plants, because you necessarily have spend more time, so have more opportunity to bree with relatives by living in the same place.
It appears that low dispersion is the norm in nature, in plants or animals, contradicting the notion that one must spread and conquer new territories. It also implies that new generations inherit an environment identical or very similar to that of the parents. Hence a constant selective pressure, going in the same direction. These conditions theoretically disfavor sexual reproduction, as it inevitably halve the material inherited, from the perspective of each parent. Instead, an unchanging environment would promote cloning or inbreeding, as an individual will pass more of its own alleles to its offspring by bonding with close relatives, sharing most of its blood.
So in a few generations a population can drastically reduce its overall mutational load. Addition of new blood might allow for an healthier first hybrid generation, but it only masks the defects that have not been eliminated yet, or might have fixed due to genetic drift (random high variation in allele frequency, which comes with too short of a breeding population).
But hybrid vigor quickly disappears as a corresponding amount of bad alleles also polluted the gene pool, perhaps in greater quantity than present in the consanguineous population but which were silent until now, hidden by heterozygosity (the presence in a single instance), and all the selection work must be redone.11
More so, Charli said, than what we’ve always done, when you look at it that way. Every generation a new exogene, the blood kept churned up, each new organism full of pressures which haven’t had a chance with the environment.
Complex adaptations originating from a large number of genes, are established by selection on a very large number of more or less genetically isolated extended families or demes. Whatever the challenge or environmental change this variation ensures the continuation of the species. More importantly a favorable adaptation will not disappear in reproduction or at least is bound to reappear in subsequent generations.
With time selection may fix the adaptive traits so that all of the demes share it. Then competition might determine which group represents the future of the species.
While this dispersal is often cited as a strong argument for incest avoidance primates, this is incorrect and has more to do with an instinctive mechanism to regulate population-size in accordance to the ecological bearing capacity (
how much food is there ?). That much has been experimentally proved by studies already. And cases of proper regular incest, beside being common for juveniles, has been seen among adult [chimpanzees too](studies-on-inbreeding](studies-on-inbreeding#chimp).
The Truth of Statistics
Quite enough studies have been done concerning first cousin marriages, not lacking in large samples considering it stays a customary practice in many countries, concluding in a negligible excess mortality, not warranting public concern or justifying any stigma. Though first degree incest (
true incest) is not illegal everywhere, especially in Europe (see this map), the relative rarity of such couples forming a family plus the moral burden, makes the job of statisticians rather complicated.
Nevertheless there are two main meta-studies with a limited but substantial sample size (between 100 to 250), allowing an estimation of how health trouble at different stage of their life, the offspring of incest (up to second degree incest) can be expected to suffer from, in absence of additional care such as genetic testing or in vitro fecundation with embryo selection.
National Society of Genetic Counselors
First off the result of Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors in 2002, compiling four separate studies accounting for a total of 213 children.
See the table of results p.10:
This analysis does not control for non-genetic variables [ - aka: food !- ] . In the two studies for which non-consanguineous reference groups were available, 8% of the control children (9 of 113) died or had a serious defect (Carter, 1967; Seemanova, 1971). Thus, the excess level of death and severe defect in the offspring of incestuous unions (a proportion of which may have been non-genetic in origin) was 31.4% (Bittles, in press).
… The risk for adverse medical outcome in the offspring of incestuous unions is probably in the range of 7–31% above population background, the risk being greatest in the 1st year of life.
The reason of this atrocious though weirdly variable rate, is the Czechoslovakian study from 1971 making up half the sample, and I feel little doubt in dismissing this sub-sample as quite unrepresentative from the average population to say the least:
Information on fathers was less complete; most of them were in prison at the time of the examination and could not be contacted. Of 138 fathers, 8 were diagnosed as mentally subnormal, 13 were classified as chronic alcoholics according to the documents of the courts, 4 had committed suicide after the disclosure of their incestuous relations, and 2 were found to have acquired lues.
The group of 52 control fathers is entirely different from the fathers of the incestuous unions. The necessity of secrecy made the examination of this group of fathers difficult and in many cases even impossible. None of them were known to be mentally retarded.
Sadly, it is not revealed why the fathers were in prison at the time, it could because of the incest itself as the section 188 of the criminal code of the Czech republic states:
- Intercourse among Relatives
- Whoever engages in intercourse with a relative in the direct generation line or with a sibling, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for up to three years.
Or it could for other reasons, since the educational level of the parents was below average: 4 females and 2 males had attended secondary school, while the remaining had attended elementary school only. Personally I would call them all
mentally impaired or
criminally insane, including the scientists who thought it could be in any way representative of consanguinity !
And while such issues aren’t entirely genetically-determined intelligence is known to be about 40% inheritable: Hence mating congenital idiots of the same family together is unlikely to bear the same fruits as mating your average Joe and his sister Joan…
I think it explains both the variance and high ceiling in the meta-study’s figure of 7-33% above the norm while the latter and more recent
amateur study with mostly normal people or perhaps slightly above average in terms of awareness and education:
Study Two, on 226 Inbred Children
This leaves us with a sample size of 115 couples who between them had 226 children (136 Girls, 88 Boys, 1 Intersex and 1 Gender Undisclosed)
21 of the children suffered from an illness, 14 of which the participant specified as a ‘common illness’ These included allergies, asthma, autism. Four of the children suffered from illness or disability which the participant is certain is down to inbreeding, and five are unsure what caused the illness as it is uncommon.
16 children had learning disabilities (16/226 x100 = 7.1%), 9 of which were also specified as children suffering from an illness.
If we were to exclude children suffering from common illnesses (eg. asthma) and learning disabilities (eg. ADHD) which occur frequently in the children of regular couples, we get (28-14)/226 x 100 = 6.2%.
- 2nd Generation inbreeding
- 42 children were born from parents who were themselves conceived by related parents. Of these children:
- 8 had a common illness,
- 4 had learning disabilities, bringing the total to 12. 12/42 x 100 = 28.6%
The risk more than doubles for the second generation. However asthma flu etc have nothing to do with genes and disappear entirely with instincto. In mammals - assuming a natural diet - the idea of a higher sensibility to viruses stands out as highly dubious for they are helpers, the same goes for parasites.
And according to statistics one child over 5 in the US have learning disabilities such as ADHD and dyslexia, euphemistically named
learning and thinking differences, so 25%. No significant difference with second generation incest children.
Conditions like asthma - even chronic - and especially allergies, are all the result of inflammation and autoimmune reactions in which the immune system starts attacking cooked/polluted molecules in one’s own cells, after receiving a triggering jolt from a pollen grain or non-self chemical.
In short, it can very well be considered a good sign to be ill in a highly polluted context such as cooking, despite no one ever seeing it as such. Your immune system is alive, hasn’t given up yet. The fact it goes too far - the income of unnatural molecules continues unabated ! - makes no difference.
Hence, we can safely remove the learning disabilities as 4/42 merely matches the American average. That leaves 19% of common diseases, which we might or might not consider significant, since I don’t know the American average, but I am positive it would not express at all with instincto: many people came to treat asthma and saw symptoms progressively diminish until either they stopped, or the people stopped instincto and the symptoms returned. No other
common disease ever continued chronically.
No mental retardation is mentioned at all in this study save maybe for those 4 genetic conditions not explicited. No
learning disabilities were observed in children born instincto, and many of those taken care of who before had poor results in school, showed a spectacular academic comeback.
So we should revise those figures according to the criteria above, leaving just a 4% risk for first generation first degree incest (inbreeding coefficient 25%) and if we want to ignore the learning disabilities (which are not proved genetic), 0% for the second generation. Even forgetting about raw food for a moment, the additional morbidity indicated in that sample simply doesn’t allow for catastrophism.
The overall risk of a child being unhealthy in the first generation is 12.4%, in real terms a one in 8 chance. This may sound like terrible odds, but when you consider that this figure includes common chronic conditions which are also becoming increasingly prevalent in the regular population also, and that when these conditions are excluded, and we include only uncommon problems (which are more likely to be expressed with two copies of the same defective gene), and problems we know for sure are a direct result of consang reproduction (only 1.8%), the ADDED [ - emphasis in the text- ] risk is a mere 6.2%. Odds are strongly in your favor that nothing is going to go wrong as a direct result of consanguinamory, providing that your parents are not related.
The simple truth is, if your sample includes a significant proportion of low-life morons, you are likely to produce even worst morons, while due to the masking of recessive alleles, outbreeding in those cases is likely to result in better offspring than their congenitally stupid mothers. Consanguinity only magnifies the background.
True Origin of the Taboo
The Westermarck effect Definition: The Westermarck effect, also known as reverse sexual imprinting, is a psychological hypothesis that states that people tend not to be attracted to peers with whom they lived like siblings before age six. This hypothesis was first proposed by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck in his book The History of Human Marriage (1891) as one explanation for the incest taboo. has also been proved wrong experimentally at multiple occasions, including the pioneering (albeit lying) study that served to promote it, the Kibboutz study.
From beginning of the late 1960s, a growing number of biologists, sociobiologists, evolutionary psychologist and anthropologists started supporting the hypothesis. Despite unceasing important critiques. Leading to global unanimity. Darwinian social scientists have come to regard the Westermarck hypothesis
The Westermarck effect, also known as reverse sexual imprinting, is a psychological hypothesis that states that people tend not to be attracted to peers with whom they lived like siblings before age six. This hypothesis was first proposed by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck in his book The History of Human Marriage (1891) as one explanation for the incest taboo.
as an indisputable truth, with highly distinguished statements such as these:
In 1998 Lieberman and symons declared that the proposition to early cohabitation leads to sexual aversion
must be fairly obvious to anyone who has not been indoctrinated with the crippling dogmas of freudianism or the social sciences.
Many before me have tried to explain these things, but they have all failed to be heard because the psychological forces behind taboos and this one in particular are too strong, overrulling rational thoughts!… But for the strong of heart (or royally bored of life), this should suffice.
By uncovering the real nature of sexual taboos, such as the one against pedophilia, there is more chance to be heard, and change oneself. These elements of understanding drawn from metapsychoanalysis and instinctotherapy are absolutely new over thousands to tens of thousands of years, and might actually make a difference.
In the 1980’s, a term appeared in the media, designating an irresistible attraction between two people of the same family, reunited in adulthood after years of separation, usually in the context of adoption. GSA stands for Genetic Sexual Attraction. According to people working in this field, this would concern the majority of cases of reunions in adulthood. The attraction is so irresistible as to break up the respective families each partner made, children included. The sexual sensations are described as of a transcendent order, beyond any any comparison with ordinary sexuality.
We find here a common point between incest, pedophilia and pederasty. If the numerous testimonies found here by the excellent Keith Pullman, coming from people of all social backgrounds and involved in a wide range of different types of incestuous relationships, are honest, one could conclude that the incestuous relationship is in itself a source of energy, as would be shown by the lasting sensations of joy and deep complementarity.
We should stick preferentially with their immediate family including fathers while profiting from the presence of a broader spectrum of role models, regardless of common blood according to energetic affinities. Definitely familial ties shall last a lifetime. Mothers and fathers should involve themselves imparting all their knowledge and skills as much as practically possible and later on breed with their offspring if the right conditions present themselves. Hence, societies should align with these instincts by favoring small energetically and dietary independent consanguineous settlements, within the limits of contemporary economic necessities.
While inquiring about visions prescient dreams or other parapsychic experiences is out of the question due to the very limited sample (and most of all the absence of a standardized survey method) the sheer outlandish sexual potency alone suffices to conclude: that incest must be the most natural thing in the world and the most potent form of love, raising the strongest feelings of bliss.
This is the true reason behind the taboo.
This creates unhappiness at various levels, organic (lack of really satisfying orgasms or orgasms at all for the woman) up to existential suffering, disconnecting from the spiritual dimension requires a clarity and peace of mind promptly destroyed by unconscious longings rotting into insanity.
And this started since the end of the Paleolithic, presumably around 40,000 years ago, while the Neolithic (6000 to 2200 B.C.), started a vicious circle that grew ever more terrible with the development of agriculture, in particular cereals (gluten) and the increasing complexity of cooking recipes.
We are the despicable descendants of this original sin whose mechanisms are explained in detail in the Essay on the theory of metasexuality as well as the Garden of Earthly Delights, from the same blessed author.
Disconnected men, in reaction to existential anxieties whose causes they cannot know, look for scapegoats, especially in front of relationships that do not fit at all with the social needs of the majority: this explains the incest taboo.
There’s a theory that certain normal habit patterns should be allowed to run their course. Take the sucking reflex, for example. … .
It has been said that infants who have been weaned too early plague themselves all their lives with oral activity—chewing on straws, smoking intoxicants in pipes, drinking out of bottle by preference, nervously manipulating the lips, and so on. With that as an analogy, you may look again at the restlessness of mankind all through his history.
This culture and social system regulating our every move and thoughts, is made by and for a majority which lost access to the most important part of reality, and depend on social conventions to hide this unshakable sense of doubt and discomfort, this existential pain. On the contrary, our natural lifestyle should pretty much imitate Chimpanzees, with the caveat of a much longer lifespan, a total control of fertility and possibly a good handle on the productive capabilities of the environment.
Whether male animals are capable to innately recognize their offspring is debated, but specific cases are acknowledged in vertebrates. There are plenty of reasons for kin detection to be selected upon, and in most likelihood to some degree all modestly intelligent species use a variety of cues from smell to facial traits, while a lot more inferior ones rely on smell.
Male chimpanzees do seem to have a clue whom they father, a fact which baffles scientists it would fly in the face of their nice theories of females using matriarchy as a means to fool them and force them to care for all kids, reduce violence, etc. Truth is scientists have a hard time understanding why an animal would care for a child he knows is not related at all, so that not even the
egoist gene could easily explain that away.
Truth is, they can’t conceive love as transcending egoist breeding concerns in species lacking our capacity for abstraction and the conscious identification to the whole species, or at least broader circles of relatedness than the immediate family (I doubt anyone could tell apart even a cousin from a random person of the same race…).
In historical or ethnographic annals, the role of fathers is very variable. Some cultures discarded it completely, others (like Romans ?) accorded fathers a much bigger role than mothers. Overall, the first align with
matriarchies, the latter with
patriarchies, but prosperous societies ignored neither. Our position circumvents historical analysis, as always we prefer genetics-based arguments and contemporary experiences.
- The natural size of raw human groups is rather small, a hundred persons at most, more like 50, with which intimate meaningful relationships on a personal basis can be established, mostly with those we grew amongst. Given a few generations, the level of relatedness grows steadily.
- We determined how our species evolved to take advantage of that consanguinity to further and accelerate its adaptation. It is in our advantage to know who are siblings especially older ones susceptible to drift away from the mother after a few years, keeping potentially lifelong kinship networks despite halphazard group separations and fusions.
Or not at all in fact, since several higher mammals do practice allonursing, reciprocally swapping infants to breastfeed, including giraffes, seals of all kinds, meerkats and ape mothers) do swap infants to breastfeed to varying degrees so an absolutely specific mother-child bond isn’t actually really a biological necessity for higher species.
But I believe both energetic link and attachment born from blood (chimpanzees bond with their offspring for life,
about a third of adult males are essentially best friends with their mothers according to this study) and later on with humans the need for _efficient incest](neandertals#efficient_incest) might be said to constitute a counter-acting evolutive pressure. Ultimately, the persistence of father-daughter incests among GSA stories (
Adults With Their Parents in this page) convinced me. If the phenomena akin to animal kin recognition applies to fathers and daughters separated at birth then cases then then said partners who were separated at birth can indeed recognize each others immediately.
Beside the physiological dependency on mothers, traditions world-wide (or just in Europe) don’t really agree on fixed responsibilities to distribute between mothers and fathers or even men and females. And since virility according to the metapsychical perspective is functionally equivalent in both sexes the most vital for a child is to have a mother until weaning is done (6 years), then psychology-wise many arrangements might do, as long as the role models are inspired and loving.
If a significant number of families could experience love with the intensity pointed out by this GSA phenomenon, the world as we know it with its wars, artificial ideologies and activities compensating for our inner emptiness - our Pascalian diversions - would explode into pieces.
This last remark applies perfectly to the case of Cato the Younger who, conforming to a tradition that Plutarch makes up to King Numa, divorced his fertile Marcia to↩︎
lendto his friend Hortensius. It also applies to the case of the Nasamon husband who
lendsthe young married wife to the guests of the meal. On the other hand, the desire to individualize paternity, despite the sexual differences, found in the Bretons or the machlyes, testifies to a form of recognition of the conjugal family. [ - P42- ]
[ - 8.n- ] This also is revealed in the religion, that Ohrmazd said to Zardu£t: “Perform the doing of good deeds.”↩︎
And Zardu£t said: “Which good deed shall I perform first?”
Ohrmazd said: “Xwedodah, because of all those good deeds it should
be performed first; for in the end it is through xwedodah that all who
are in the world join the religion.”
Alcibiades lay with his mother, his daughter, and his sister, as Persians do., Persians have illicit intercourse with their mothers.
… the Persian magnates marry their mothers and regard the children of the marriage as nobles of the highest birth, worthy, so it is said, to hold the supreme sovereignty.
The Satrap [of Nautaca in Sogdiana] was Sismithres, who had two sons by his mother; for among them it was lawful for parents to disgracefully copulate with their mother; for among them it was lawful for parents to disgracefully copulate with their children.
Alexander [the Great] … persuaded .. the Persians to revere their mothers and not to take them in wedlock.
the devil said unto the priest [Idhashir],↩︎
A man cannot become a priest and a Magian until he hath known carnally his mother, and his daughter, and his sister.And Idhashir the priest did this, and from that time the priests, and the Magians, and the Persians take their mothers, and their sisters, and their daughters to wife.
[ - 8.o.1- ] This is also revealed in the religion: Zoroaster said to Ohrmazd: ‘In my view (it is) bad and hard and strange that I should make xvēdōdah so prevalent among mankind!’
[ - 8.o.2- ] Ohrmazd said: ‘In my view also (so it would be) as in yours, except for this (reason) that it is the (most) excellent thing of all; then let it not be difficult and hard for you.
Shame and disagreements did not cease completely, explaining perhaps why they went to such lengths to expound the qualities and benefits of xvētōdah… to convince themselves perhaps. Far from denying the naturality of incest though, this kind of ambivalence simply illustrates the effects of molecular disturbances in the brain warping behaviors causing Excalibur impulses to emerge.
The seventh book of the Dēnkard mentions the shame that can be felt when practicing such a union, and the Zurvanist conception keeps the memory that this type of alliance awakens negative forces. Incestuous practice was, it seems, amphipolar in the eyes of some. Producing knowledge, it was supposed to bring to light supernatural forces, feared and desired.↩︎
The closest relative is the one who will allow him to remain himself since he is of the same flesh. Free of any crossbreeding, the offspring enjoys the vitality of the first man. The practice is sublimated to what seems to be the height of beauty: the union of a man with the daughter he had from his own mother
The xwēdōdah would be an attempt to escape time either to stop it and rewind it, or to accelerate the end of the world.
Question 1: If one performs xvētōdah with one’s mother or sister from whom there can be no hope of children born, will the xvētōdah then be considered all right? will the merit of the performance of xvētōdah always be the same, or are some more meritorious than others?↩︎
Answer 2: Th e performance of xvētōdah with the three (mother, sister, daughter) at whatever age, is always a perfect, meritorious deed, so conse-quently even if no children are born of the union, the value of the meritori-ous deed of performing xvētōdah will not be diminished.
By promoting the expression of deleterious recessive alleles, and thus the elimination of carrier individuals, it reduces their frequency in the population. Paradoxically, we can therefore consider that the disastrous consequences of consanguineous relationships in humans are largely the result of the prohibition of incest, which prevents this process of↩︎
[ - In societies where brother-sister marriage is permitted in the ruling family,- ] we may find excellence. Cleopatra was the offspring of brother-sister marriages continued through several generations and she was↩︎
not only handsome, vigorous, intellectual, but also prolific… as perfect a specimen of the human race as could be found in any age or class of society.
The pattern of mating range must diminish as the group allows procreation between more closely related individuals so that harmful recessives are rapidly reduced. The most damaging breeding strategy is one that is inconsistent.
If a population fluctuates erratically from inbreeding to exogamy, it will retain and accumulate deleterious recessives in heterozygous form during inbreeding and expose them when the pattern shifts to inbreeding.
However, an inbred population that is constantly reproducing will experience an increase in unhealthy homozygotes only temporarily, until its genetic load is reduced.
This principle of consistency also explains why sporadic inbreeding in large outbred populations (with inherently large genetic loads) results in a higher rate of genetic disease.