Nobody does it like daddy

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.

Both reactionary and repressive mentalities when it comes to personal freedoms and sex are wholly alien to roots of Western culture, but instead originate from the morals of Judaism that infiltrated Europe through the Bible and Christianity, which were then catalyzed and sublimated (far from eliminated) through the Industrial Revolution. Celtic, Egyptian and Norse mythologies (just to name a few European cultures) all exhibit sexual morals strikingly alien to modern sensibilities.

Cultures usually never last more than a few centuries, often degenerating before. Men live too short lives to expect any better: our memory is so short and our minds incapable of considering centuries, let alone millennia or a million years.
The only thing that overcomes time - beside the pyramids - is blood.

Ultimately the quality of any culture comes down to blood, the hereditary inheritance of good or bad genetic qualities. That is why after contextualizing the anthropological origin of the incest taboo (that has nothing to do with health or mutations) we want to concentrate on the prevalent medical and genetic myth about inbreeding.

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)(eugenics).
For more on this topic see the Eugenics section.

Anthropology

Bronze Age Europe

Freyia and Freyr Isis and Osiris

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 traditional thinking.

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.

The same values traditionalists hold dear: courage, steadfastness, responsibility, self-sacrifice, wisdom, honoring one’s word, Pagan peoples achieved them not through repression but through a free exercise of their natural drive, the daily worship of their sacred body. 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 more than mere 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.

Strauss and Sociobiology

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.

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 Ça, English 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.

History Against Modern Theories

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 wanting may be lacking often in reality very different, 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.

Beside, many literary examples leads to fairly different portrait of their early morals, which decidedly actually quite free and lacking in egoism:

Saturnalia also regularly saw real orgies take place, without participants being held responsible.

No one ever punished (as far as we know) the lesbianism of Roman matrons. Practices Romans did not ignore and shocked nobody by the time of Ovid, 1th century CE. Vestals were virgins, certainly, but that applied to our knowledge only of the heterosexual reports. It has indeed been acknowledged even by the most hardline traditionalists such as Varg Vikernes that Nordic fertility cults permitted female-female relationships if so they chose. The same held of the Japanese miko (priestesses).

You will rarely read these considerations in the writings of anthropologists, obsessed with heterosexuality and procreation. Yet this is not the limit of human experience, nor is it the most important. The real engine of social change has always been the perception of the sacred and the transcendent, where people psychologically came to see them, such as money, conquest, feats of rhetoric, glory, abundant harems or whatever kind of public notoriety. 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. Sociology denies any transcendence, any non-material or social cause. In the purest Marxist tradition. The idea that men may be possessed of transcultural innate desires driving piloting history is just not conceivable.

Besides, several cultures not only did not feature major incest taboos at the heart of their social structure, but some openly worshiped the practice:

Persians have been known since classical Ancient Greece (around 500 BC) to be mate and breed with their relatives, especially the aristocracy and priests¹.

Natural Eugenics

What Really Is inbreeding

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 soon as this problem had been taken care of.

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.

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[^himmler].

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 ²:

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.

Philopatry

Philopatry (living and reproducing in the same place) and endogamy (reproducing with those close to you genetically), leads to inbreeding / endogamy, whether it be animals or plants, because you will necessarily more often meet your siblings and cousins by living in the same place as them.

It appears that this low dispersion is very common in nature, in plants or animals, contradicting the notion that one must spread and conquer new territories. It also implies an environment similar to that of the parents, and a constant selective pressure. Conditions that theoretically disfavor sexual reproduction, which has children inherit only half the material 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.³

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.

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.

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.

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 has been seen among chimpanzees.

The Westermarck effect 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 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.

Statistical Truth

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.
We must review and if need be, debunk them.

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

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 catastrophist conclusions.

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.

We have strong reasons to believe that an organism practicing instinctotherapy will eliminate a greater proportion of defective embryos by inducing their premature death specifically. They are also common with consanguineous matings⁴.
Miscarriages or spontaneous abortions are certainly a natural cleansing function much more elaborated than usually assume. The mother’s body involves itself to weed out the unfit, replacing advantageous selection by predators while sparring the mother the need for the costly loss of resource that is pregnancy. This has never been supposed, therefore never studied, but the content of the dialogue between the maternal body and the baby is actually almost unknown, especially in the early embryonic stages most concerned with spontaneous abortions.
But if since we know the brain can mess up dramatically hard in the context of our lifestyle, can’t we also speculate that such delicate processes might have been a lot more efficient in the past in absence of molecular pollution, with a pristine genetics ?

Conclusion:
Transcendance in the Palm of Our Hands

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.

Even Iranians were not immune to shame, and it seems that while incest wasn’t uncommon before the Sassanid period not everyone agreed, priests of the new mazdeist religion had to convince a part of the population of the transcendence of having sex with own’s relatives. Not even the first, half-mythological priest or messiah (Zarathustra) was on-board:

This kind of ambivalence (the coexistence of a powerful aspiration for transcendence and what seems to be an inner, seemingly innate sense of shame) serves as an excellent illustration for metapsychoanalysis ⁵. For the same reason as any other taboo related to sex, that we have explained and will in this site.
Molecular disturbances in the brain warp behaviors and sexual instinct, creating a type of man incapable of fulfilling his deepest desires.

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.

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 quickly susceptible to drift away from their mother, on which they wouldn’t depend more than a few years.

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.

To finish this:
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.