I wish to focus here on what is the highest expression of self love: Incest, the very drive of racial evolution. 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 (the summit of intra-racial preference) 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 strikingly different romantic morals from what we see today.
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.
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..
In the original, pan-European Nordic society as illustrated by the Nordic culture, honor, bravery and love were paramount values while traditional social structures (marriages, trade) were merely formal customs somewhat necessary to the functioning of society but of secondary importance in comparison.
Starting from their mythology - even the gods would be considered promiscuous by our standards. Norse gods were especially fond of incest and commented on it. Yet it is clear in the saga that no repercussions may come from these
sins, in no way staining their power, wisdom and honor, but rather empowering them. This didn’t hinder Norsemen and women to worship them either.
Incest, with parents or siblings, was a natural part of Norse society and much more so in the classical untainted and economically unchallenged Nordic Bronze era society… as well as in all of Europe.
The same values traditionalists hold dear: courage, steadfastness, responsibility, self-sacrifice, wisdom, honoring to one’s word, Pagan peoples achieved them not through repression but through a free exercise of our natural impulses, and the daily worship of their own sacred body, making it a worthy receptacle for the godly essences of the all-knowing and all-seeing Odin, the all-embracing Freiya, Freij the All-Mother and Thor of the unbounded strength.
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.
Cultures usually never last more than a few centuries, and often degenerate before that. Men live for too short a time to expect any better: their memory is short and their minds incapable of considering centuries, let alone millennia or a million years. The only factor that endures all this time is blood, your genetic material, the essence of your qualities.
In fact, the ultimate quality of any culture comes down to this, the hereditary inheritance of good or bad genetic qualities. Thus I will start from the anthropological point of view, then going on the genetic side and the psychoanalytic core of the issue.
The blunders of anthropology
Structuralism 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/cooperationthesis, resumed as such
- 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 completely 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.
The limits of ordinary concepts
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 priests.
Inbreeding: natural eugenics
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, for they do not believe in life after death, there is not even a paradise for them, let alone reincarnation.
However the defective alleles causing this, only settle and increase in frequency in human groups like the Amish in absence of selection (letting physically degenerates multiply) or in the case of domestic animals in presence of selection but under arbitrary criteria, mostly aesthetics or breeding traits only useful to men. Which usually reveal either detrimental to health in the wild without the care of men, instead of reinforcing vital characteristics - fitness - like selection is supposed to do. From the point of view of genes, the result of a wanton selection is similar to inbreeding with no selection at all: recessives settle as long as the economic yeld doesn’t suffer too much (or that removing them would prove too costly immediately).
However painful (relatively speaking…) 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.
This phenomenon is called
genetic purge and is the natural consequence of inbreeding: 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 and endogamy
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.
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.
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.
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 ?). Beside, this Westermarck effect has been proved wrong experimentally at multiple occasions, including the pioneering (albeit lying) study that served to promote it, the
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 and ignore the rational mind completely… But for the strong of heart (or royally bored of life), this should suffice .
This is where we come in: 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…
Statistics argue against common sense
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
), 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 shall henceforth review and understand them, if needed debunk them.
Recommendations of the 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 page 10
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. This proves the theory correct that the risk increases with each subsequent generation of inbreeding. While nature allows for consang relationships and children to be born from them, it does not allow for many subsequent generations to practice inbreeding. It goes a way towards explaining the gene pool of Ancient Egypt, where up to one in 5 pregnancies was conceived via consanguinamory, and yet there was no mass disability… there was enough outbreeding to balance that and thus maintain the health of the gene pool. However the royal dynasties of that empire had to marry within the family for religious and political reasons, leading to inbreeding depression, disability and eventual sterility in the offspring.
I disagree with that reasoning, because 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.
Conditions like asthma - even chronic - and especially allergies, are all the result of inflammation and an autoimmune reaction 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 is 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 for those 4 genetic conditions not explicited. No simple
learning disabilities were observed in children born instincto, and many of those taken care of showed a spectacular academic comeback.
So if I am to revise those figures according to the criteria above, we are left with a 4% risk for first generation first degree incest (inbreeding coefficient 25%) and strikingly, 0% for the second generation… Even forgetting about raw food for a moment, the additional morbidity indicated in that sample simply doesn’t lend itself to 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 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.
Assuming a doubling of that 6.2%, reveals a measly 13% for the abhorrent, sinful act of doubling down on incest…
The 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 matings1.
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 ?
Finally, why such a taboo?
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.
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 2. 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.
More clearly, 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.
However, if inbreeding has been present for long enough, there is the distinct possibility for a completed purification which should eliminate miscarriages as well. I comment elsewhere noteworthy studies as I find them. This seems to have happened in Qatar, according to Dr Saad:
The present authors have studied the possible relationship between recurrent miscarriage and consanguinity in the Qatari population, where the prevalence of first cousin marriage is 47%. The maternal characteristics and obstetric outcome of 92 Qatari women in a consanguineous relationship and with an obstetrical history of three or more early pregnancy losses were compared with those of 92 non-consanguineous women from the same population and with the same obstetrical history matched for maternal age. The retrospective investigation showed no difference in the rate of previous pregnancy loss and maternal disorders, including diabetes, thyroid dysfunction and immunity, abnormal uterine and ovarian anatomy or thrombophilia. There was also no evidence of familial clustering of recurrent miscarriage in both groups.
The prospective study showed no difference in the rate of subsequent pregnancy loss and the median gestational age and fetal weight at delivery in ongoing pregnancies. The absence of a relationship between recurrent miscarriage and consanguinity in Qatar could be due to the particular characteristics of the native Qatari population, in which rare recessive genes are uncommon, or overall to the absence of an association between recurrent miscarriage and consanguinity.
This ambivalence is an effect of primary masochism , our subconscious rebelling against our biological incapacity (due to cooking’s denatured molecules) to live sexuality as it should, even its mostly holy forms such as incest. Relationships become lustful as we concentrate on organic pleasure and the animalistic aspect, as per the cross-drive induction theory: And not surprisingly Sassanid texts demonstrate obnoxiously an obsession over breeding and its ensuing hatred of homosexuality.
The same failings all over the globe, for the same (chemical) reasons. Amazingly, Iranians coalesced both extremes in the same culture, the most vocal hate of perversions, yet being the biggest perverts of all: claiming incest was divine but sexuality in general was intended for reproduction only (hence gays should die), yet deeming sterile incestuous unions as equally holy and magical, while pederasts were slightly less chastised than others, because who can resist children… ↩︎