Updated: Mar 12
Enantiodromonic eugenics: it’s not bad to in-breed; and, in fact, when you in-breed what happens is that the latent errors in a race come to the surface—so long as these monstrosities (and they will be) are discarded then the race will merely accentuate its characteristics as it in-breeds. Conversely, to out-breed will lead the errors to be concealed—all will look well on the surface, yet problems will lurk beneath. So if you bring the errors to the surface you become stronger, and if you hide them you grow weaker—the “degenerate” in-breeding leads to health, the “positive” out-breeding leads to hidden illness.
Hence it is best to in-breed, it is in accord with religion as well—we want to become more like God, and God is totally self-sufficient; hence we should in-breed—become genetically autarkic. All it can do is bring our strengths to the maximum degree and make our weaknesses obvious and easy to remove. In fact, there’s little danger from even a father-daughter combination in such a scheme—and I see no reason why we shouldn’t allow brother-sister and perhaps even father-daughter mating patterns (provided the monstrosities are suitably discarded). It would breed the races back to true type—breed the perfect race, and perhaps recover the lost magical properties found in the blood.
It might even be the way to recover some lost perfect racial types; although, of course, there is such a thing as hybrid vigour—yet it only works with types that have been pure-bred, it doesn’t work if everyone is out-bred. So, ideally, as farmers know, you want to cross with cousins now and again to introduce fresh blood into the mix (otherwise, you can be racially homeostatic—even so within families). This might seem a little counterintuitive but the ancient Egyptians and Iranians both practiced it, as do the Jews to an extent (although in modernity they do not discard their monstrosities). It conforms to the philosophical principle that everything should come from you.