I find it interesting how one of the insults thrown at "racists" or country people in general is the charge of inbreeding - it is condemned as being incredibly trashy, low class, and backwards.

However, we find it prevalent in the upper classes, particularly in royal families, and amongst jews themselves who lead the charge against apparently "inbred," "country bumpkin" "racist" whites. So they do not practice what they preach.

We find eugenics in general condemned in modern society, even while eugenics is given as the reason for opposing inbreeding - the accusation being increased risk of birth defects or retardation.

Statistically the risk of having a deformed or diseased child through first, second, or third cousin marriage is very low – particularly if you already come from good stock yourself. First cousins sharing about 12% of their genes in common, second and third cousins even less than that. Cousin marriage has been incredibly common historically, and we are all descended from cousin marriages. If your ancestors never inbred, and you doubled your number of ancestors every generation back, you would have something over a trillion ancestors by the time you reach the time of Charlemagne - technically impossible since the human population was not nearly that high obviously. Cousins marrying is not technically even considered incest.

I believe the real risk of inbreeding comes from the mating of siblings or half-siblings, which is a real risk with the current trend of promiscuity. If the bastard children of single mothers know not who their fathers are, or people are out having affairs and children are being raised under the wrong father, there is a very real risk of them later unknowingly “hooking up” with their own siblings or half-siblings, who share 25%-50% of their genes in common, carrying huge risks of birth defects, diseases, and mental retardation in the offspring. This promiscuity is promoted in the culture.

When we see bad results from cousin marriages, such as the poor health of Ashkenazi jews, European royalty, Bangladeshi, Arabs, and other groups that practice extensive inbreeding, it is frequently the case that this has been done over and over again to a large extent – a person has a child with their cousin, who has a child with their cousin, who has a child with their cousin, and so on.

A given population all being related to each other, through a safe, mild, pragmatic form of inbreeding, would likely lead to a greater cohesiveness amongst that people and a greater level of cooperation and trust. The old notion of marrying your cousin to preserve the purity of your blood and keep the money in the family is a valid one.

We see a lot on white nationalist type websites men lamenting the loss of the good old days when women were submitting to their husbands and what not, I would say that many of these women were married to men from their own kinship groups – if not their first or second cousins then neighbours, friends of the family, or some such. As a woman, you are more able to follow someone you feel that you can trust, and you are more able to trust somebody that you grew up with. Anecdotally I can say with near 100% accuracy, and I would say most of you would agree in your own experiences, that the level of feminism in any particular woman is directly correlated to how much she mistrusts men. And this notion of submitting to a man is so foreign to so many women that it is not considered a thing in most circles except as something associated with either Christian fundamentalism or weird sexualities. Really how can you submit yourself to somebody, in all aspects of life, if you don't know if you can trust them? To do that is to make yourself vulnerable - to make yourself vulnerable is to risk being used, risk being taken advantage of, risk being screwed over in some way, risk being betrayed - a lot of these hardened modern women are the way they are because they have negative experiences - and they have had negative experiences oftentimes because they have trusted the wrong men - they have trusted men who are essentially strangers, strangers in the sense that they share no kinship. And how can you know whether you can trust someone if you do not share kinship – how can you read them, how can you know what they are thinking, how can you understand what goes on inside their head and whether they are really going to take advantage of you or not? Of course a woman is wrong to trust a man that she does not share kinship with. Why is it promoted that we should all lose our virginities to strangers, date strangers, marry strangers? A man who shares kinship with you will not only be less likely to hurt you, but you are also able to read him more because you will know him more - to see in his eyes if he really loves you, if he's being honest with you, if he has your best interest at heart. And he will likewise be more able to know you, and read you, and thereby know your needs, know the right things to say, and so on.

How can neighbours sharing a community trust each other if they do not share kinship? It is about more than just “white.” White is too large and diverse an ethnic group – somebody being white does not necessarily have much kinship with you - it is a huge category. If we rely on only "white" we will see the levels of trust and cohesiveness in our communities go down. It is less diverse than full on multi racial multiculturalism, but it is still too diverse for real, cohesive, cooperative community building.

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-early-christian-church-gave-birth-today-s-weird-europeans

Centuries-old incest ban made Westerners more independent and trusting of strangers, study argues

In September 506 C.E., the fathers of what would later become the Roman Catholic Church gathered in southern France to draw up dozens of new laws. Some forbade clergy from visiting unrelated women. Others forbade Christians from marrying anyone more closely related than their third cousin. The authors of a sweeping new study say that last, seemingly trivial prohibition may have given birth to Western civilization as we know it.

The church's early ban on incest and cousin marriage, the researchers say, weakened the tight kinship structures that had previously defined European populations, fostering new streaks of independence, nonconformity, and a willingness to work with strangers. And as the church's influence spread, those qualities blossomed into a suite of psychological traits common today across Western industrialized nations, they argue.

Before the Middle Ages, Europe was similar to other agrarian societies around the world: Extended kin networks were the glue that held everything together. Growing crops and protecting land required cooperation, and marrying cousins was an easy way to get it, explains Harvard University anthropologist and study co-author Joseph Henrich. Cousin marriages were even actively promoted in some societies because they kept wealth concentrated in powerful families.

Centuries living under these restrictions fundamentally reshaped European societies' kinship structure—and their psychology, the authors say. Traditional kin networks stressed the moral value of obeying one's elders, for example. But when the church forced people to marry outside this network, traditional values broke down, allowing new ones to pop up: individualism, nonconformity, and less bias toward one's in-group.

they found that the longer a population spent under the rule of the Roman Catholic Church, the lower its kinship intensity score, meaning lower rates of cousin marriage and polygamy and looser familial and clan structures. And as kinship intensity drops off in their data, a certain suite of traits grows stronger, including individualism, nonconformity, and willingness to trust and help strangers, the researchers report today in Science.

This constellation of traits lines up with the dominant psychological profile of people living in Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic countries—what Henrich and others have labeled WEIRD societies. The upshot, Henrich says, is that the church's prohibitions against marrying close relatives weakened Europe's traditional kinship networks and inadvertently replaced them with something very close to modern Western civilization's cultural customs and norms.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/go-ahead-kiss-your-cousin

In Paris in 1876 a 31-year-old banker named Albert took an 18-year-old named Bettina as his wife. Both were Rothschilds, and they were cousins. According to conventional notions about inbreeding, their marriage ought to have been a prescription for infertility and enfeeblement. In fact, Albert and Bettina went on to produce seven children, and six of them lived to be adults. Moreover, for generations the Rothschildfamily had been inbreeding almost as intensively as European royalty, without apparent ill effect.

The American du Ponts practiced the same strategy of cousin marriage for a century. Charles Darwin, the grandchild of first cousins, married a first cousin. So did Albert Einstein. In our lore, cousin marriages are unnatural, the province of hillbillies and swamp rats, not Rothschilds and Darwins.

a team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counselor at the University of Washington and the president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, announced that cousin marriages are not significantly riskier than any other marriage

first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of abnormality that a woman undertakes when she gives birth at 41 rather than at 30. Banning cousin marriages makes about as much sense, critics argue, as trying to ban childbearing by older women. But the nature of cousin marriage is far more surprising than recent publicity has suggested. A closer look reveals that moderate inbreeding has always been the rule, not the exception, for humans. Inbreeding is also commonplace in the natural world, and contrary to our expectations, some biologists argue that this can be a very good thing. It depends in part on the degree of inbreeding.

Until the past century, families tended to remain in the same area for generations, and men typically went courting no more than about five miles from home—the distance they could walk out and back on their day off from work. As a result, according to Robin Fox, a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University, it's likely that 80 percent of all marriages in history have been between second cousins or closer.

Pierre-Samuel du Pont, founder of an American dynasty that believed in inbreeding, hinted at these factors when he told his family: "The marriages that I should prefer for our colony would be between the cousins. In that way we should be sure of honesty of soul and purity of blood." He got his wish, with seven cousin marriages in the family during the 19th century.

Moderate inbreeding may also produce biological benefits. Contrary to lore, cousin marriages may do even better than ordinary marriages by the standard Darwinian measure of success, which is reproduction. A 1960 study of first-cousin marriages in 19th-century England done by C. D. Darlington, a geneticist at Oxford University, found that inbred couples produced twice as many great-grandchildren as did their outbred counterparts.

Among animal populations, generations of inbreeding frequently lead to the development of coadapted gene complexes, suites of genetic traits that tend to be inherited together. These traits may confer special adaptations to a local environment, like resistance to disease.

https://gizmodo.com/relax-its-totally-cool-to-get-with-your-cousin-says-a-5905596

the risk only really applies in an appreciable way when the two married relatives who are both carriers of a disorder that is normally very, very rare—fewer than 10% of all cousin couples.

The upshot of procreating with a close relative is that disease genes are exposed and removed from the gene pool––a phenomenon called "purging." Purging, in early human populations would have kept genetic disease at a minimum, thus strengthening the tribe.
Today, with our modern ease of mobility and and shrinking family sizes, fewer close cousins are marrying than ever before. And that number will only continue to shrink, says Bittles, meaning less purging and more chance for genetic disease.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-surprising-truth-about-cousins-and-marriage-2014-2

This switch in cousin-marriage’s acceptance began in earnest in some parts of the Western world in the mid-19th century. Specifically, until the 1860s or so, first cousins commonly married in Europe and the U.S. In fact, Charles Darwin, Mr. Natural Selection himself, was married to his first cousin Emma Wedgwood.