r-strategists Call For Normalizing “Twincest”

I think, traditional civilisations already had measures to limit r selected behavior. I think many initiation rites of ancient cultures and groups like the assassins in the middle east were to destroy all traits of r selected behavior.

For example, the famous assassin sect had a rite where all initiates needed to undergo harsh, exhausting training, while being purposely “underfed”.

Many ancient barbarians and greek city states sent the people who were to be initiated into the jungle to fend for themselves for several days. (Look at the scene in 300 were Leonidas fought the wolve,)

And for example, the freemasons still today have a metaphor that uninitiated people are like unwilling pawns on a checker board because they never learned to control their desires. And by learning to control your desires/urges, you step higher on “jacobs ladder to enlightenment”.

Hermeticism even taught that the first steps of initiation is Nigredo (darkening) which is like forcibly/painfully burning down all even in ones soul like greed and so on.

And in most myths (and modern computer games), there is a scene where the hero has to fight a huge monster and by fighting the monster, he gains a mighty superweapon or special power. These scenes are all a metaphor for initiatory rites. And some psychologists say that the “beast” in such myths is really a symbol for all impure traits of the initiated individual.

Because of this, I think ancient initiatory rites were really about destroying/overcoming all r selected traits.

(Interestingly, cultural philosopher and anthropologist Rene Guenon suggested that there are also counter initiations. While initiations tries to convert a lesser being into a higher being, a counter initiation turns a human into a lesser being or a beast. For example, a classical example of a mythological counter initiation would be the creation of a Zombie. Zombification follows almost the same steps as an initiation, but turns a human into a monster. And from a certain point of fiew, a Zombie is the perfect metaphor for a life form which is extremely r selected. )

Wrote a story about twincest once. Two psychic borderline cuddlefish twins banged each other in private but carefully kept it to themselves around people who regarded them with a nervous, violent tension. One person tried to beat them to death because they weren’t good enough at hiding their weirdness. It was projection, as there are things about myself that might come across too novel for a k-minded person.

The problem now is that things are so far left/rabbity that people who should live in fear of others finding out about their idiosyncrasies can now be open about every perversion, yet I go to work and get the lowest form of worthless dirtbags viewing me with nervous violent tension because I dare speak out against their values. IE: How they buy LINK cards at the corner gas station, commit disability fraud to get out of working winters, have an ‘honor among thieves’ attitude about snitching, etc. Some have tried to put me in harmful situations.

I dream of the day when we could have controlled k-brutality against evil people. I’d rather live my life in constant fear of not passing as normal enough, just so long as the degenerates and stomach worms could be purged from our society, and good people could live their lives free to speak out against evil acts.

No, historians told us exactly how bad it got, it’s just that later generations, especially in the 20th century, refused to believe them.
We still have all these scandalous stories about Tiberius, Nero, Caligula, and several later emperors, of their depravity, tortures, and murders, but “critical” 18th-20th century historians started dismissing them as absurd rumors and gossip, unsupported by evidence and propagated by envious members of the aristocratic class and by Christians besmirching the glories of Classical Pagan civilization.
That was also the time when skeptical historians and archaeologists dismissed pretty much every other classical source, from Herodotus to Thucydides to the Bible, as half-myth and half-fabulation and in any case as unsupported by evidence.
This polemical reevaluation was probably started a couple of centuries earlier by Gibbons and his famously independent-minded contemporaries, who were skeptical of the received wisdom concerning Classical Antiquity and the origins of the Church, since it was filtered through Christian Church-related sources.
Before the 1500s, Christian and Christian-transmitted sources describing in lurid detail the depravity of Antiquity, especially that of the Roman Empire, were accepted as literally true. Everyone was aware of the lesson this history provided.
One reason for the reevaluation that occurred in the 1500s was, likely, that admitting the veracity of these stories immediately implies that
1. Christianity is based on a large kernel of truth and provides a surprisingly accurate view of the world.
2. The Bible and other ancient sources depict, correctly insofar as we can tell, true historical events that actually happened.
3. People are fallen and not naturally good; Christianity and the Church are not the source of their corruption, but rather, if anything, the cure to it.
Etc., etc..
You cannot make one understand when his livelihood depends on not understanding.
However, recent archeological finds seem to corroborate the ancient stories (e.g. Caesar’s expedition to Gaul, Romans’ massive expeditions into Germania, “lost tribes” of Israel). Most details that can be practically confirmed have been confirmed and, as a rule, no real evidence to the contrary has been found.
And stories that made no sense 100 years ago, like Heliogabalus wanting to be a woman or Caligula making his horse a senator, seem more and more plausible as time goes by.
I’m not really looking forward to fully understanding what the ancients “really” meant in some obscure passages (which would have been obvious to the early medieval copyists who thought they were important enough to preserve), but have a hunch that we may gain a fairly practical understanding, a couple of decades down the road.

Give it five years and it will be a human rights violation to dissallow “twincests” to marry and subsequently bring up children.
This seems to be the modern way, push the boundaries of degeneracy, but then want to further their genes and way of life into a new generation. Its not just allowing human freedoms, its gene wars.