Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We continually discuss OPSEC. It's a valid concern. We (and I mean the whole survivalist community) often discuss the danger of introducing strangers into our community. That's only common sense. However, I've seen almost no mention of the dangers inherent in the partners the children of the family choose as spouses. I've read over and over about an uncooperative spouse and about untrustworthy spouses of children and grandchildren. There is a solution that has been successful, brother-sister marriage. Assumed in the children of Adam and Eve, described by Homer in his remarks on Aeolus, keeper of the Winds who had six sons and six daughters who were married to each other, and practiced successfully among royalty in ancient Egypt both under the Pharoahs and among the Greeks of the Polemaic dynsasty who quickly adopted it.
When we read of kingdoms and empires we read of murder, treachery, and betrayal. The sole exception to that seems to be Egypt where family alliances were solid. It would be the same outside of royalty. A family would be far more stable if all its members were born into it. A quick look at the divorce rate clearly illustrates that marriage to outsiders doesn't work terribly well.
A survivalist couple who adopt this plan before having children should have great success. They could be strangers or related, but they would need to adopt a plan to educate their children in a way that were hidden from the world. It shouldn't be at all difficults. American Communists, for example, raised ''Red Diaper'' children whom they taught both secrecy and their secret doctrine.
Wouldn't it be wonderful for the patriarch and his wife to know that that their family were really a family?
Aside from the societal taboo/ewww factor, genetically it is problematic. The Kids will likely be fine, and grand kids will probably be mostly OK, but by great grand kid or great-great grand kid (essentially one long lifetime - say reaching 100), you would very likely start to have dysfunctional, recessive genetic traits appearing in a large percentage of the family.
You could get around this problem (genetics) by having family marry first cousins, or farther out on the family tree, along with well known (unrelated) local families with similar values and views, but that defeats the purpose you outline in the OP, and requires recurring infusion of "new blood" to ensure genetic health to avoid a "Fugate" family scenario.
FYI, my grand kids really ARE my family too, regardless of the fact that my kids married spouses totally unrelated to us as a family.
As Tucks Dad pointed out, genetics is the killer with this idea. Any family plagued by recessive genes would be a nightmare to live amongst.
Besides, you can't trust your own kin, any more than you can trust outsiders. I have seen close family fights over the stupidest of issues! And as a father of two (plus the two spouses) and grandfather of 6, I can assure you that a so-called "patriarch" has little or nothing to say in matters of the heart, with his offspring.
I now live, more or less happily, with members of extended family. In Maine, I have myself and wife, plus my own brother (divorced) with his oldest son at times, and my wifes brother (single, no kids). We are scattered about this 33 acres in three different residences. So far, nobody is underfoot too much.
It would be a mistake, however, to assume that we are all in agreement about things. The wife and I are the only ones who really prep, and while the 2 brothers know something of it, they don't know the half of it. I fully expect to feed the 2 guys if SHTF, but then, I let them live on my land for free, as it is.
Your assumption that all members of a family are on the same page, is laughable.
a lot of us older guys don't have the family members to call on that the younger guys can. apart from a married female cousin 20 miles away, my only other remaining relatives are another cousin in Australia and a half sister living near London...neither of which I can do anything about...too far.
when it comes to SHTF it'll just be me and the wife and the dog. some people just don't have the option of calling on family.
As Tucks Dad pointed out, genetics is the killer with this idea. Any family plagued by recessive genes would be a nightmare to live amongst.
Besides, you can't trust your own kin, any more than you can trust outsiders. I have seen close family fights over the stupidest of issues! And as a father of two (plus the two spouses) and grandfather of 6, I can assure you that a so-called "patriarch" has little or nothing to say in matters of the heart, with his offspring.
I now live, more or less happily, with members of extended family. In Maine, I have myself and wife, plus my own brother (divorced) with his oldest son at times, and my wifes brother (single, no kids). We are scattered about this 33 acres in three different residences. So far, nobody is underfoot too much.
It would be a mistake, however, to assume that we are all in agreement about things. The wife and I are the only ones who really prep, and while the 2 brothers know something of it, they don't know the half of it. I fully expect to feed the 2 guys if SHTF, but then, I let them live on my land for free, as it is.
Your assumption that all members of a family are on the same page, is laughable.
That's why I said that education from birth would be necessary. I understand that it may not be perfect, but it would insure that aliens could not degrade the family bloodline, a terrible problem that we've seen in both North America and Europe.
I don't know how much of a genetic problem would result. I suspect that it may not be as bad as people think. Members of European royal families married within their relatively small group for centuries. Hemophilia did become a problem, but overall, members of royal families seemed to enjoy normal lifespans. Some were born with small vestigial tails, but I see no problem there. I don't know whether people can wag them. It would certainly be handy if they were prehensile.
Although I'm advocating violating a current taboo I doubt that it will be a problem for long. After allowing legal marriage to members of the same sex I can't imagine courts denying the same right to siblings. Just a few years ago people generally viewed homosexual marriage as monstrous. Obama opposed it in his first presidential race, Now a majority of Americans supposedly think it's fine. Brother-sister marriage is natural unlike what has been declared legal by judicial fiat.
I don't claim that it's a panacea, but it could be beneficial in many cases. Divorce would certainly be rare. I suspect that it wouldn't be terribly difficult to restore the authority of the paterfamilias.
You'll notice that I picked a bland title. I hope that it will fail to attract the goat dancers.
Brother-sister marriage is natural unlike what has been declared legal by judicial fiat.
It is decidedly UNnatural.
You should visit the deep South! Visit with some of our sister-kissin', cousin-marryin' brethren! Oh - and don't forget to bring the good ol' flag with ya - Confederate, of course! I hear that's just about illegal now, as well!
LOL! It would have to not only be a strong family, but an intelligent and forgiving family with relatively fixed ideas for anything like that to even begin to work (genetics aside). People grow and go through stages of development. Family members tend to find niches where they "fit in" to a family dynamic. Frankly, I wouldn't even call it survival to live in such a setup.
During the Dust-Bowl / Great Depression / Grapes of Wrath migration era my family [both sets of grandparents and my parents] did a lot of banding together. As each farm was lost, that nucleus moved in with cousins. It did not happen over-night, it was a decade long process, of banks foreclosing on farms, and sheriffs forcing a family to leave their farm. Farms that survived each year, slowly got more over-loaded with women and children. While all adult males were on-the-road seeking employment. They did not migrate until the last surviving farms were foreclosed and they were evicted.
As groups of families they migrated West and fell into the migration patterns of farm-workers. Each car-load might be a single nucleus family, but the caravans where cousins.
After they got settled and full-time employed, it was my grandparents who insisted that all of their off-spring gather for holidays and birthdays. As my grandparents passed away, that was the last time I saw many of those cousins.
Then it became my parents who insisted that all of their off-spring gather for certain events. When my parents passed away, that was the last time my siblings got together. No big dramatic feuds or anything, they do not hate one another. But there is no drive to see each other ever again. I made the effort for a few years to stay in touch and go visit, but it was a single-sided effort.
During the time of trouble [Dust-Bowl / Great Depression / Grapes of Wrath migration] there was an obvious need to support each other. During times of prosperity, each nucleus family focuses on itself and ignores the cousins.
That's why I said that education from birth would be necessary. I understand that it may not be perfect, but it would insure that aliens could not degrade the family bloodline, a terrible problem that we've seen in both North America and Europe.
I don't know how much of a genetic problem would result. I suspect that it may not be as bad as people think. Members of European royal families married within their relatively small group for centuries. Hemophilia did become a problem, but overall, members of royal families seemed to enjoy normal lifespans. Some were born with small vestigial tails, but I see no problem there. I don't know whether people can wag them. It would certainly be handy if they were prehensile.
Although I'm advocating violating a current taboo I doubt that it will be a problem for long. After allowing legal marriage to members of the same sex I can't imagine courts denying the same right to siblings. Just a few years ago people generally viewed homosexual marriage as monstrous. Obama opposed it in his first presidential race, Now a majority of Americans supposedly think it's fine. Brother-sister marriage is natural unlike what has been declared legal by judicial fiat.
I don't claim that it's a panacea, but it could be beneficial in many cases. Divorce would certainly be rare. I suspect that it wouldn't be terribly difficult to restore the authority of the paterfamilias.
You'll notice that I picked a bland title. I hope that it will fail to attract the goat dancers.
I believe it was limit to marrying cousins, not siblings, in the European dynasties. Also, there were royal families (not related) that were married into for alliances and other political reasons. You are correct, it was not a broad gene pool, but it was significantly broader than siblings as spouses/mates. Siblings marrying siblings for 3 or more generations is where you start to get the genetic dysfunction with recessive genes. Cousins marrying cousins delays and/or mitigates some of the issues, but they will still be there, just takes longer to become a significant problem.
Interestingly, isolated cultures usually (but not always) have sexual morals that accommodate widening the gene pool - the Mandan Indians and certain Polynesian cultures come to mind as examples.
Last edited by Tuck's Dad; 09-24-2015 at 01:54 PM..
I believe it was limit to marrying cousins, not siblings in the European dynasties. Also, there were royal families (not related) that were married into for alliances and other political reasons. You are correct, it was not a broad gene pool, but it was significantly broader than siblings as spouses/mates. Siblings marrying siblings for 3 or more generations is where you start to get the genetic dysfunction with recessive genes. Cousins marrying cousins delays and/or mitigates some of the issues, but they will still be there, just takes longer to become a significant problem.
Interestingly, isolated cultures usually (but not always) have sexual morals that accommodate widening the gene pool - the Mandan Indians and certain Polynesian cultures come to mind as examples.
Even two generations would make families far closer and strengthen the culture. People could revise the model if problems began to occur.
We have another and far more serious problem: the extinction of the White race. We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. We must do this by any means necessary; this is a very small part of the remedy, but it would plant seeds in people's minds.
We can often use DNA testing to reveal potential problems; we need not emulate primitive cultures. However, if our race is gone, we've lost everything including the technology to do this. Brother-sister marriage was the norm of the Egyptian royal family for centuries. It's possible the deformed were simply disposed of in ways that can't now be know, but there are no records anywhere that give us any indication of problems.
We've lost the war against traditional marriage and the stable family. We must do something before we lose our race.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hear that's just about illegal now, as well! 
