Creating Cuckolds: An Epigenetic Theory on Failed Men

There are few things more degrading and incomprehensible than the male cuckold. Personally, I can think of nothing more perplexing aside from pedophilia.

Cuckolds (hereafter called “cucks”) are devoid of even the most basic semblance of masculinity. They are truly the highest form of failed men.

We should be concerned with their creation stories. Why do they exist, and why do they seemingly exist in larger numbers now compared to previously? How do we stop their population from growing?

I believe the answers to those questions can be found through epigenetics.

But before we get there, we should define what a cuck is:

A man whose spouse has committed adultery, often regarded as an object of scorn.

The origin of the word “cuckold” is from the cuckoo bird. This bird lays its eggs in other birds’ nests, forcing the unsuspecting bird to raise offspring which are not its own.

For our purposes, we’re going to limit the word cuck in this article to only those men who allow their wives to commit adultery willingly. Because they are the truly disturbing ones.

Also note that I include even “swingers” in this category, because that is just as debased.

A cuck implies that a specific man is incredibly emasculated and may even feel pleasure at his own humiliation rituals.

This is not normal male behavior.

Males are instinctively inclined to perform the exact opposite function: We secure women, lock them into monogamous relationships, and prevent other men from accessing our woman. The fact that cucks exist at all implies a serious maladaptation has occurred, perhaps even on a civilizational level.

It is a civilizational problem if these men increase as a percentage in the overall population, because they are pathetic men who degrade the culture. They destroy family, pervert moral norms, provoke God, and are just disgusting, honestly. No one wants them in their own nation. It leads to apathy in other men because of their deranged behavior. Their numbers must be kept low in any sane state.

We now know the reason we should care. But how do we answer the questions I presented above with epigenetics?

Epigenetics need not be complex. It is simply the study of how the DNA code controls how the genes are switched on or off. Or to what extent they are expressed.

These changes are modulated dynamically, usually from sensory inputs that the body detects from its physical surroundings (but I would also argue from a spiritual nature). These signal to create changes in the body. Many inputs, such as stress, diet, and physical changes, interact with the expression of certain genes to heighten or lower their applicability or turn them on/off.

Epigenetic changes can, and often are, heritable. This is because they prime the offspring to be adapted to the new environment noticed by the parent, even if the actual DNA is left unaltered. This will come into play later when we discuss things like homosexuality.

There are a few ways epigenetics happen, but the most prominent is cytosine methylation. Which is where chemical methyl groups are added to the DNA base molecules to change the expression.

To not get buried into epigenetic technicalities, I am going to end this section here with that overview. But I encourage everyone to dive into epigenetics as time allows. It is a fascinating field that really annihilates Darwinism when you start to recognize the facts surrounding mutations and adaptations.

Being a Christian, I am also not a Darwinian “random mutations” guy. I believe directed genetic change is the norm, with random mutations being the exception. What this means is that changes to DNA are “purposeful and rapid”—Like we would expect if there was an Intelligent Designer. These adaptative changes arise on both a genetic and epigenetic level, but without significant physical pressure, they usually manifest only in the epigenetic realm at first.

Which is where we must start.

A lot of people want to point toward cultural or genetics for the rise in cuckold-like behaviors, but I am cautious on both counts.

For one, there has been no large-scale genetic change amongst most white populations, yet the rates of homosexuality and things like cuckoldry are exploding. Minimal-pressure genetic changes cannot account for changes as rapidly as we’ve seen, such as for homosexuality:

While we do not have verifiable rates of cuckoldry, I imagine it would be similar to the above. We have likely seen doubling over the past four generations, as this trend holds for both LGB, trannies, and similar cultural degenerations.

So, if we had x amount of cuckolds in the traditionalist generation, we would expect to witness an origination doubling sequence here, as well. Anecdotal evidence points toward this conclusion, as I remember exactly 0 cuckolds while growing up, but now seem to see them or their similar groups (swingers) everywhere.

Culture is also not an adequate answer. Because, as I have mentioned previously, culture is a delayed representation of the soul of a people. If the culture is now okay with demonstrations of cuckoldry, then the spiritual change must have already manifested before the physical arrives.

In our case, we know that the soul of our people has been declining extensively during the 20th century (and before, but to a less exponential extent). This soul has declined to a point where the openly physical manifestation could appear. This manifestation came as an epigenetic change, which then makes itself apparent through the culture.

In less technical jargon: the hidden epigenetic condition changed first, leading to the visible culture decay we can easily view.

But what was that epigenetic change? Again, let’s first start with homosexuality.

We know that homosexuality is not genetic because of studies on twins. But it’s also not cultural, either. It’s a spiritual and then epigenetic matter: A person’s spirit is harmed to the point of provoking epigenetic changes.

Again, this is confirmed by studies on twins which I have already addressed on this website ad nauseam (amongst a plethora of other evidence):

Identical twins have nearly identical DNA, which leads to the perceived conclusion that all identical twins are either heterosexual or homosexual. However, it is evident that this is not the case, consequently leaving a gap in the explanation for homosexuality. A “gay” gene does not produce homosexuality. Rather, epigenetic modifications act as temporary “switches” that regulate how the genes are expressed. Of the pairs of identical twins in which one twin is homosexual, the other twin, despite having the same genome, only has a 20-50% chance of being homosexual as well. This leads to the hypothesis that homosexuality is created by something else rather than the genes. Epigenetic transformation allows the on and off switching of certain genes, subsequently shaping how cells respond to androgen signaling, which is critical in sexual development. Another example of epigenetic consequences is evident in multiple sclerosis in monozygotic (identical) twins. There are pairs of twins that are discordant with multiple sclerosis and do not both show the trait. After gene testing, it was suggested that DNA was identical and that epigenetic differences contributed to the gene difference between identical twins.

The key parts are repeated here:

Identical twins have nearly identical DNA, which leads to the perceived conclusion that all identical twins are either heterosexual or homosexual. However, it is evident that this is not the case, consequently leaving a gap in the explanation for homosexuality.

This leads to the hypothesis that homosexuality is created by something else rather than the genes.

And that “gap” is a screwed up soul (from things like abuse or male feminization by mothers) alongside environmental damages leading to epigenetic changes.

The exact same applies to the cuck, because the cuck is likewise maladapted to the natural purpose of male procreation and protection just as the homosexual is.

Now, we also know—without any doubt—that environmental toxins turn birds gay and turn amphibians into homosexuals or males with low sex drives.

There have not been major random genetic changes with the birds and amphibians. Also, as far as I can deduce, there have not been major cultural changes with the birds and amphibians. Yet, exposure to harmful chemicals makes them gay, less protective of their masculine nature, and more effeminate.

Odd, isn’t it?

But why does this happen?

Well, the chemicals are changing the expression of their existing DNA—Epigenetic changes.

The birds and amphibians do not have a soul to impact. But even the environmental damages are enough to alter their orientation and normal behavior. Imagine how much more impactful this is with a conscious, sentient, and soul-filled human.

The environmental piece happens to our population because of our massive reliance on processed foods, polluted water, chemical-filled foods, and so on.

Now, the normal retort is that many men eat the soy and drink the poison with no ill effects. If that were the case, why are they fine?

That is actually further proof that this is an epigenetic problem.

Certain men are genetically predisposed to being more sensitive to these chemicals and processed foods (compared to other men), and are more likely to trigger that epigenetic response when conditioned with them over long periods of time. Some men would trigger a change in expression faster than others, which is exactly what we witness. There is no hard genetic change, but there are different levels of epigenetic change in the feminization of men.

Additionally, there is also the spiritual matter. Some men are simply stronger mentally and more spiritually resilient than others are. Their genetics favor resisting these epigenetic changes.

This is why homosexuality and emasculation of men have been occurring. It is not cultural, and it is not genetic (although some genetic traits make certain men more resilient to its effects, even if they indulge in the same foods/water). It is epigenetic.

So we know this happens to some extent with homosexuals. Is it then unreasonable to assume that the exact same conditions could apply to the cuck?

The cuck is just a less egregious example of a homosexual: He allows his woman to have sex with another man instead of having sex with the other man directly. I’m sure I’ll catch some flak for this, but in many ways, cuckoldry is just a mild form of the illness of homosexuality. Keep feeding them the chemical-soy-slop and you’ll probably turn them into a homosexual given enough time as the DNA is further expressed; which is exactly what happened to the frogs. They are the same root illness.

Both are debased; both are anti-natural behavior; and both are anti-God (Leviticus 18:22 & Exodus 20:14).

Therefore, it is my belief that cuckolds are not born of genetics or culture. They are born of epigenetics, which is a combination of societal pressures causing directed mutations and spiritual decline causing cellular changes.

These epigenetic changes happen fast. As we’ve seen, they can double across generations. Which means they can decrease just as, or perhaps even faster. I personally believe reversing this damage could be done even faster, because to go back would be a return to the heritage, genetically normal condition, which is generally easier to acquire than the inverse of going from normal to completely deranged (where we are now).

If this theory is correct, then since the cuck is created, the cuck can also be destroyed.

We just need to remove the pressures creating them: return to a better spiritual place and remove the environmental pressures, both physical (atrazine, et al. in the water) and spiritual (widespread acceptance of emasculation).

If we do that, we should be able to return to pre-baby boomer levels of cuckoldry relatively easily.

Which, I imagine, we all would greatly appreciate. I know I would.