I see tons of children with problems now. Hearing aids, wheelchair, autism, deformed something etc. Its very sad. I dont recall to see that in the past. Most women now (at least in western europe), tend to make children after 30. Me and my wife joke sometimes on the playground, if the caretaker of some random child is the mother or a "young" grandma, because you cant be sure anymore. Most of the times if you not sure, its the mother.
Child's Autism Risk Accelerates with Mother's Age Over 30
A recent study from researchers from the Drexel University School of Public Health in Philadelphia and Karolinska Institute in Sweden provides more insight into how the higher risk of having a child with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) among older parents varies between mothers’ and fathers’...drexel.edu
“BuT mEn HaVe a BiOlOgIcAl ClOcK tOo”
-
ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.
The Destruction of Modern Women
- Thread starter Christos_NIKA
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cultural marxism women
I had a winter job with the park district and noticed several kids with autism or similar issues. All had older mothers. One had lesbian parents. Pretty sad to see.
A lot of the boys that misbehaved also had very weak leadership from their fathers and coaches. Something to take note of for future reference.
A lot of the boys that misbehaved also had very weak leadership from their fathers and coaches. Something to take note of for future reference.
Well most women are terrible and I'll stand by that. The vast majority of them will either never marry or will divorce their husbands for no reason. They are impulsive and are the primary marriage partner in the legal system, a complete inversion of reality.
Last edited:
All of these realities confirm the ecological imbalance or regression back to lower population levels. What's hard for those of us that maintain higher quality and desire that for our kids is the ability to find wives and have kids in the first place, and THEN sift through all the noise and retards of the future. But there are also benefits to being secure, normal, and well developed and raised in that world = easier to succeed.
By the way, and I know a few have been complaining about the doom supposedly talked a lot about on the forum, but the slow degradation does have a benefit in a sense. The truth is, big time collapse would make it harder to build and succeed without a good amount of time, since you CAN continue to stack and get to another location. That would probably be nixed if we hit trouble or the geopolitical skids. And anyone who is 35+ right now with any sort of stacks and wisdom realizes there's nothing in the west left for you when you value a partner who is physically attractive, pleasant, and will cook / clean / you know what.
I was thinking about that this morning. You can't get #1 priority as a man (youth & beauty) in the west on average without sacrificing major $ and you won't get the pleasant or cook/clean thing. If you get the pleasant and cook/clean, you'll almost assuredly be with a 4 or 5 who is chubby at best.
That's the best summary of what's going on.
Last edited:
I suspect that the whole talk of "negativity" is some form of low key casual trolling.
We are not criticizing modern Western females from a Andrew Tate or Fresh n Fit perspective but from a Christian perspective.
Btw I could write a whole essay on why the Tate Bro's are cucks with their Onlyfans wives but this ain't the time or place..
We are not criticizing modern Western females from a Andrew Tate or Fresh n Fit perspective but from a Christian perspective.
Btw I could write a whole essay on why the Tate Bro's are cucks with their Onlyfans wives but this ain't the time or place..
I don't see it more.
I see a sick system that is calling everything an outlier and thereby problematizing every behavior. If you don't fall in the middle of their fake bell curves you're a problem.
I think if your would let a normal person do 20 psychological tests you would find 3 outliers + diagnosis + medication.
Yeah. Unless you have something extremely visibly wrong with you, you need to largely ignore what these people say you are and what they say you have. Mostly they're just going out of their way to turn everything into an excuse to pump young boys full of amphetamines and endocrine disruptors.
That being said, I do think very real disabilities have become a lot more common. It's true that everyone is having kids at over 30 and there's more toxic chemicals in the environment than ever, and there's no way that's not having an effect.
IIRC, Andrew Anglin has stated that he thinks the "autism spectrum" is just a very general diagnosis for people who have a wide variety of issues from toxic chemicals and vaccines and so on.
Last edited:
I'd argue it's more based on dysgenics in general, rather than toxins, something impossible to tease out from an expanding, propagandized, crony capitalist economy and welfare system.
Satire of delusional women with a microphone 
"That's rude and disgusting"
"That's rude and disgusting"
Last edited:
Shaquilleoatmeal
Protestant
Something that needs to be discussed more is no fault divorce, as it is one of the most dangerous social experiments.
No-fault divorce laws were introduced in Western Europe and other industrialised countries during the 1970s and are being expanded into other regions of the world today. The spouse who divorces or otherwise abrogates the marriage contract incurs no liability for the costs or consequences, creating a unique and unprecedented legal anomaly. In all other areas of contract law those who break a contract are expected to compensate their partner, but under a system of 'no fault' divorce, this essential element of contract law is abrogated. In fact, the legal implications go farther, since the courts actively assist the violator. The law generally supports the spouse seeking the divorce, even if that spouse was the wrongdoer. ‘No-fault’ did not really remove fault, therefore; it simply allowed judges to redefine it however they pleased. It introduced the novel concept that one could be deemed guilty of violating an agreement that one had, in fact, not violated. According to therapeutic precepts, the fault for marital breakup must be shared, even when one spouse unilaterally seeks a divorce. Many husbands and wives who did not seek or want divorce were stunned to learn that they were equally 'at fault' in the dissolution of their marriages. While lamenting the high divorce rate is conventional piety among family advocates, most have refused to challenge the divorce laws. The standard rationalisation is that to control divorce we must first change the culture. But no one suggests that changing the culture is a prerequisite for preventing, say, abortion. While cultural forces certainly contribute, the divorce epidemic has proceeded directly from a legal system which permits and even encourages it. Furthermore, it is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it. Gays do not want marriage in the traditional mold (1950 version marriage), only the watered-down version, which makes vows meaningless.
No-fault divorce laws were introduced in Western Europe and other industrialised countries during the 1970s and are being expanded into other regions of the world today. The spouse who divorces or otherwise abrogates the marriage contract incurs no liability for the costs or consequences, creating a unique and unprecedented legal anomaly. In all other areas of contract law those who break a contract are expected to compensate their partner, but under a system of 'no fault' divorce, this essential element of contract law is abrogated. In fact, the legal implications go farther, since the courts actively assist the violator. The law generally supports the spouse seeking the divorce, even if that spouse was the wrongdoer. ‘No-fault’ did not really remove fault, therefore; it simply allowed judges to redefine it however they pleased. It introduced the novel concept that one could be deemed guilty of violating an agreement that one had, in fact, not violated. According to therapeutic precepts, the fault for marital breakup must be shared, even when one spouse unilaterally seeks a divorce. Many husbands and wives who did not seek or want divorce were stunned to learn that they were equally 'at fault' in the dissolution of their marriages. While lamenting the high divorce rate is conventional piety among family advocates, most have refused to challenge the divorce laws. The standard rationalisation is that to control divorce we must first change the culture. But no one suggests that changing the culture is a prerequisite for preventing, say, abortion. While cultural forces certainly contribute, the divorce epidemic has proceeded directly from a legal system which permits and even encourages it. Furthermore, it is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it. Gays do not want marriage in the traditional mold (1950 version marriage), only the watered-down version, which makes vows meaningless.
This remains the prime issue that is the direct, pure counter to the current issue that I brought up in the monk mode thread, which reveals that some people think things will change over time, but they still aren't seeing the larger issue with most women in terms of how life works itself out (hypergamy and agency). The problem is that egalitarianism is such a lie, even a lot of holy men currently are unaware of how far they have been molded in that vein, since it seems to be part of what God tells us in revelation, but it really isn't.
How do you change the culture if the law doesn't change?
First the law must be changed, and then the cultural change will follow.
This is where the older men, as I referred to in other threads, don't see the reality of things in a very tangible or practical way. For example, if you wisely say that yes, women will follow where men eventually go, that still means little if the law exists and persists as is. Bird rightly points this out, again. What's more, the change can take place over 20-40 years, which of course doesn't help men, especially when women have a 10 year window at best, and their best years are even illegal in modern societies (from a pure male attraction point of view, which is what men work for, btw).
Sadly, there are many such cases.