Against Utilitarian Apathy.

"no u"

Can you talk me about the "Theory of Degeneracy" that explains how the era in which starts woman become the ruling class begins the social decline of said civilization?

I would not lay the blame on women, not entirely; however generally speaking societies that become more androgynous or out and out feminine generally are ones which rapidly begin to fall.

Throughout human history, there's never been a powerful, large-scale "matriarchal" society. In fact the general rule of Matriarchal societies is that they generally end up as unadvanced tribes or nomads--not quite nation builders.

This isn't to say women are antithetical to society, in fact they play an exceptionally important role in it. I believe Oswald Spengler was the one who said that women generally carry the genus of society within them because typically they're the ones at home raising their boys to become men. So you can say that Islamic Women are oppressed by Islamic Men, but it would arguably be far more accurate to say that Islamic Women create Islamic Men.

The problem with Women in major leadership roles however, is that women for the most part evolved with an entirely different view of society from men. Men were, for the most part, bound to their tribe: The land they were on was where they would farm food, they had the duty of protecting their tribe with force of arms and should they fail, they'd be sold into slavery or killed on the spot, men had to look after themselves and the tribe was the best vehicle to do that.

Women however, had arguably a more "lucky" fate in that they were something of a resource in much the same way food and water was: they didn't have to tend to their own crop, but rather marry a man with a field to farm on, and should the "tribe" fall then they would be assimilated into the new tribe, given new husbands, give birth to new sons, so on. Tribal loyalty is not a quality inherent in Women and so it had to be enforced by Social Taboos and Force: You had the Rape of The Sabine Women which ended with them begging their brothers and fathers not to fight their husbands and instead peacefully submit to Roman Rule--this is after the Romans kidnapped and raped them. You have Rahab in the Old Testament who betrayed her own people, letting her neighbors and brothers and sisters be killed en masse by the Tribes of Israel. Hell I remember years ago reading an article which found that in a prison where there was no gender-segregation among the prison guards--I.E. Female Guards were overseeing Male Prisoners--a majority of the women were not only becoming lovers of the prisoners they were guarding, but some even got their names tattoo'd on them.

The archtype of the female betraying her "tribe" seems to be a universal one, which is why one of the values men look for in women is loyalty precisely, it's why the noble women in history--such as the Queen of Sparta--were made noble precisely because they were willing to commit suicide over being captured in spite of capture likely being a more merciful fate.

So when you have women come to power, they don't put the interests of the nation, the tribe first, but rather are more motivated by "helping people" and liberal causes--if only Males voted we'd see America as far more right wing than it is currently, the division between pro and anti refugee movements is almost entirely a gendered one wherein Men see it (rightfully I believe) as an invasion of foreign peoples, as letting the enemy in the gates, whilst Women see it more as a kind of vague humanitarianism.

Secondly you have the case of Modern Feminism which is absolutely the worst thing to befall women and--to some extent--society at large. First in the case of female suffrage: the suffragettes were opposed by women in the beginning, primarily because those women imagined that if they'd be given the right to vote, they'd be expected to serve in the military. This was because voting was almost entirely originally seen as a tradeoff, you earned the right to vote when you accepted the responsibility that came with it: that you would have to defend the national body with your life, and in some cases it went further than that at insisted you be a property owner too! You essentially had to have material bonds ensuring your loyalty to the Nation in order to have a say on national policy.

When women were given the vote, this more than anything else--even Universal Male Suffrage--moved us away from this idea of voting as a Civic Duty, as something that came with responsibility and sacrifices, but to a right inherent in every single person. It philosophically opened the door to voting by inmates, to this illegal immigrant debacle, to a whole host of problems because it just said anyone can vote, everyone has a right to vote, even if not everyone is equal nor equally bound to the nation.

Still, things can be maintained if you still keep some of the social taboos and strong men can reel in women--generally speaking as long as Marriages and the family are strong, women will mimic their husband's views. However Feminism soon was attacking that: it wanted more women in the workforce, equal pay, no-fault divorces (which is a disaster for marriage) and then gradually dissolution of the social taboos: open marriages/relationships, an end to "slut shaming", encouraging female promiscuity. What you end up with is that traditional feminine values are taught less and less, women spend their younger years acting like "sluts" and when the biological clock keeps ticking louder and louder they'll realize that the men aren't calling anymore, and they can either pin down a "beta" male they secretly resent for more financial security, or spend their middle age alone and growing increasingly bitter. Women in the workforce, being encouraged both via social shaming and hiring quotas, similarly brings more trouble on the woman because they always want to marry up, and so they end up embarrassed if they make more money than their husband, or if their husband becomes a stay-at-home father, it's unnatural for them, like wearing someone else's skin.

So what you end up with is angry, dissatisfied women, voting for increasingly liberal policies which harm them and the nation as a whole without what essentially amounts to a man to temper them. You end up with the dissolution of the family, more social shaming of masculinity (under the guise of attacking "toxic masculinity", toxic going from an adjective to a verb there) then you create a society which cannot defend itself, which second guesses itself constantly, and opens the gates to its own destruction under the guise of "humanitarian compassion".

Suppose you grew up knowing someone, such as a respected member of your community (perhaps your neighbor, a teacher, local business-owner, etc). This person is universally well-liked, and lives what most people call a "good" life, raises a loving family as normal, volunteers to charitable causes, etc. Let's say they do so many good deeds and are so well-liked that they become a sort of "local hero" or symbol of hope for the community.

However, after their death you find substantial evidence that this person was actually a serial child-molester, had victimized dozens, and was never at any point repentant or sorry for what they did. You have a choice- you can A) Let the town have their so-called "hero" or B) Reveal their crimes. What do you do?

>Comparing a "Nice Guy Pedophile" to fucking George Washington.

Firstly in your pedophile example, you just have a supposed nice-guy, a "pillar of the community", but not the founder of a country or a leader in any real capacity, secondly you're certainly not arguing in good faith when you try to present some binary example of "Either support Washington and by proxy pedophilia or reject them both"

In the case of the Pedophile his crimes should be brought to light and restitution made for his victims, in the case of Washington the obsessive focus on his crimes are aggressive attempts of subverting this country and accomplish nothing other than trying to tear the foundations of our society apart.

As an aside, the Natives are a conquered people, they aren't our own people. Washington crushing an enemy tribe or another is of no concern to the American people.