Has a democracy ever gotten more conservative culturally over time?

Has a democracy ever gotten more conservative culturally over time?

Or do they all get more liberal and degenerate until they collapse?

Attached: pepe14.jpg (655x527, 107.13K)

This is a really good question. Bump

Societies themselves don't get more conservative over time. I don't know where the quote is from, but there's a good one which basically goes "Society is the present trying to compromise with the past to build the future." Name me a single society which has become more socially conservative as time went on, but I doubt you can.

I think by "conservative" op really means not degenerate. If natsoc germany was still around, they would be "progressing" and moving forward, but they would never become degenerate. OP wants to know if all democracies are doomed to degeneracy.

Well then I would still say my original point is correct, even with that definition. Very few societies live long enough to reach the degeneracy stage, but most that are around do reach it. Rome for example had one of the most powerful family units in any culture I've seen, centered around the Paterfamilias. But, that still fell apart once unprecedented wealth and success came to the nation. I think if people are given the opportunity to be degenerate, they take it.

*that are around long enough

Its cycles. But because laws are inflexible and power accumulates, its unable to reconcile these cycles leading to violent unrest. The constitution was written with similar philosophy in mind with the first and second amendments and the limiting of governmental powers. However, its about to be tested again.

No, and I'll tell you why.
In every democracy there grows an aristocracy.
As they become more powerful, the high IQ sociopathic and psychopathic families realize they could have more power. As in, permanent, hereditary power. But it requires a dumb, weak, placated populace. So they set about making the average person more poor, more emotionally motivated, with less sense of civic responsibility and enough bread and circus to keep them docile. It takes a few generations. Maybe 3-4 at most, a short play for what it gets you. Once society collapses from the rot you and every other squabbling group fostered, you should have maneuvered your family into position to take over as nobles in a more hierarchial successor. Whether that entails working with foreign powers or other aristocrats is minutae. But after the chaos is over, your dynasty will be able to rule for 500 years or more over your fiefdoms.
The game has changed now though. Many of the players are Jews, but not all. They realized if they turn almost everyone except the nobility as dumb and brown and cultureless as Brazil, with current surveillance tech, that the ability for the masses to awaken will be permanently lost.

Attached: 1512771816049.webm (574x382, 1.24M)

Nazis directly followed the Weimar republic which invented the modern tranny.

"Win the battle for DEMOCRACY" - Karl Marx

Jews forced America to become a democracy in 1917
Before The senate was chosen by State legistlators

Mussolini tried,

>Or do they all get more liberal and degenerate until they collapse?

20 years ago Trump would have been considered one of the most extreme examples of progressive culture leading to degeneracy. Go listen to his Howard Stern interviews. Now he is a right-wing messiah that can do no wrong. The left is winning.

>Name me a single society which has become more socially conservative as time went on, but I doubt you can.
Pennsylvania's German population.

Attached: tumblr_p6y15cJpj91uaxri9o1_1280.jpg (1280x900, 244.63K)

Aristocracy is the natural state of things. A Republic recognises the rich powers as Senators and divides the states against each other, forcing each to serve their own state/team. There are also House of Representatives to make sure the will of some people is kept usualy property owners

Leaf, tell me that you mean Weimar invented the modern tyranny and not the Nazis

The left already won during the middle of the last century. Now it's just a matter of watching things play out and reach their natural conclusion.

>Has a democracy ever gotten more conservative culturally over time?

Yeah the United States had a religious revival after the Civil War. They were more conservative in the 1870s then they were in the 1770s.

THE MODERN TRANNY

Attached: trannie_krauts.jpg (728x460, 78.99K)

The current state of that same population is probably not what you'd call socially conservative. They're probably as dumb as normal burgers, and also it's not an example of a society - just a group inside of a society. If you're referring to the amish, it's different because their worldview is specifically made to be static and non progressive so my point that the societies increasing wealth and leisure is what brings the degeneracy still stands.

Weimar did. I haven't slept in a couple days sorry for the shit grammar. Anyways pic is pretty relevant to this thread I'm surprised some faggy comic book allowed this.

Attached: red skull 2.jpg (1920x2951, 1.65M)

In the next page where does captain America say. Red skull you’re right. How do I join up?

Isn't that just a microcosm of the global state of things? Nothing is forcing NK to serve its people, even though it is nominally against the world and there exists a congress of nations.

Actually if the North Koreans did absolutely nothing to serve their people in any way, then the fabric of their society would fall apart. It's kinda a similar dichotomy to how a slave plantation works - if you don't feed and house the slaves they can't pick the cotton.

Yes NK is forced to somewhat serve its people, out of competition with other countries. Same with monarchies. Even the worst kings and dictators usually werent s problem for their owm people, so long as they had an enemy. Soviets had no close enemies so they killed as many in Russia

>muh ebil gunz
>muh ebil beef
>muh ebil competition
>muh ebil pollution

yea wow you never see this kinda rhetoric seeping through into pop culture. it totally isnt literally everywhere

yea my country but its an exception

I'm not saying it defeats your argument. Exceptions only justify the rule. But you said think of one like it was a challenge, so I thought of one. Another example would be America during and after the Second Great Awakening. There's a book called "The Shopkeeper's Millennium" about Rochester, NY before and during the revival that's really good.

What I mean is having Aristocrats and peasants is normal. But you have to regulate them through competition (communists try it through government power - paradoxical). To do that you have to divide the country geographically so the rich compete with each other instead of uniting (e.g. the Bushes in Texas vs The IrIshBoston Kennedys vs New York Trumps).

The soviets were mainly jews and their enemies were Christians. They worked together to take over Russia. Lenin was 1/4 Jew, Trotsky was a jew, and Marx was a jew named Chaim Hirschell.
I'll give it a look, I actually live near Rochester so it'd be interesting to see some local history. I recently looked into the founding of Mormonism which also happened in the region. Lots of social movements from the USA got their start in CNY.

"Democracy" has had it's little experiment. The myopic normie sees this 2020 year as just another point along democracy's neverending expansion, it's continuing growth with some far-off zenith that never ends.
I see things differently from that, anons.
I see a system, that arose from a disgrunted Gentry; a system that came about from lower nobles who weren't satisfied with their lots in the past monarchies.
I look, and I see a mewling babe of a system that's only seen an ebbing and flowing existence for ~200 years, and likely isn't going to be as prominent in the future.
I think we'll return back to a system similar to the hierarchies of old. Of dynasties and regimes.
I see our current situation of global popularity for democracy, only being propped up by the lynchpin of the Anglosphere and Western Europe's support for the system. All other places, and I mean all, from Chink Chongs in Asia, to Balkan slavs and mestizo south americans, ALL could give zero shits for democracy within half a century's timespan should those two factors fall out of the equation.

Democracy won't last. Eventually the Neo-Gentry lose the very foe that unites them against their former Crown, have their own power struggle, and a new Royal Family surname takes top position.

In the end? Without King George, Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin's grandchildren have their fingers around one another's throats. The new aristocracy emerges. Any factor of immigration adding fresh blood doesn't mean much, it just changes the players on the board.

I agree, so why the fuck would anyone advocate for something that demonstrably leads to detestable conditions?

What qualifies as enough of an enemy? Wartime in the last great wars was hardly pleasant for those at home, and the minor wars the west has gotten itself into have had little effect on the lives of the citizenry - let alone positive!

Isn't that horribly pessimistic? The only positive aspect of peasant life I can imagine is that there is no alienation from one's labour.

Yeah i know even the seven-bankers who took over Russia are Jews, hence all the balkan wars. But the communists/neocon jews become pro-Russia or pro-US out of fear of the other. Competition keeps aristocrats honest

nah he is legitimately based

Attached: red skull 1.jpg (1282x1981, 1.8M)

i think no matter if the political system is democratic or not, there is very often a backlash against the former morale dominance. when conservative family values were predominant in the 40s and 50s it got btfo by the hippie-boomers in the 60s and 70s, a process that is still continuing. but society constantly moving in one direction leads to resistance, first just some weirdos will be against the morales of mainstream society, then it will be "cool and underground" to be against it and next thing you know is all the normies are preaching like the weirdos 30-40 years ago

The big question in my mind ausbro is if those jews are actually in opposition or not. Their actions and words seem to put them against each other but I'm not convinced. As Hitler put it, they are a state inside a state, working for their own benefit.

Singapore has I'm pretty sure

Equal enemies. For example the rivalry of Islam and Christianity ended the Barbaric dark ages (Vandals and Visigoths), just stalemate wars. Cold war kept American jews from all these wars and so on

Pagan Europe to Christian Europe until the French Revolution

This is why they are importing hispanics and muslims into white countries. They are getting ready to introduce their own hierarchy over the goyim, and a population of nonwhites that do not come from the democratic tradition will not care

the later

>I'll show those small minded bigots
>Makes a compelling case to become a bigot
Based progressive comicfags

Attached: 62A211D6-CC2E-4F4D-844A-7E177784F211.jpg (850x400, 61.53K)

>A Republic recognises the rich powers as Senators and divides the states against each other, forcing each to serve their own state/team. There are also House of Representatives to make sure the will of some people is kept usualy property owners
The point of Senators and Representatives is to REPRESENT the interests of their people. Inevitably it becomes filled with sociopaths and psychopaths who exploit positions of power for their own gain.
>Aristocracy is the natural state of things.
When the majority of people are stupid and irresponsible, yes. The Roman Republic worked fine early on because people had a sense of civic virtue and posterity from their religion and upbringing. But even before the time the Empire was declared, the sense of communal duty to the nation was discouraged to be replaced by greed, as in, how much could I profit off joining the army and supporting this general/patrician's bid to become Consul/Emperor.
It's happened in every nation in history. Eventually the intrigue between aristocrats becomes so byzantine that the empire they made collapses from external pressure, but not without much bloodshed of the average person.

Peasant life means having a family, food and shelter. People only get bored if theyre capable of intellectual work which they would pursue in economic compeition. Competition between Lords/Corporations means they need happy families to fight for them. Unnatural Factories get bombed easily and are usually avoided in competitive societies. Farms are better and more durable against enemies

I don't see where you're coming from with this at all. Pagan Europe is a totally different civilization than Christian Europe. So when the Christians came, it changed everything - including their way of life. So it isn't socially conservative to have paganism change to Christianity. And then the Christian Europe was replaced by a culture of science and progressivism which destroyed the Christian order as well.

The Islamic reformation of the 20th century was literally them deciding to be more conservative you uneducated dipshit

Conservatism goes against the natural order of things. Everything in the universe changes all the time no matter how much you cry and kick. It's the inevitability of entropy.

>They're probably as dumb as normal burgers, and also it's not an example of a society - just a group inside of a society.
This is cringe worthy sophistry

yeah, prohibition in the usa

Yes the jews know only a few can run the World government, its a constant rivalry between neocons, Soros, Netanyahu (has nukes) and so on. When one jew gets too much power for example, they start tryinf to reduce him. Its why many Jewish finances go to Palestine

Its more of a sibling rivalry, the same way vultures pick at the same corpse