What are conservatives trying to conserve?

Isn't the entirety of the clown world we are living in a direct result of the freedom held in such high regard by the conservative side of the political spectrum?

Attached: botharecucked.jpg (718x487, 68K)

>censorship is freedom

respect for the family, for the church, for personal strength, and for heritage.
a disrespect for depravity, degeneracy, the worship of weakness, and utopianism.

Attached: 1552862474731.png (530x1024, 730K)

Nevertheless, tolerating the freedom where the value of these aspects of society can be openly doubted and undermined is incredibly inefficient.

Left or right, conservative or liberal, they're all playing the game of liberal democracy. The clown world is a result of late stage liberal democracy. You can't blame it entirely on either side, because they are both to blame for it. The conservatives who were not full blown reactionaries played the game by the rules. Conservatism can't win. You're either going in one direction or the other. Progressives or Reactionaries. People who advocate for political, economic and social reform, and those who advocate for rescinding political, economic, and social reform. Conservatives are neither of those things. They just try to slow the inevitable, fail, concede ground then do it all over again for the next great thing the progressives thought up. The hint is in the name, Liberal democracy. It only goes in one direction, and the game is designed specifically to further that direction. The proof is in the pudding. People don't get elected in liberal democracies if their ideas are not popular, if your ideas are reactionary in nature, they are by default not popular. So the mainstream right makes concessions because they can't do anything else.

Liberal democracy will die one day, just as monarchism did to the liberal revolutions. The next stage was and is nationalism. Just as the monarchs of Europe "defeated" the French in the coalition wars, and thus "defeated" the idea of liberalism, then promptly fell to liberal revolutions; the Liberal democracies "defeated" nationalists, and thus "defeated" nationalism.

People are responsible to be virtuous. Government can't dictate one to live with dignity. What it can do at best is to protect those to value their culture from vindictive leftists who refuse to tolerate traditional values. Toleration is the government's most effective domain, but for a culture, it's a surrender. You can support both in different domains.

they are conserving the divorce industry thats for sure

No. Its the result of decayed morality. The past generations weren't faggots, and more importantly didn't tolerate faggotry in their presence.

Thus you could have a system that highly valued freedom because everyone understood, and agreed upon a general code of conduct. Society was much more homogeneous and cohesive back then. But once society is corrupted by generations of Kike Diversity that Free Society begins to tear itself apart because people have to agree on a set of standards for behavior for a society to work.

Attached: This is what freedom looks like.jpg (1057x832, 365K)

If you allow freedom, you, by definition, shape a society where people can misuse it for their own benefit and shame critics for not respecting their freedom. From a government's point of view there is no reason to make extreme degenerate behaviour legal. You could very easily boycott gay pride parades and sex-change operations for obvious reasons, yet, apparantly, people value the concept of freedom more then the consequences it brings with it.

all the changes liberals made 10 years ago

Conservatives aren't pro-freedom. Liberals are.

Because of America's short history and Masonic ethics, liberals are considered conservatives in the US.

Yes, that's why the USA is an exporter of communism nowadays. Free speech is shit, that's why it never existed in any historical society.

They are only united in opposition to things. Hate fags, libtards, and Jews? Great so do they but that’s all they have in common. If they tried to do anything productive it would fail. I mean really imagine the denizens of Jow Forums forming an ethnostate.

>there is no reason to make extreme degenerate behaviour legal
Yeah, thats why they used to have obscenity laws that resulted in Playboy and Hustler going to the (((Supreme Court))) to overturn the social standards that were in place.

The people dindn't want it, the people didn't vote for it, the Government "of the people" created laws against it. The Supreme Court shouldn't even exist, but here we are and this is the result of creating a Centralized Super Authority to pass judgement on society's laws.

Attached: supreme-court-greatest-ally.jpg (660x440, 148K)

I remember hyper-sexual degeneracy, especially in music videos, going back to the early 2000's. Go watch ''Mambo No.5'' or ''All The Things She Said'' with honest eyes and tell me the videos back then were much better.

I'm not saying it hasn't gotten worse, but the increasing degeneracy seems moreso a direct result from the free-market then anything else. South Korea and Japan have similar economic models and they have become just as degenerate as America.

Attached: 74612896.jpg (400x400, 26K)

>What are conservatives trying to conserve?
American "conservatives" are just a dialectic brand of Liberal, so they're conserving literally gay marriage and Bill Clinton's Neo-Liberal economic talking points from 20 years ago.

If the people didn't want it Playboy and Hustler would have gone bankrupt, wether the distribution of filth was legal or illegal.

At this point: civilization.
After all, the UN now wants us to cut down on clothing as apparently it contributes more to global cucking than airplanes.

And most conservatards would say playboy/hustler and the like are just “harmless fun” while condemning lgbtq people.

Conservatives aren't about freedom, you're thinking of libertarians and real liberals.

>If the people didn't want it
If people didn't want heroin....
Typical kike response.

>And most conservatards would say playboy/hustler and the like are just “harmless fun” while condemning lgbtq people.
Oh look another one.

Attached: 1434843047532.jpg (885x540, 484K)

Conversatives plead for free-speech and free-markets.

Attached: Sage.jpg (1156x2031, 933K)

I just don’t get how you can claim the “slippery slope” argument when it comes to fags but not to porn mags. Why are conservatives annoyed by one and not the other?

Freedom only has meaning if there are restrictions to it as well. Anyone who wants to uphold freedom will find they have to support restrictions to freedom as well.

Everyone on the right knows the black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime, however, i don't think many people realize that social degeneracy is a direct result from aspects of society conversatives generally want to protect.

The discussion of the link between the spread of degeneracy and free-market capitalism deserves a thread.

your mums ass on my dick
kys memeflag, this is not the place for a primer on sanity,a.k.a what we're trying to actually conserve

>Conservatives didn't fight against pornography
What timeline are you from?

Attached: 1551111018972.png (618x412, 280K)

This
(((Conservativism))) is just a shitty little anchor that gets dragged along and pretends to slown the neoliberal agenda. 50 years from now “conservatives” will be eating their s.o.y rations with their non binary otherkin stepchildren while their androgynous partner inhales slowmo and gets railed by a climate refugee

> Conversatives fighting pornography

You can't plead for free-markets and claim you fight pornography.

The desire to watch pornography is something tribal, you can't blame people for feeling drawn towards pornographic filth, you can, however, critique a system where giant industries are allowed to exist that misuse that human instinct for profit and capital, and thereby facilitate degeneracy in the economy.

Girls seldom choose to work in pornindustries.
They are bribed by dishonest companies who refuse to be honest about the degenerating effect the job will have on their mental and physical well being. There is no realistic way to fight this without centralizing the economy.

Free-markets/freedom is a spectrum. There will always be restrictions put in place by those with power, it’s just a matter of more or less and in what ways. So you can argue for both freedom and restriction, free-markets and centralisation because there never has been any other way.

There a myriads of reasons to ban pornography, ban junkfood, ban homosexuality, ban sex-change operations. These are all things which don't contribute to the greater good of society. Why do these things mainly come into existence in capitalist societies? The only reason these things exist is because within our current social climate (shaped for the most part by freedom of media and entertainment) these things are profitable. It amuses me that transexuals don't realize their sex-changes are only possible because the free-market allows capitalist doctors to profit of them, as suicide rates, for instance, won't decrease by transitioning. There is no country with more economic or social freedom then the USA, yet it's also the heart of the worlds regressive liberalism and degenerate idealism, even with the pushback of a large part of the country being conservative.

They're trying to conserve the unwanted offspring of single mothers. No one really knows why.

Freedom only works when people understand certain morals.
Strip something that enforces moralities that don't make direct sense like how sodomy and infantcide is wrong and you end up with the mess we have today.

>You can't plead for free-markets and claim you fight pornography.
More Jew logic. Basically if you want "real freedom" you have to allow kikes to rape your children or else you're a hypocrite.

>Oy vey goyim if you say you want Free Markets that means NO RULES, NO STANDARDS, it must remain pure like your waifu!

Attached: 1519548223201.jpg (717x720, 80K)

The right is as much to blame for the decline of the west as the left is. The elites on both sides sold out their own kind for more wealth and power. Everything will collapse soon and we are all going to suffer for it.

I fully agree with the United States becoming an exporter of degeneracy. But a full out ban on vices that don't contribute to society will face immediate and strong opposition. Ideally, I would have hoped that the culture in the US would deter people from turning to vices, but it's no secret the American culture is fractured.
The solutions I could come up the top of my head would be to teach the youth values such as self responsibility and discipline can help them lead happier lives threatening the future of industries such as porn and recreational drugs. Hopefully creating a generation independent of mass media, but with the current state of zoomers and their conditioning to consume, it' hard to see a cultural revolution from the ground up coming to fruition.

Literally memes, as Dawkins originally defined them.

>Conservatives aren't pro-freedom. Liberals are.
its more like old money vs new money