>>13664705>Increased communication with the outside world and increased information about our own troubles are two large factors in this. And social unrest is nothing new for any country. It rises and falls according to various things.
Actually social unrest along the lines of class conflict was a relatively new phenomenon, you have the revolutions of 1848, but prior to that there is little if nothing. Especially in the classical world, arguments about the ager publicus yes, but nothing on the scale and vitriol of social conflict in the 20th century.>A return to it is more accurate. Check some older civilizations on that.
What older civlizations? Classical antiquity? In all developed societies, philosophies have looked down upon excess (see, Greco-Roman stoicism, Confucianism, Buddhism, the Bhagavad Gita....), it's nothing new that excess has EXISTED (never on the scale seen today of course), but it's certainly a new phenomenon that people have attempted to legitimize it. >These are good things, unless you're some kind of bigoted faggot.
Study heriditability of intelligence, not all people are born equal. If you think all opinions are of equal weight you are out of your fucking mind, not even Perikles thought that. The Roman Republic enshrined it in constitutional tradition (voting sets, the senate itself was proof that aristocracy is only natural, the very root of the word is evidence of that). Oligarchies always exist somewhere as Syme said because the best will always prosper and rule. >Times change, and people do as well. This is a part of the old tradition, and all traditions fade over time.
Patriarchy is natural, it is perhaps the most natural model of living there is. The fact we have laws to try and resist it is proof of this (female quotas and so on).