Friday, 30 November 2018

The System and piecemeal reform - the unholy alliance of the sexual revolution and bureaucracy

Everyone who is active in politics implicitly subscribes to the ideal of piecemeal reform; the idea that small incremental changes in specifics will eventually lead to overall improvement of The System as-a-whole. This is almost compelled because all attempts at reform need to be 'realistic'.

However, piecemeal change can only be destructive - which is why it has been the platform of Leftism (pioneered by that most-successful of all Leftist organisations, the Fabian Society). And piecemeal change is effective because it is dishonest.

The dishonesty is in suggesting that a single Thing can be pulled-out of the weave of society and improved, and that this will not have any consequences. However, honest strategic thinkers realise that every significant change has consequences, and that these consequences tend to lead to further change.

The sexual revolution gives the clearest example. It began (early in the 20th century) with humanitarian arguments in favour of divorce, then easier divorce; and humanitarian arguments against the miseries of unmarried mothers and their children - then other victim groups were added: the intriniscally evil language of 'rights' was introduced...

Each change to the law, institutional regulations and to social norms was treated as an isolated reform addressing an injustice; but each reform destabilised The System in favour of more reforms - in an accelerating sequence.

Step by step each 'reform' led to consequences that implied further change - until continuing the sexual revolution became the core of Leftism, and Leftism ruled all developed nations (now, all significant political parties are Leftist, all bureaucracies are Leftist, indeed all mainstream institutions of all kinds - including churches - are Leftist - and their leaderships are all dedicated to continuing the sexual revolution).

Where is it going? Nowhere - the point is that it continues, not where it is going; the point is that the sexual revolution is destructive - not that it is trying to construct anything in particular. Each change drives further changes in an attempts at 'consistency' - yet there is no consistent outcome in view or aimed-at; therefore the sexual revolution is net destructive. 

And as the sexual revolution continues its incremental destruction; so bureaucracy expands - reaching into every home and workplace; monitoring and controlling at a finer and finer level. As the sexual revolution (and other allied Leftist permanent crusades) destroys all spontaneous, natural and voluntary forms of cohestion (marriage, the family, clubs and guilds) - bureaucracy emerges as the sole form of organisation: the totality of socio-political cohesion is one single, global, linked-bureaucracy.

The sexual revolution and bureaucracy are an unholy (literally unholy) alliance: the sexual revolution is justified by valorisation of instinct and impulse; yet always it is implemented by bureaucracy. The every expanding, ever-linking bureaucracy is validated by its work in implementing the sexual revolution - and the two collude in making sexual issues ever-more the centre of public discourse; The Most Important Issue for all major modern bureaucracies (including the mainstream churches).

But the sexual revolution and bureaucracy are both a socio-political process, not a socio-political end-point. In materialistic and this-worldly terms they are not going anywhere in particular.

They are a means to an end - but that end is spiritual, hence excluded from all mainstream public discourse.  The sexual revolution and bureaucracy are types of evil, and as such aim at the damnation of souls - and effective damnation must be chosen self-damnation.

Yet when we (as free, conscious individuals) look at modern society, we see a system of self-damnation with no apparent way-in; any reforms that seem necessary will in practice only get leverage by accepting and arguing-from the bulk of  The System. In effect, we are required to accept The System to change The System - we must 'work with' The System to try and induce positive change...

Not surprisingly this Never works; and all change feeds The System. and supports the demonic spiritual goals of The System.

This is a harsh truth and people don't want it to be true; because it induces despair. People want to be able to improve things a bit at a time, they want to see signs of such improvement - they love to interpret some changes as precursors of more and stronger changes in the direction they desire. But this is self-deluding nonsense.

The degree of change to The System required for change to be positive; to reverse the generations-long progression towards a System of damnation, is so great as to be almost incomprehensible. So much needs to change, all at the same time, that it is unimaginable - especially considering that hardly anybody would want such massive changes.

Thus the discontent and dissatisfaction of people, their alienation, their sense of being trapped like laboratory animals in an iron cage of bureaucracy, and equally trapped by the manipulation of the sexual instincts and other impulses... All this is deftly turned towards piecemeal reforms that have the net effects of tightening the mesh of the cage and degrading human motivation to the gratification of ever-more short-termist physical satisfactions...

Yet the way-out is there, available to every single human individual irresistible and for the asking - if they will turn their attention away from the self-blinded materialism of The System. There is only each one of us, isolated, as a conscious soul; and confronting the single vast, growing and innately-destroying bureaucracy - but that is enough.  


Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

As the synchronicity fairies would have it, a few hours before reading this post I had been answering a student's question about the difference in meaning between the English words "reform" and "revolution," and the core of my answer was that reform meant making changes "within the system."

Bruce Charlton said...

@William - Ha! It is a question that is actively evaded whether change 'within the system' ever can amount to overall improvement of the system. My adult experience of several decades is that it can't - or, at least, doesn't.

Luther Burgsvik said...

"piecemeal change can only be destructive"

If incremental change is (usually) negative and drastic change is (usually) positive, do you think this is why new forms of matter (e.g. solid changing to a liquid) and life (e.g. new species evolving) only happens in drastic steps instead of incremental ones?

Bruce Charlton said...

@Luther I don't think this is correct: "drastic change is (usually) positive".

The way I would phrase it is that the only positive change is drastic.

Also, I don't think that 'new species evolving' only happens in drastic steps - nearly always it is by incremental steps, because drastic change is usually lethal.

Not sure about phase changes either - usually 'drastic', but I think there can be gradual change too...

Luther Burgsvik said...

Oh ok, thanks. I had the idea of 'irreducible complexity' in mind with regards to new species coming into existence abruptly rather than gradually. I searched your blog but couldn't find any references to it.

Chiu ChunLing said...

The point is not that increments are bad in and of themselves, but they are dishonest (and thus bad) if they do not advertise themselves as increments. When you are sold a series of increments one at a time, as if they are not all part of a ongoing scheme, then you are losing your freedom because you have lost your ability to make an informed decision about whether to participate in the overall scheme or not.

Salvation, like damnation, is an endless series of increments. But those offering salvation are quite clear that each increment is part of an endless series and if you aren't interested in the series as a whole you have no real reason to accept any of the increments.

The problem is that you are going to adopt a series of increments one way or another. They are called "paths", a coherent series of increments which lead in some direction. Some paths do have clear starting points and end points...but nobody gets to the end of a path and just stays there. If you were such a homebody, you wouldn't have embarked on a path in the first place, you embarked on one, you'll embark on another eventually.

Every finite path is just a larger increment composed of smaller increments. They are all part of one infinite path...or some other infinite path.

Of course, rest stops are also a part of every infinite path. They are built into nearly every increment, if you analyze things carefully. Sleeping is part of life, it is different from death because you only sleep a short time and then you get back up again.

Mortal 'death' is a sleep as well, as was birth. You get up again. The real death is when you don't get up again and never will.

It takes a while to get there. But those who have chosen that path don't find it easy to leave, the way back to life is filled with pain, every other path (and they are quite diverse in particular series of increments, though not outcome) is ultimately leading to death.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Luther - My understanding is that new species, genus and low level divisions can come into existence gradually by natural selection - but the major divisions of living things originate from separate forms:

Bruce Charlton said...

@CCL - Another way of putting it is that increments are not truly incremental; they don't build towards better.

Bruce Charlton said...

@CCL - "The problem is that you are going to adopt a series of increments one way or another. They are called "paths", a coherent series of increments which lead in some direction."

Yes, because everything happens in Time.

Chiu ChunLing said...

Ah, but what is "better"?

If we were able to see the whole path at once, as God does, then we would be in Eternity, and our consciousness would transcend Time, not being contained by it. But as long as our consciousness is contained within Time, how can we really compare present satisfactions of our current desires against our mere memory of past satisfactions or our likewise imperfect premonition of future ones?

Must we break free of Time? Oh, God commands it, of course. That is what He considers good. But if you prefer to remain confined to the present moment, and avoid serious thinking about the past or future, why then isn't that what you desire?

Sure, that may turn out 'badly' in the future, but why think about that if you don't want to think about it?