The Sound of Gnashing Change

Liberals generally favor change. But capitalism also seeks out change, so it can be a pretty popular concept, opposed by almost no one.
    The charge of the change brigade, the carnage of change and the sound of change: it can deafen our ears to all else. It makes me seriously ask myself something. Is there anyone else there? -- is there anyone who does not call for change? Or are we in the Changewave? (Where we hear the tinkling sound of change)
     This is a time when mankind is effecting its own ruin and demise. In such a time anyone informed about the world situation would, I guess, want change, some sort of change. All of  the changes of the past two-three hundred years do not seem to have done much good.
    So how do you like change now?

I happened to yesterday come across some lines from Diderot. The lines are from an article in the Encyclopedie ----- on "Societé." I think it's kind of interesting. "There is no more inequality between the different stations in life than there is among the different characters in a comedy: the end of the play finds all the players once again in a same position, and the brief period for which the play lasted did not and could not convince anybody that one was really above or below the other." I am sort of segueing between change and equality. But the two seem related, at any rate, and I am seeing this great thing by Diderot in terms of the "normal" or "pre-change" (pre-capitalism, pre-revolution, pre-democracy, pre-"growth") state of affairs for man, that is ----- that is before the big change called the French Revolution. After that was the "change" era (insert ringing of bell sound]: beginning with the French Revolution. I think so. In our time, of course, we are totally accustomed to railing about inequality. (or else railing about how it's all the liberals' fault for railing wrongly or something) This is the style now. Obviously, everyone opposes "inequality." that's the big thing you cannot refuse (the problem being that it does not really make any sense). And from this concept of inequality quickly follows an instinctive call for change. (Hence the comment about liberals usually being in favor of Change --- everybody else is, too)
    And at this point in the history of the world, no one doubts it. I can accept that change is what we need, and add my voice to the chorus, too. It probably sounds ridiculous to most of my readers here that someone should claim that, in 18th c. France, there is no inequality, none whatsoever! But I think it's interesting. Anyway if no inequality, no need for "change." The idea doesn't exist. Because once we start railing about it, we automatically do wish for change. We need now to put everything back into the desired change box of equality -- and the equality now sounds like the natural and desired state. If your change campaign is about inequality then equality, of course, is inequality without the 'in' part added to it, and inequality is equality plus in.

Thus: Diderot, the "Enlightenment" figure, must be a kind of a conservative. What is wrong with being a conservative? Nothing. It's been a totally normal view point for the last three hundred years. It is a normal view today as well.