If we acknowledge that things are not what they are because they should be, but rather simply because they are, we might go on to conclude that that which happens to be is not necessarily that which would be best. The totality of human society, being one such thing, may be expected to exist in something less than what we would deem to be a state of perfection. The reader is invited to confirm this for himself.
We are aware, then, that society has suffered from imperfections in the past, the past being the only thing available for our review. We may extrapolate from this that society suffers from imperfections in the present insomuch as that the present is simply the past in gestation, and does not seem to go through any radical transformation in becoming the past, which is to say that we may find great similarity in the now as compared to, say, the now minus ten years. Still, portions of the past may differ in some respects from the present - the past contains the Ottoman Empire, for instance, whereas the present does not. This is reassuring, as it would seem to indicate that the future may differ from the present as well, particularly if we give it cause to do so. Of course, we cannot help but give the future cause to take a certain form, as we influence it merely by existing in the present, which is the future's raw material. The present, incidentally, is the unconscious conspiracy of the past; it does not come to us through design. The exception is that small portion of a given present - breakfast, a cigarette, an overthrow of some flawed institution - which is the result of conscious planning in the past by self-aware beings. To the extent that we are able and willing to do so, then, we may conspire against the future in such a way as to bring about such things as these. To have breakfast later, one makes the appropriate preparations beforehand.
The reader may object that it is all well and good to point out that things are not perfect and perhaps ought to be changed, but that there is a great difference between pointing out flaws and eradicating them. The difference, our objector continues, is akin to the difference between breakfast, cigarettes, and institutional overthrows; the first two may be successfully pursued by individuals whereas the third tends to require some degree of collaboration, which itself is more difficult to set into motion than are the individual actions necessary to obtain food and tobacco. Certainly these differences are real, and certainly the overthrowing of institutions is a business best pursued in tandem with other individuals - and certainly such arrangements as require the cooperation of others are difficult to bring about. But in a more fundamental sense, an institutional overthrow can be set in motion by way of an individual action just as fixing breakfast or obtaining a cigarette can be. If, for instance, an individual is able to devise a plan by which such an overthrow may be successfully accomplished, and is able to convince others to adopt the plan in such a way as that the plan is perpetuated to the extent necessary to achieve the intended change, then, yes, an individual may cause an institution to be overthrown.
Now the reader may also object that, aside from the semantics of what constitutes individual action, there is still quite a bit of substantive difference between making breakfast or acquiring a cigarette and convincing others to adopt some plan. The former actions are quite easy, and accomplished every day by quite a few individuals; the latter, we might agree, is a great rarity - but if we did agree, we would be wrong, because such a thing is not rare at all. Each day, one convinces others to collaborate on some or another thing, such as the preparation of breakfast. It is simply a matter of convincing others to join one in doing such a thing.
Again, the reader objects, this time noting that it is nothing more than a transparent rhetorical trick to compare the persuasion of others to join one in making breakfast to the persuasion of others to join one in attempting to pull off something so ambitious as the overthrow of an institution. There is, one would note, a major difference in terms of feasibility between the making of breakfast and the making of trouble. To overthrow something worth overthrowing, one would have to concoct a plan that would be sufficiently promising to incite the interest of others. One would have to locate those individuals who are in a position to ensure that the plan is disseminated to the extent necessary for implementation, and then one would have to contact them and convince them not only to agree with the plan, but to act on it. To the extent that the plan requires resources, expertise, and infrastructure, all of these things must be secured, and this may require one to convince others to provide these things. To summarize, one must put in place the conditions by which the plan is not only possible, but deemed not only desirable, but also viable by those whose cooperation is necessary to implement it. One must set things in motion.
I will admit at this point that one perhaps ought not to consider contributing to a project until that project has been set in motion in such a way as that one might reasonably expect it to succeed. Likewise, I will admit that such tasks as described above are easier stated than done. But I have already done all of these things.
The present, as noted, is the unconscious conspiracy of the past. The past has conspired to establish the traditional United States media as it exists today - an institution that has failed both our own citizenry and that of those other nations upon which our own government has lately had some measurable effect. This is the institution that we must challenge - systematically and consciously - if we wish to improve the world in a manner that is sufficiently viable that we would not be foolish to attempt it. And if we do not wish to at least attempt such a thing, we are the inferiors of a great many people who have come before us and who have acted in environments less conducive to easy alteration than is ours. Never has there existed such opportunity for revolution in human affairs. I propose that we take advantage of this opportunity.