This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul Can Win
This piece was written by Robin Koerner and originally appeared on HuffPo. Robin also writes for the Daily Capitalist and it was published there as well.
It's hard to tell if the idea that Ron Paul cannot win in 2012 is more ignorant, in its complete lack of historical sophistication, or more arrogant, in its claim to certainty amid all the complexity of 300 million lives and the myriad issues that affect them.
Sometimes, perhaps once in a few generations, a nation can undergo what a mathematician or physicist would call a "phase change." The classic example of such a thing is a pile of sand. Every grain you add makes the pile slightly steeper and slightly higher without moving any of the other grains inside the pile, until eventually one grain is added that causes an avalanche of sand down the sides of the pile, moving thousand of grains and changing the shape of the pile.
Such behavior can be exhibited by all complex systems, and a nation -- it should be obvious -- is much more complex than a pile of sand.
The important point for those who would presume to make such grand predictions as "Dr. Paul cannot win" is that no examination of the pile of sand before the point of avalanche would tell you that, or when, the avalanche will eventually happen.
But happen it does; indeed, happen it must.
And there are numerous examples of abrupt and dramatic phase change in the politics of great nations.
The U.K., the country of my birth, provides a compelling and closely relevant example. As every schoolboy knows, Churchill led Britain to victory in the Second World War. Indeed, he did as much as any man on Earth ever has to save civilization as we know it.
Three months after the entire nation poured into the streets to cheer this great leader (the man a few years ago voted by Britons the greatest Briton of all time), Churchill went to the country in a general election to retain his position as prime minister. There was simply no way he could lose. The best slogan the Labour party, his opposition, could come up with was, "Cheer Churchill. Vote Labour."
And amazingly, that is exactly what the nation did. Churchill was defeated. No one anywhere -- including the people of Britain who voted in the election -- had even thought about the possibility. No newspaper had considered it. After all, the election was a foregone conclusion in Churchill's favor. And yet an unseen, perhaps unconscious, will of the people caused a cultural and political phase-change in the British nation that they neither knew they wanted nor knew they had the power to cause.
Many historians now say that the unseen sentiment that produced this result that shocked not just the British but the whole world was the idea that all the blood and treasure lost to maintain the freedom of the British empire and the Western world demanded something more than continuation of the old political settlement. After a huge crisis, the people wanted a whole new system. In 1945, the Labour Party, with its vision of state-delivered cradle-to-grave security of health and basic material well-being (welfare state), in some way met that national desire for a grand political change.
Following what was in fact a landslide victory for the Labour party, the character of the nation changed massively, and more change rapidly followed in the British identity, as an empire was lost and the mantle of the world's greatest power was handed to the U.S.A.
Those who have noted that one of Ron Paul's greatest qualities is his humility might also be interested to know that Churchill had put down Clement Attlee, who defeated him, with the words, "A modest little man, with much to be modest about."
Perhaps a more fanciful comparison, but nonetheless indicative: no one in China was predicting that the Long March of Mao, which began in defeat and despair, would end in Beijing with victory and the proclamation of a whole new nation under a whole new political system.
And which newspapers were pondering the possibility of the First World War just a month before it happened?
We cannot see past a phase change. I don't know if the U.S.A. will have undergone one at the time of the 2012 election, but the necessary conditions for one are all in place, as far as I can tell.
One has to reach back a good way in American history for a time of such rapidly rising sentiment that not only are our leaders unable even to think of real solutions to the problems of greatest concern (rather than just making expedient changes at the margin), but also that the prevailing political and economic system is structurally incapable of delivering any long-term solutions in its current form.
The sheer range and interconnectedness of the problems that the nation faces are such that any permanent solution to any one of them will require profound systemic change that will necessarily upset many economic, political and cultural equilibria. And that is nothing more than a definition of a national phase change.
The average American may not know what is to be done, but she can sense when the system has exhausted all its possibilities. At that point, not only does the phase change become reasonable; it becomes desirable -- even if what lies on the other side cannot be known.
As anyone can find out just by talking to a broad cross-section of Ron Paul's supporters, his base is not uniform in its agreement on the standard issues of typical American party-political conflict. In fact, Paul supporters vary significantly even in their views of what in the old left-right paradigm were the "wedge-issues." Rather, they are united around concepts that could almost be called meta-political: whether left and right really exist, and, if they do, whether they are really opposed; whether centralized government should even be the main vehicle for political change, etc.; and whether there are some principles that should be held sacrosanct for long-term benefit, even when they will hurt in the short-run.
For those with eyes to see, such realignments and re-prioritization may even be glimpses of America after its next phase change.
If Ron Paul has committed support from 10 percent of the adult population, and most of that 10 percent support him precisely because they believe he represents a whole new political system, an entirely new political settlement, then we may be close to critical mass -- just a few grains of sand short of the avalanche.
Another piece of evidence that the nation is close to a phase change and a gestalt switch is the very fact that the prevailing paradigm (from which the mainstream media, established political class, etc., operate) has to ignore huge amounts of data about Ron Paul and the movement around him to continue to make any sense. The studied neglect of data as "irrelevant" is invariably indicative that the neglected data are hugely important. If information doesn't really matter, why go to all the effort of ignoring it?
Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.
First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money from actual voters is second to none. His appeal to independents and swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and, as far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep stability and commitment.
To believe that Ron Paul's victory is a long shot in spite of all standard indicators that directly contradict this claim is to throw out all norms with which we follow our nation's politics -- and that is a huge thing to do. The only way it can be done honestly is to present another set of contradictory reasons or metrics that are collectively more powerful than all those that you are rejecting. I am yet to find them.
If it is true that the studied neglect of data to hold tight to a paradigm is the best evidence that the paradigm is about to collapse, then the massive and highly subjective neglect of all things Paulian is specific evidence that the country is moving in Paul's direction.
Of course, none of this means that Paul will definitely win. But it does mean that a bet against him by a politician is foolhardy and by a journalist is dishonest.
It is worth returning to Churchill's career for an even more delicious example: just days before he became the great wartime leader, his career had been written off as that of a kook, and he was being discussed as someone who had extreme ideas and whose thinking did not reflect the mood of the nation. The House of Commons was abuzz with his decline and imminent fall.
And then, rather suddenly, something he had been saying for many years -- that there was something rotten in the state of Germany -- became so obvious that it could no longer be avoided. Once the nation saw that he had been right all along, he became the leader of the free world in very short order. His career changed. Britain changed. The world changed. No one had seen that coming, either. In fact, everyone thought they knew what was coming: the kook was about to disappear into political backwaters, if not the political wilderness.
Do I even need to draw the parallel?
If Paul wins, it won't be because he is the kind of candidate Americans have always gone for. It will be precisely because Americans have collectively decided on a dramatically new way of doing business -- a new political and economic paradigm -- and then he'll not only have ceased to be a long shot; he'll be the only shot.
»
- Econophile's blog
- 13919 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
You are utterly clueless. No matter who is president, or how much we cut back military spending, we will still be able to pulverize any open threat or action by any Radical Islam group, for decades.
However, Southern and Central Europe is going to be Islam majority in 50 to 80 years from now. That will be a takeover without a shot fired. Now tell me what RP or any other president should do against that.
Now I know these trolls are deningerites - know doubt prodded by Carl Deninger under threat of expulsion form his board, and likely because of some new corporate sponsorship of his blog- Carl d. hates Ron paul -it was clear in 2007 from reading his blog that carl D. was a radical Neocon who hated paul because of his fear that Paul would get us out of the endless wars. When repeatedly confronted with that accusation, Carl D. simply banned any critics and has since back pedaled to find other dishonest diingenuous ways to tell us why Ron Paul is evil, worse than obama and the greatest threat America has faced since the brits burned down washington.
Can't wait to see who Deninger endorses this time -He endorsed Obama last time. How's that one working out for you Carl?
Are you really scared of Iran? A country the size of Texas with no Air Force, Navy or ICBMs'. You must scare pretty easy. I bet girls took your milk money in school. I am glad people like you didn't have much of a voice when we dealt with real Military Powers like the USSR who had 30,000 nukes and all they toys the US had. Do you scream like a beeotch when you see a mouse as well?
I do. Mice are f***ing adorable. I just go all high pitched and shrieky with excitement, can't help myself.
"I'll call this one Captain Dandelion! He's the brave one! The Iron Duke's a quieter little furry man, aren't you, aren't you! Aw, look at him, poking his nose into the seed tray. He loves his sunflower seeds. And shitting."
It is you who is utterly clueless. Watching too much Fox "news" and listening to way too much Hannity/Limbaugh/Savage/etc.
Mmmmmmmm Kool-aid!
Jump! You Fuckers!
Ron Paul's philosophy on war is based on the Christian "Just War" concept. You can read about it here.http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/ron-paul-and-the-christian...
And just when did Ahmadinejad say he'd like to "see you and your children destroyed"?
And no, citing the 'wipe Israel off the map' horseshit ain't gonna do it.
The only reason 'Radical Islam' gets any support from so many Muslims is because of our meddling in their affairs. End that, and so will the support.
He CAN win, and I will vote for him.
He must win or we die.
If all those that say they'd vote for Dr. Paul do so then he WILL win.
As for Churchill, his guarantees to Poland were the cause and start of WWII. Without Winni the Poles would have been forced to give back territory ceeded to them by Versailles. Winni lost the election because he lost the Empire when he won the war. If it wasn't for Churchills hand in the Lusitainia sinking the U.S. would have stayed out of WWI and the Europeans would have negotiated an end to the bloodletting and avoided WWII.
I believe it was Chamberlain who made the guarantees to Poland on March 31, 1939. Churchill did not become Prime Minister until May 5, 1940, eight months after Germany invaded Poland, and over a year after Chamberlain made the guarantees to Poland.
BTW, the myth that Churchill had a hand in the sinking of the Lusitainia is simply that: at myth. The Lusitania was a British ship, and may or may not have been carrying war contraband. But it's sinking in a declared war zone had no influence on America entering the war. None. In fact, the British did not want America to enter the war at that time because America was their supplier of munitions. Had America entered the war at that time, it would have needed the munitions for itself, thus prematurely cutting off Britain's supply.
Quite right, Churchill WANTED that war, he committed an unimaginable mass murder with the Lusitaiia, he is no less a psychopathic megalomaniac than Hitler. The Pauls of this world are entirely marginal, the guy is barely ambulatory, he is a walking dead man, he is not the answer. The real horror of the situation is we have no answer, so we very probably lose, people lose wars you know, be they military or economic, we have a vacant slate of poseurs, including grandad paul, the empire is gone...................WE LOSE. Shit happens, count your blessings for 60 years of a fucking fraternity party.
I beg to differ vamoose1 on your conclusion of Churchill. Although I agree that Churchill wanted GB in the war to stop Hitler; I think your assessment ignores the threat that the National Socialists (Nazis) presented to European governments and liberty of millions in the northern hemisphere. I understand Ron Paul's appeal. I too like many positions that he has taken and I commend the character of the man; however, when it comes to foreign policy he is an isolationist at best and a pacifist at worst. If Ron Paul was president instead of FDR we might be speaking German right now. FDR provoked the Japanese to attack us for he knew nothing less would get the US people to support another foreign war. FDR was less worried about the Japanese than he was about the Nazis as evidence by his holding pattern defensive war in the Pacific until Hitler was defeated in Europe. Would GB have held on without American supplies and intervention? We’ll never know, thank God. But if GB did fall, Hitler would control all of Western Europe, North Africa and the Middle East (oil). Now he has vast resources at his disposal to attack Russia on his timetable. Would he stop there and leave Americans in peace? History has taught us that dictators are insatiable and will not stop until they are vanquished: Alexander, Attila, Genghis, Caesar, and Napoleon to name a few. Could America have defeated the combined empirical forces of the Nazis and Japan all by ourselves in the 1950’s after the Nazis had consolidated their empire in Eurasia? I don’t think so. In the case of WWII, waiting for a “just war” would have been suicide for America.
good refresher on the all the historical pies with Churchillian fingers stabbed in them. And don't forget Gallipoli and the misguided return to a gold standard at pre-War parity. First, last and forever, Churchill was for the British empire, the empire his family helped establish. In its interest, he did other great, amazing things giving public voice to standing against Hitler et al. when the time came, for which I for one am very grateful. But he would have been incapable of relinquishing India and the rest of the empire, which the fall of Singapore and much else proved to the people at home could not be defended or sustained. On the other hand, peaceful phase changes like that don't always have the happy endings hoped for. Britain has yet to recover from the socialist dreams attempted and perpetrated by Atlee and successors -- perhaps the best that can be said is that being English, they all went along with it and didn't resort in the home country at least, to the violence of the Soviets.
System collapse under Zero, and System rebuild under Ron Paul.
Many people will consider him. He has views that are not shared by a lot of people. Some of those are extreme, and are switches for many. Lights out for that voter. If he ran with Kucinich and they formed an agreeable libertarian/socialist platform to make a deal, just maybe. Now you are talking real percentages that are sick of both parties, and they could come not with promises everyone knows are BS, but an actual agreement and platform in place. Just might end our cartoon politics.
I actually agree. If he ran on the same platform, except promised universal healthcare, he'd crush everyone. Just that one little bone thrown to the liberals would do it. The whole letting the guy die at 30 thing certainly hurts his liberal support. It is also something I disagree with him about. However he certainly earns my respect for standing by his ideological guns. No sell out this guy, and that is exactly what we need.
One little bone...isn't healthcare/medicare the single highest cost of the U.S.?
Paul & Kucinich are close. Kucinich would probably be very high profile- Sec of State most likely- in a Paul admin.
I suspect that as we get further in, several high profile Dems will be mentioned for positions in Paul's cabinet.
Libertarian/Socialist platform?
Hmmmmm....exactly how does that work? Let's see. Hmmmm....
Freedom and Rights and a market economy combined with restrictions and managed economics favoring income redistribution. Hmmmm.....let's see.
Oh NOW I get it. You're an idiot. Jeebus, is there anyone more stupid than someone who would suggest a Libertarian/Socialist platform? There area reasons why the Socialists attack Libertarians and call them nuts. It's because Socialists don't like using Reason, and Libertarians only use Reason.
WTF.
...and they formed an agreeable libertarian/socialist platform...
LOL!
...and they formed an agreeable libertarian/socialist platform...
Wouldn't that be polar opposites? Kind of like a coliation between Catholics and Christains against Christ?
One of the best ZH reads in months, this article, mereckonz
I think its interesting that it took precisely Obama's false mantra of change to politically awaken americans to the difference between someone who talks the talk and someone who actually embodies change - Obama's choices of campaign slogan moulded the specific type of disenchantment that increases ron paul's chances
I think the most important aspect of a potential ron paul win is his inherent decency. I think a lot of the rest of the world perceives the average american as indecent because the US has had slimey, smarmy asshole after disengenuous asshole as president, and the world has forgottent hat these poloticians arent necessarily representative
I love it! This is hysterical! First, on your history- the mantle of power was transfered not at the end of the Second European Civil War but at the Washington Naval Conference of 1898. Until then the UK maintained 2 1/2 times the capitol shiptonnage of the 2nd biggest navy on the planet. That was how Britiannia Ruled the Waves and that made the PAX Britiannia.
Of course we were going to build a bigger navy regardless of what those limeys did, so they feigned grfaciousness and ended the semi-offical policy that they would declare war before allowing a rival to rise.
Now I love Ron Paul, I voted for him in '08 and I,'ll vote for him again but he can not win. And yo limey dude- I dig ur enthusiasm but have you considered the ramifications for the UK and the Commonwealth if the Paul Doctrine were carried out?
The USA packs up and goes home from everywhere. 38th Parallel? gone, Japan? gone, The 300 peacekeepers between Egypt and Israel? gone, Peace keeping/humanitarian missions all over africa? gone, Strait of Hormuz? Iranian now!, Taiwan,ur on your own!, Republic of Korea, hope you like Dear Leader parades and the 1 minute of hate!,
Isreal would have little choice but to destroy Irans weapons program with TAC Nukes. Kicking off a big war. Egypt would close the Canal. Strait of Malacca pirate problem would explode! Somali Pirate problem-explode! Chavez cuts off US Oil as Iran Closes the Strait of Hormuz,, Genocide in Africa!
I love it! Lets burn this motherfucker down! Come on Pookey! Lets burn this motherfucker down!
At some point Congress would no option but to hand Paul a declaration of warre! That is the only way he's send troops overseas. That would destroy the UN and with it the whatever is left of the global order. See it is illegal uner the UN regime to declare warre we signed treatys agreeing to submit all disputes to the Security Council. We would have to abrogate most of the foundational UN treatys. FUCK YEAH LETS DO IT!
I AM crazy, I want this future, but enough Americans can sense this would be the result of a Paul win to think better of it.
I know the Dr would take care of business when it comes down to brass tacks just like Reagan. Ask Colonel Ghaddafi what it's like when a president speaks softly and carries a big stick.
Congress write a declaration of war? Forget it.
Dismantle the Empire!
You love Ron Paul and you vote for him, yet you write this shit? You can help us write manual how to recognize troll. Number 1, write love in first sentence.
All this would happen with Ron Paul president. Wow president sure have a lot of power here.
One of the more encouraging signs I've seen lately that he's a least becoming a very real threat to TPTB is that I noticed he was being pretty harshly attacked on Real Time with Bill Maher this last Friday. And when that corporate whore starts attacking someone...you better believe he was ordered to from high above.
Let's face it, when Maher starts slamming someone that would legalize pot...it means that fucker is following orders that he is NOT allowed to refuse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iORBoO7rvBM
Mahr is the pseudoleft's equivalent to a televangelist. If anybody listens to him, they deserve what they get. As with most televangelists, it usually involves rape of some form.
Controlled opposition.
Wow, over 20 paragaphs why Ron Paul will win. Here's 3 reaons why he can't and won't.
In the recent debates Ron Paul said:
1) ....If Prez, he wouldn't stop a State if it insititued some form of mandatory/coercive health care tax. Michele B. was more cconsistent in her answer and replied that would she not allow States to do so.
2) ...Iran wasn't a threat to U.S. (despite their long range missile development programs and numerous verbal threats to us and Isreal)
3) ....the United States was responsible for the 9/11 attack.
Should he somehow dodge these bullets and win the nominated he'll be crucified in any national election, and we'll be stuck with a Democrat for another 4 years.
Meet me here and bring $:
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=669534
1) He believes in a less coercive Federal government. That necessitates greater States' rights.
2) Iran isn't a threat to the US. I see as proof of them being a threat, you cite the (false) claim that they have threatened Israel. Why are you conflating Israel and the US?
3) He said he believes that 9/11 was blowback for US foreign policy... an opinion espoused by the CIA, as well, and anyone else with more than half a brain.
4) You are a twat.
yea, what BigJim says. Douchebag.
In the fifties, Iran wanted to nationalize their oil fields. BP didn't like that. So the US and GB overthrew the democratically elected prime minister in Iran and installed the Shah. In '79 the Islamic revolution happened and then in '80 US backed Saddam attacked Iran. You know what we did with Saddam.
Gee I wonder why they think we want to invade them for oil? Who has the track record of absolute SHITTINESS here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Recent_history_.281921.E2.80.93present.29
Wake up America and get real. These assholes are stealing from you, me, them, everyone and killing for what they want. Proud and free America, huh?
Now go to youtube and watch Iraq squeegie blood out their front doors and look at yourself, make a compact with your God that you won't be an absolute fucking ass liar to yourself. NOW IF YOU HAVE YOUR SANS-PARTISAN BIG BOY PANTS ON, question following some pigman in sending 18 yr olds to kill and be killed on a pretense. THEY ARE STEALING AT GUNPOINT. Stealing is and always will be unacceptable. And murder is murder even if it gives you patriotic hard ons.
Now you know why the military contributes more to Dr Ron Paul than any other candidate.
If you're still all fired up for war recall when they shot an infant and grandmother dead then called in an airstrike to cover it up. Then the Pentagon ignored it. You got stomach for that, is that what makes us so GODDAMN FREE?
Now go to the airport and reap your war dividends, the TSA will deliver the goods.
-1 For trolling failure.
The assertion Ron Paul cannot win, or isn't electable, is nothing more than propaganda to influence voters to not "waste" their vote on somebody that will quit fighting wars for Israel's benefit.
stop equating american reform policy, which is a good thing that ron paul wants to bring to america, with blaming all of americas problems on the 'jewish' conspiracy.
you are part of the reason he will not get elected. becasue stupid ass hawk jews hear people like you shouting out your twisted version of the truth in his 'base.
ron paul need to start disavowing the morons like you in his base to get elected. that's a big part of his problem sadly.
and yes, it's possible to fight the banks, and support the existance of israel as a positive force for western enlightened culture.
total isolationism is for nutters. military pullout is enlightened. ron paul wants that, but you nutters are making him sound like a 'fringe' candidate to mainstream voters who were and remain against the oil wars in iraqistan
So let me try to understand your position bankruptcylawer. You want the USA to continue fighting/dying/maiming/terrorizing/hunger spawning & wealth destroying around the world? Are you a PNAC fan too?
Full disclosure: Of course not / Certainly not.
As someone who is WAY left of center I constantly harangue my friends about their voting choices and view points. Yet what amazes me the most is their belief that supporting Ron Paul isn't worth their time, and that he won't win anyway. Seriously, what the fuck? I tell them they are retards and obviously watch too much Fox News. Here is the man that actually stands for what they claim to believe in (I've noticed that all my Teapublican friends all claim to be Libertarians.), yet won't give Ron Paul a look? I feel like slapping them all with my dick.
So he has your vote too right? At least he'll end the wars then you can ask for more govt. money...I mean people's money...but you think they're the same.
Tell you what, you work hard for years as I did as an officer of a county LP with absolutely no progress whatsoever seen despite the work thereby gaining a whole new awareness of what is arrayed against any boat rocker, and you'll realize that it's far, far more that just AIPAC arrayed against any real "Change". There are $TRILLIONS at stake! That makes for some very powerful forces against change which can ramp up their efforts to absolutely any level needed.
Let me repeat, until there is a national economic collapse or _money is taken out of politics_, MONEY WILL RUN THIS PLACE. Period. Full stop. Any other belief is just naive.
Dylan Ratigan's Justifiable Rant - Your Government is BOUGHT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_ej552cI2E
Greece has defaulted but no one wants to admit it. Italy is over the edge and is losing it's grip. The other PIIGS will follow them over and drag the entire world off the cliff with them. The $TRILLIONS you speak of are about to become worthless ink infused paper just like Bank of Zimbabwe notes denominated in $TRILLIONS. The scary thing about it is it can and will happen overnight as a currency crisis always does. The 1981 movie Rollover is a perfect example because the script writers used history as an example of how they happen. This event is closer than most can imagine.
Rollover-1981- Depiction of Global Worldwide Economic Collapse in 2011Link opens in new window
Thanks for the link and the LOL.
My wife came running when she heard the audio.
Ready to roll.
Whoa.
"It's hard to tell if the idea that Ron Paul cannot win in 2012 is more ignorant, in its complete lack of historical sophistication, or more arrogant, in its claim to certainty amid all the complexity of 300 million lives and the myriad issues that affect them."
Not at all ignorant. Quite the opposite. He's not photogenic and far from a silver-tongued, tell them what they want to hear speaker. He would have every component of the taxpayer _multi-trillion dollar_ gravy train leeches arrayed against him, including as one major part of that, the mainstream media which has already largely written him off.
Name one time in the last 50 years that a third party anyone has made significant inroads in a presidential election. The one exception I can think of was a billionaire who could fund his own campaign. And a seriously anti-establishment (or so he claimed) presidential candidate McGovern was absolutely creamed by Nixon of all people in a landslide victory.
No, _until money is taken out of politics_ or there is a national full economic collapse, you can dream that the ignorati will vote for someone like Ron Paul, but it isn't going to happen. The extremely well funded and smoothly functioning mechanisms in place to perpetuate the status quo gravy train will make damned sure that it doesn't.
Where the People Don't Rule
by Fred Reed
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed139.html
Last time I checked Ron Paul was NOT a 3rd-party candidate -- know sumpin' we don't?
1) "The extremely well funded "
We are in a state where there is no longer such a thing.
Fear permeates all sectors -- including those in control.
2) "and smoothly functioning mechanisms"
I submit to you -- there is nothing functioning smoothly.
There is inertia, yes, but the rest is propaganda, lies, and denial.
All four are hideously powerful, but they have a somewhat short shelf-life. And here we are...
3) in place to perpetuate the status quo
We (We) are denouncing the status quo. The status quo is over.
No violence necessary.
Will of the People? Yes.