ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Occupy: Did They Deserve It?

Updated on June 15, 2012

They Lost In A Game?

People talked about Occupy Wallstreet, and really all recent protests, in terms of their success, their effectiveness, their justification, their organizations --the list goes on. But what about the mere fact that it was just so easy to crush them? There were hundreds of people, and of course, some got violent, but they were easily shut down. At the end of the day, most people want order over chaos, and many didn't agree with Occupy or even know what the real message was. I don't really care either, too much. Some of those protesters seem highly intelligent, some not so much. Regardless, it was easy to stomp them out. Almost too easy. This is the discredit of Jim Morrision's mantra: "they got the guns, but we've got the numbers/gonna win, yeah, we're takin' over." No, this is more like, "they've got more power than we could ever dream of/yeah, and this is hopeless." No one wants to give up "hope" for change or "hope for more equality, justice, integrity (insert your value here)," but hope may be dead, at least for the level of change that protesters were expecting.

Or, possibly, many had no hope, didn't even have jobs or responsibilities, so perhaps they had nothing to lose.

But let us just pause at how small the average citizen really is, even if they band together in the hundreds.

Maybe you're vote doesn't matter. Maybe you're opinion doesn't either. Maybe no one cares. Nevertheless, the easy stomping out of protesters makes the point for them. It's a rigged fight. It's a battle that cannot be won. The only reason they lasted as long as they did is that the authorities needed to protect civil liberties to at least a moderate extent in order not to lose public trust. The media stations needed to turn the cameras away at the right time. And that was that. Protests go on, but it will most likely come down to the need for order vs. the need for chaos. And the ones that can provide order are the ones with power, the one percent. So we need them. They have a monopoly on keeping order; there are no viable domestic rivals, even gangs can't win at the macro level. Organized crime is successful only within the larger context where they are forever subordinate. And plus, the public would prefer official authorities anyday.

So, on the survival bottom-line level, the economic situation may be this: who can keep order and who can keep safety will have the good, the service, of the greatest demand. And that's America, and that's are government and also the larger private sector machines of power. Order beats chaos in every election, and the "Order party" has one candidate. Game over.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • ramerican profile image

      ramerican 5 years ago

      ...yes, and it was that easy for them to do....take away all ethical concerns and what happens?

    • davidlaw2 profile image

      davidlaw2 5 years ago

      Because of what happened on wall street and the banks, eight million people lost their jobs and many their houses and everything else. The banks and wall street got bailed out. The eight million people got @$re&*$. Many members of The House voted not to provide these people with extended unemployment benefits. The call all benefits entitlements. Every one should keep voting Republican and we will see the end of everything they call entitlements including Social Security, Medicare and medicade, railroad retirement and about 15 other programs paid for by the people who need them.