Because mostly? People are too fucking stoopid to pay attention.
So many are critical of the Occupy movement, but they really cannot give any relevant facts or reasons for being that way.
GET A JOB! Lazy dirty hippies. Wealthy college kids! Throw every stereotype out there and the media will glom onto all of them simultaneously, and they will be repeated by lazy Joe's and Jane's all over the land.
The corporate media all play deaf blind and dumb to the actual message so they do not have to acknowledge what is going on, and why the 99% are getting restless.
Between 1947 and 1979, productivity in the US rose by 119%, while the income of the bottom fifth of the population rose by 122%. But from 1979 to 2009, productivity rose by 80%, while the income of the bottom fifth fell by 4%. In roughly the same period, the income of the top 1% rose by 270%.
So, basically things were going better for all (not perfect, but better) until the Reagan years. Then with the implementation of trickle down economics, they are only going well for some. Canada as usual takes it's cues in a race to the bottom. We have been seeing the same shift here.
The globalization of the world has also ensured that this corporate model is being followed through all of the subsidiaries. (countries)
What is trickling down is not wealth. To be more blunt, I will use an old saying; don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
But this gets more and more interesting when you get into other historical happenings.
In 1932, thousands of unemployed World War I veterans converged on Washington, thus, a previous Occupy movement had begun. The Veterans called themselves the “Bonus Army” motivated by supporting a bill that would entitle them to a cash bonus. In all, 20,000 had occupied a series of abandoned buildings.
Occupying for change. Familiar, that.
That bill was passed by the house, but then opposed by the senate and that historically pathetic figure, President Hoover.
Some of the Occupiers decided to stay on, and just like the current occupations violence was used to clear them out.
In the wake of this defeat, roughly 15,000 members of the Bonus Army decided that they would continue their occupation as a protest against the government’s decision. By late July, President Hoover decided it was time to clear the city of the protesters, using four troops of cavalry under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Late in the afternoon of July 28, General MacArthur’s troops — with sabers drawn — cleared the buildings near the Mall. They then fired tear gas among the men, women, and children encamped in Anacostia (many veterans were accompanied by their families); stormed the area on horseback, driving them out; and intentionally burned the shantytown to the ground in the process. More than 1,000 people were injured in the incident and two veterans and one child died.
The violence in Oakland and all over the world is quite telling. It speaks of coming Revolution, regulation and less inequality.
With the 1% collectively sneering and shitting their pants at the same time, we can only expect more violence and media propaganda to try to convince the masses that their own enslavement to the wealthy is for their own good.
It will get nastier, and we will see more violence before the public demands that the police and the "elected" (paid for) politicians stop committing acts of violence against unarmed citizens.
In the meanwhile, we need to keep pushing the facts to get that public educated instead of indoctrinated.
A formidable task to be sure.
But it has happened before.
But this meant little to the public, who were outraged at the treatment the veterans had received at the hands of the government and furious at Hoover for ordering the operation. Hoover, nevertheless, remained publically unrepentant and refused to apologize to the veterans — moves that contributed greatly to his massive loss to Franklin Roosevelt a few months later.
If anyone is actually paying attention to the history books?
It also means we will win.
When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich- Attributed to Rousseau.