Why Occupy?

     It is a basic tenet of Human Nature that we usually don’t perform an action without considering some incentive or cause. With this in mind, I have a simple question, as it relates to the “Wall Street Protestors:” “What’s in it for them?”
     I cannot tell you how many times I have heard press interviews of individuals within the ‘Occupy Wall Street” movement. Basing my opinion solely on the mainstream media coverage, one gets the impression that, either the collective ‘protestors’ do not know of a certain platform issue, or the individual protestors who have been interviewed, simply cannot express what even their own motivation is to protest by occupation.
      Without the benefit of being ‘on-site’ and conducting our own interviews across a broad spectrum of the occupiers, we can only speculate on the aggregate motives of the movement proper. I will attempt to do so here by the application of logic to the basic “Nature” of Humans, as the protestors are certainly not brainless machines devoid of emotion.
     Digressing for a moment, let us recognize the possible motivations of the various media outlets because, though the corporations are fictitious, they are staffed by human beings. First, popular media owners and executives likely respond to incentives such as gain through the media of advertising dollars, that are valued in relation positive or negative sensationalism; or perhaps other corporate/political favor via the same mechanism. Second, the staff reporters and other team players may seek increase in the form of monetary or ‘spiffs.’ Could it be that such motivation manifests as “target interviews,” of people who the press observe to be less-than-desirable as representatives of the protestors? That might explain the over-abundance of reports lately that focus on only the bad actors. Yet, is that the only explanation?
     GROUP-A: No doubt there are an uncounted percentage of people camped out in the common areas of ‘occupied’ cities who are not only sincere in spirit, but may actually harbor coherent reasons for their own protest. For the sake of argument and simplicity, we’ll say this group of occupiers have (for whatever reason) not been questions by popular media, therefore, their motives remain unexpressed publicly.
     GROUP-B: We may logically suggest that another unknown number of humans are ‘on-site’ protestors for natural reasons synonymous with food, party ops, or the desire to be a part of anything bigger than themselves – even if they don’t know what that is. Perhaps a number of this group are the ones that have made the news so far – an while some of their motives may be known, they have not offered plausible demands or proposed any viable solutions.
     Model analysis of protestor’s in the categories above (“A & B”), however, limited in scope, remains in line with the inherent “Nature” of the human species. Again, without the benefit of proof in evidence we may obtain a working theory by asking ourselves what incentive someone else has to do or not to do a thing, while maintaining the parameters of recognized human nature. Following this premise to the logical conclusion, I propose that we identify an additional group of people, while they may not be on the front lines, are affiliated enough to warrant some reference.
     GROUP-C: Anticipating a more definite motive, let us apply the same test to the “Backers” of the movement, who do not seem to be actually ‘in the trenches’ with the rest.
     Industrial media indicates that ‘someone’ is behind the movement, such as; George Sorros, the Devil, The Tea Party, etc; but always the culpable party is of the opposite political genre than the norm expressed by the outlet actually making the report. Admittedly, the visible provision of food, shelter, and more at each occupied site is consistent with the theory that some entity is organizing and financing the protestors.
I personally have seen no evidence of who might be fertilizing the roots of the movement so I cannot say whether it is one or a group of private persona, a commercial or corporate entity, or a foreign interest. We can be sure that there is at least one human pulling the strings (somewhere/somehow in this model, therefore, the ‘human nature’ test below.
     Why would anyone finance or put together a movement of this nature? What’s “in it” for them? We could ask them but none have come forward claiming responsibility. I wonder why that is? Why has there been no specific argument, manifesto, or solution promoted publicly? I don’t know about the protest financiers but if I wanted a movement or any project for that matter to succeed, I would take steps to ensure that success. I would not attempt to build a picket fence without tools, or pickets. Nor would I try to bake a cake without Betty Crocker. In order to ensure the success of the occupy movement, would it not make sense to hire articulate spokespeople to address the public or the media at each local venue?
     The complete lack of express demands or a speaker to deliver a message indicates that the puppet masters backing the protest are not invested in the accomplishment of the occupy movement over time. By implication, that premise also suggests the opposite, or even worse- the whole thing is an experiment.
Pay tell, what would motivate such an experiment, or what is it the instigators hope to discover?
     In answer to that question, if we take all the known elements as stated in this article—like the negative press coverage, lack of statement/leadership, and invisible backing--we can reasonably conclude that, on the one hand – this experiment is a method utilized to gauge the public’s reaction to the reported negativity of the protestors themselves, and/or the reaction to the local authorities (potentially violent response to ‘crowd control’ or ‘civil unrest.’ On the other hand, perhaps the powers-that-be are also banking on the predictability of “Human Nature”—angry protestors becoming violent over the authorities’ treatment of them and growing into, or at least reportedly growing into domestic terrorism. That would, of course, lead to an excuse for government to deploy stronger measures for “your” protection, such as Martial Law. “WHY” else?