Sandyhook: People-stuff can be very complicated

Re "Coverage Rapid, And Often Wrong, In Tragedy's Early Hours" : the Sandyhook fracas news descriptions have been widely varying, so at this point seems to me to sift out into the following points, labeled "a" through "x:"

a. The Connecticut Sandyhook fracas, at this point sifting things out, most clearly seems intended to gain attention through intense shock value. That seemed to have worked quite well: getting attention.

b. Especially early news descriptions seemed to have been half-truths or worse, and may continue to be so. Side articles appear to be largely composed of writer's projections of their own stuff that was triggered by what they had read about the Sandyhook fracas.

c. The swirl of chatter about the fracas seems to focus on a horrid thing done, then the bounce to what kind of person would do such a horrid thing, which comes up to be the "genius high school achievement loner male" type. Thus they are the bad guys who must be unpredictably extremely violent.

d. The "male genius loner type" category probably is where people have placed me too, and thus am a bit sensitive about this issue. I can easily see where the "genius loner male geeky types" would now go around wearing T-shirts that basically say "get off my back."

e. I have written several blog posts relevant to the longstanding problem of the bully types having endless conflict with the genius loner types. Best I can figure out, that occurs because the bully types use violence and the ever-implied doing injury if their whims are not obeyed - note that has also improved their reproductive access with the gals immensely over the eons - but the "genius loner types" just don't get it, how the bully leader of the little gang can do no wrong and must be obeyed or else. The "genius loner types" just don't always keep their place automatically, and that looks like a "challenger" to the bullies, trying to look better than the bully, too smart for his own good. But the "genius loner" guy just does not see the bully as being a superior type, but instead as a competent stalk & assault type: different thing.

f. From my own personal experience, I know that I have always wanted to join in on the great fun the other folks are always having, but I somehow do not "resonate" well enough to be accepted by the groups, and thus keep ending up as a loner again. In other words, "loner genius" is not my chosen way of life; unlike true autistics, I don't have the good sense to not want to be part of groups of people. Also the rate of sensory stimuli I can handle is significantly less than what is apparently normal; most people seem to simply not notice what is going on around them, yet also they seem to be able to innately know their role and place in group activities, a skill required in extreme among those who do team sports like football and basketball. Yet people are all different and unique as individuals, and there is a wide spread of ways of being, and this helps in the survival of humanity, with the wide variety of circumstances that humanity has to cope with, involving a wide variety of skills and viewpoints.

g. Throughout history, leaders of nations have brought on wars so as to have an outer "enemy" for all to unite and do conflict with; this is because without the outer enemy to battle, lots of people inside the nation start squabbling and it can get quite messy. Better to get them to work together to defend against a nation-external foe. The Sandyhook fracas with its shock value and grief emotion duly generated as a result, could be part of the "turning inward to do battle" phase of things. It has been wisely said that if you attempt to break up an extremely violent fight between two brothers, that suddenly the two brothers will unite and turn their extreme violence upon you; and when they together have smashed you down and out, they will then resume beating on each other. So the governing technique is to create an exterior enemy to get all the brothers to assault, in order to keep the peace inside.

h. It has been wisely said that a bad boy will misbehave and get punished, because getting punished involves getting attention paid to him; and the punishment-attention is lots better than getting ignored. In other words, the violent bully type craves attention from others, above all else. Out on the schoolyard and in the street gangs etc, the bully leader is driven by getting this attention that is demanded of the followers.

i. In some viewpoints, it is said that "energy flows where attention goes." So it may be that the gang leader bully type is actually harvesting the "energy" produced by all those other's attention placed upon him. "Energy" enables one to get more things done.

j. The violent bully gang leaders are not the type that are "genius loners," obviously. Thus projecting the abusive nature of gang bullies upon "loners" is probably in error; and the "projection" may be done deliberately so; the purpose might be to hide the abusive nature of the "gang leader" types, attempting to proclaim the "loner genius types" are the abusive ones.

k. Yesterday I read two articles written about the mother of the slain "shooter." One article seemed quite rational, describing how the "shooters" mother was a single mom, well supplied with money to spare, and was able to buy assault weapons like the Bushmaster, which she had often used at a gun range with the local gun enthusiasts. She also had "a lightweight military type rifle" and a couple of high capacity handguns there at home. She was said to really enjoy shooting assault type lethal weapons and was much admired by the group for doing so, the article said.

l. The other article about the "shooters" mother, was very different, and apparently a massive "projection" if not a deliberately misleading article. The title of the article was something like "I am (the shooters) mother." The article goes on to elaborately explain her own conflicts with her teenage son, a genius type who normally was very sweet tempered. But she claimed that sometimes he would go berserk and threaten her with a knife, saying he was going to kill her and then kill himself with the knife. She went on to say that the best she could do was get him to the hospital and have the hospital to call the police, when that happened. She said she was (the shooters) mother and then went on to say she was the mother of a whole bunch of recent-memory mass shooter fracas shooters. As far as I know, that is the only claim that the normally peaceable "genius loner" types suddenly snap and become like the violent bully types. The article's claim to have been written by the mother of all those shooters seems difficult to believe, especially since the current "shooters" mother was dead: how could she be writing the article? So the article has to be taken as a bit non-factual, maybe a lot non-factual. And thus possibly also a fantasy about the nature of the "loner genius" sons suddenly turning extremely violent. What is the intent of writing such a fallacy article? And yes, lots of parents get quite frazzled attempting to control their teenagers, while those teenagers are attempting to learn how to go it alone out in the greater world beyond the family's protection and nurturance.

m. The articles never seem to mention "the shooter's" father. Why is that? Did not his genes, his interests and nature come into the picture? Why was he no longer part of the family? And, who exactly was the shooters mother fantasizing using the Bushmaster and military rifle to erase, while at the gun range? There seems to be some ignored background buildup to what appears to the news media to be an out of the blue extremely horrid thing happening.

n. Again pointing out, the wisdom that "energy flows where attention goes" and its corollary, "what your attention is consistently on, you will get more of, even if it is negative attention." Look at what the news media has put the nation's attention on, so intensely. What is the larger picture involved?

o. The recent mass shootings, such as at Aurora Colorado movie theater, and Tucson Arizona supermarket political rally, seem to have the "very skillfully done by a loner for no apparent reason" commonality; but, are there far more hidden instigatory causes? Sure, lots easier to take it at face value, and safely blame the loner misfits; don't dare blame the conniving gangsta leader types or retribution likely to happen. And, come to think of it, these fracases may well have been such retribution for insulting the big bosses somehow, to both terrorize the followers back into submission to keep from being targets; and, could be, there was just one specific person among all the slain in each case, that was the actual assigned target.

p. One of the more different items I read about the Sandyhook fracas, was one that claimed to have heard that the "shooter" was gunned down by three gun-wielding women teachers. This seemed to me to be a bit amusing until I thought back and noticed how carefully worded the news articles had been, regarding the nature of the wounds that had put "the shooter" down. (And, I wonder a little bit, do extremely frustrated teachers ever "Go Postal" ... that leads to a whole different kind of scenario and cover-up, but seems unlikely to me.)

q. The whole thing seems to me to be very peculiar overall. "People-stuff can be very complicated."

r. This is not to say that some equally horrid backlash is not being deliberately cooked up in the stew.

s. And, is the governing choice really only between having the brothers fight amongst themselves, vs getting the brothers to unite to bash against some external foe? I think there are an enormous number of constructive projects desperately needing done by talented, ordinary, and even heroic people all over the place, that would benefit everybody including themselves. Projects nicely small and others hugely big, each with comparable beneficial results. For example, my old space transportation structure concepts for such projects come to mind, such as are described in detail on my hand-made high-tech website . But these potential projects have gotten intensely hidden and suppressed by some very influential others, consistently for decades. Maybe they prefer the brothers' fighting, one way or another? "People-stuff can be very complicated."

t. How could someone consider all those gunned-down folks, big and little, as expendable, I wonder. In other parts of the world, news is often of similar numbers and ages of people getting wiped out as justified by sectarian rivalry. The closest I can come to comprehending this belief in expendability of people, is in some sectarian teachings that all those who are not part of their own sect, will be eventually destroyed and thrown into the fire like deadwood, when the big guy in the sky comes down furiously to wreak retribution on all who are not obedient to the local sect's leaders. Thus, to somebody thusly deeply conditioned, anybody who is not a brother or sister of their own particular sect, will be destroyed anyway, so why not a bit earlier if it provides benefit to an action person? Even in business dealings, that viewpoint might well sometimes be a factor but less violently, here in America at times justifying robbing and cheating of "non-brothers," as if ethical.

u. Some things seem clear. The world has lost a genius type who, in better circumstances, might have solved some major world problem, but went down instead as "the evil shooter." What a waste. And amongst those little tykes gunned down in the classroom, most likely there also were more of the "genius loner" types who might also have grown up to figure out ways to solve some of humanity's major problems, who now have been deprived of those opportunities, to the loss of the whole world. And of course the lives of the other little tykes of the classroom and their teachers, lost to the world thereby.

v. All that, just to get a bunch of attention ... to what exactly? Or as some claim, just as a result of some insane freakout by a genius-loner type? And really, "attention" to exactly what, I wonder. "Gun control" seems to be a war cry resulting, fanned by the flames of this latest fracas; yet, the assault weapons used in this fracas were bought by "the shooters" mother, and thus "gun control" limiting of who can buy arms legally, would not have prevented this fracas. But the gun-control enthusiasts do not seem to bring that up for attention.

w. Or even - and my own projected fears are showing around the edges a bit here - is a major intent being to have society do the dirty work wanted by the gangsta-bully-leader types, to finally get society to drug-down all those smart-alecky loner-genius type guys so they no longer can look better-than the bully big boys anymore, leaving the gangsta-bully types as the only option for the gals for reproduction ... their golden goal finally cleverly achieved, proving who is really smarter? And then from then on, the gangsta-bully-type leaders will no longer have anything but a very predictable world, no longer worrying about some wild-card idea from some loner-genius type to upset well-laid plans to easily control everything forever more, sweet setup.

x. "People-stuff can be very complicated." But, in my socially-inept naive way, I still think that surely people could behave better and choose the drama they seem to ever hunger for, to be of much more constructive drama types, like building plentiful renewable power sources and designing sustainable species-diverse ecosystems while increasing the world food and clean water supplies too. Now, those are real tough challenges, in which to prove who has got the right stuff. I have even written several high-technology science fiction novels, exploring possible adventure dramas based on striving for such technology-based better world options, despite the drag-down efforts of some others. Seems lots more interesting to me. But then, am not a gangsta-bully type, and they might well not like that kind of drama.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home