To squabble internally or externally is the question

Correctly describing a problem is well known to be a pre-requisite activity to resolving the problem. This post is an effort to do that.

And since it involves people, there are those who resist correct solutions, and thus strive to obscure the problem. And the need for drama makes the people-stuff not just super-complicated but also can get overly dynamic.

Apparently often through history rulers have struggled with the problem of how to keep their population from getting too squabbling amongst each other, and have utilized the mechanism of arranging war. War seems to get all the squabbling brothers to stop beating up on each other, to instead be working alongside each other to repel imagined invaders by going over and beating up on the neighbors, thus requiring the population to shift from internal squabbling to cooperative interaction against external foes.

It is not just the continuing sectarian violence in the middle-eastern countries that show the problem. It seems a worldwide problem, and apparently has existed throughout history. The Roman Empire used "bread and circus" to mollify its many subjects far and wide. The brutal coliseum violence sports perhaps another type for those closer to home. Here in the US, the sports teams traveling to each others' towns sports arenas to do mock battle between football teams, for example, has long been needed to satisfy some urges among people; not just for the players, but also for the men in the stadium whooping it up rooting for their home team, but also for their women who get into the excitement too, although probably with somewhat different urges involved that also excite the men.

I have often associated it all with my conjectured basic need for "drama," but there may be another force active in the craving for team assaults with each other, on the soccer field or with tanks and airplanes on the battlefield.

America is winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I think the population is getting restless and there is much stirring of internal squabbling long seething and suppressed in the need to unite to confront the external foe.

The media's focus on the NSA as the villain has recently kept it from doing the part of its job to monitor the many groups of "organized stalkers" operating in America. Thus as it is said "when the cat's away the mice will play" and the organized-stalkers seem to be getting ready to more publicly make the daring moves that satisfy their egos and cover their own misdoings.

Allowing myself only a brief bit of anger at people choosing to squabble and group-assault instead of being responsible to their world and constructive for their civilization, I write this blog post. But I doubt that it will be allowed to be heard, as there are some heavy-duty public opinion spin-masters getting into the game, I sense.

Some kinds of people prefer to engage in games or serious conflicts so as to demonstrate who is superior; another kind of people prefer to engage in building things as their teamwork activity.

The conflict-craving types seem to be needing more visibility in recent times, bread-and-circus not enough for them anymore. The focus on the lone high achiever, predominant such as up through the 1950's in America, has been beaten back by the urge for the teams to take the forefront. The schoolyard bullies that gather their following by setting the example of beating up on the lone high achiever, gets tamed a bit as less violent techniques to stay at the front of a group's attention. When this kind of activity gets controlled in a corporation to have a management chain to produce a fine product or service, it seems about an optimum activity for teams.

However, as America's business-political mode has changed enormously since the 1950's, too often businesses teams will discover that they are more interested in making money than in making a fine product for the consumer. Investors who only look at the bottom-line return on their investment, and do not care what means are used to make that maximum money, increasingly business has found that it is far more efficient to seek out and overwhelm upcoming competition and destroy it, than to invest in better internal R&D to make better products for the customers.

Tripping up the rivals is hardly new, as a means to "win." Spot someone else's fine work being completed, is arranged to be destroyed leaving only one's lesser accomplishment the remaining finest thing. However, although sometimes like the stadiums full of howling fans, where the tripping up of the "other people" is publicly accepted and even required as part of the sport, in business dealings it is generally more frowned upon; therefore using more subtle techniques need to be employed. Those who engage in this kind of thing can be lumped into a general category of "organized stalkers."

These organized-stalkers apparently enjoy the companionship and adventure involved, as motivation, providing membership belonging and status in these semi-secret sub-organizations, that seem to be quite common and hardly new.

With the internet's fairly open communications, some of those who have discovered the increasingly unlikely occurrence of specific kinds of events as they go about their daily life, if they are lucky they learn about this organized-stalker phenomenon which apparently is now stalking them. To hide the originating source of the command to stalk particular individuals, there is said to be a "list" passed around among the many groups of organized-stalkers, and once a person is on that "list" it is a lifelong thing, no way to get off the list. (The implied threat of getting put on that list probably also keeps their members in line, fearing what would happen to them if they choose to not do some particularly nefarious dirty-work for the organized-stalkers.)

One kind of person that finds themselves as apparently on that "list" is the potentially innovative but now unemployed engineer, who might come up with an idea for a technology that could compete with some corporation's products and thus reduce their profits for their investors. Keeping those loose-cannon engineers down in the trenches by increasingly obvious organized-stalking and concurrent intrusion into their residences to do document theft, and by spreading nasty rumors among the people the engineer might connect with like neighbors, are said to be common protocols for the organized-stalkers.

I suppose it must be big fun for the members of the organized-stalker vigillanties in their fantasies of the monsters they are united in harassing, to be great heroes among the teams; quite unaware of what they are actually doing to their targets, that ultimately will come around to lower the standard of living for everybody including the organized-stalkers themselves. No matter; the fun and drama of team belonging and fantasied doing drama, is going on. Staying in the herd is a place of safety even among wild mammal groups, and driving out some member, normally a male, feeds the predators and thus protects those who are in the herd for awhile longer. These instincts still lurk among humans, and sometimes find expression, such as in the teams of organized-stalkers.

So at this point, I somewhat suspect that America is once again at that tipping point where focus against a common "enemy" outside the country, fades away enough so that the possible need for those stalked engineers to get re-hired to produce means to succeed against the nation-external enemy, becomes much less than the urge to snuff out the potentially business-disruptive innovative engineers and scientists, and so the long-prepared triumphant dramas of accusatory courtroom or scared run street chases, gets the go signal.

Part of this nearly overwhelmingly complex people-stuff, is the mode among ostensibly dignified members of society and corporations, to "get something on" the others, and this apparently enables some people to feel secure in their jobs, with the implied threat of the misdoings of those other dignitaries being revealed, if the job is lost. I was quite surprised when I learned about this phenomenon many decades ago. The "getting something on" can also be deliberately arranged by such groups too, even if there is no real adequately severe mistake or misdoing having been done by the individual. The need for a high-achieving Asperger to be accepted in the apparently fun things the groups are doing, often gets them put in the position of being deliberately "left holding the bag" to take the blame for the mischief of the group, the Asperger unable to comprehend all of what is going on among people. Someone who has stumbled into "knowing too much" is at high risk for being such a target, even if not wanting to be involved. Thus there is this mass of all the things "gotten on" each other, as part of the seething people-stuff stewing.

Now, is the declaring of war or doing the equivalent, to punish some outside nation, worth doing to prevent the nation-internal fracas from getting really nasty? Hardly seems fair to me, even though I too have long been one of those technological mavericks potentially too business-disruptive with better technologies than the existing corporations employ, and thus would likely would go down in one of the first internal skirmishes. Although that does not appeal to me at all, the sacrificing of thousands of foreigners in a distracting war, is just not a rightful thing to do to prevent it.

Of bullies and their women

My socially-simpleminded Asperger ways are ever trying to comprehend the goings-on happening around me, among which I must survive. So sifting out the principles by which society is truly governed has to be done, seeing past all the razzle-dazzle facades, the smoke and mirrors, sweeping off the fluff to see just what is actually going on, with which I must cope insofar as possible, is a high priority.

Since my ability to socially cope rapidly diminishes with increasing numbers of people, myself and one other person is about it. Three or more people (including myself) puts my psyche into shock, the interactions seeming like multiple versions of "the old shell game" being played at once... what? ... what? ... are they asking me a question, what am I supposed to say, and quickly, what?.... Although when using writing to communicate so I have plenty of time to comprehend others and compose my messages to the world, the rapid-fire knee-jerk back and forth of "casual verbal conversation" puts me on the canvas real quick if there is a "rival" around.

So for companionship for me, the other one person must be a woman, to combine the needs, my one joy is to snuggle up with a slender happy woman, probably conditioned by my working-mother's trim teenage sister who babysat me.

Typically in my past I would give my all in total devotion to the woman that would have me, in desperate effort to retain her; but usually "my all" was not enough for her for very long; and once she had used me for a stepping-stone to greater conquests, or had used me while she was dusting herself off from previous relationships and headed for the next one, I would find myself alone again and despondent as a result, it being so extremely hard to somehow get connected with a new woman. I put a lot of thinking time, in my Asperger way, to what is really what in the man-woman thing, since the woman has to come from "out there" in that baffling social world; that is the only way to get a woman and thus live comfortably and usefully, in devotion to her and any children. What do non-Asperger men do about the man-woman thing, was the answer I sought.

So after sweeping away most of the fluff and almost endless levels of facade and posturing, a primary force emerged that there are a lot of men who believe that women are to be accessed only by the ... top dogs ... resulting from endless contests between those men who participate in that conflictual activity. And those men believe that their ranking in the resulting hierarchy establishes their rightful and exclusive access to women. Non-players, like me, are not to be permitted access to a woman, thus limiting women's options to the upper bunch of the "top dogs."

And more importantly for those men who, like me, are not involved in that endless measuring of whose is bigger, the men who are into that belief that men's access to women is only established by the "whose is bigger" (biceps, bank account, tennis winnings, etc) act in coordination to block any men who are not of them, who think they too deserve a woman, since statistically there is one woman for each man on this planet.

This seems such a core belief in those men born of bullies that it is considered a law of nature, not to even be mentioned.

A characteristic of this kind of man is that they seem to need to "bounce off of" other men. Their focus seems to be to interact with another man assaultively; in refined civilization this can take on quite a finesse in technique. They similarly need to form teams that need to "bounce off of" each other attempting to reach some achievement while also preventing the other man/team from making a similar achievement.

Instead of focusing on the entire world of nature and mankind's construction works around them, they focus on other men, either as one-on-one or as team-on-team, with intention to prevent the other from success.

There is an ancient archetype of the bull male of a herd banging into the other bull male to kill or wound it so severely as to leave the safety of the herd, leaving the "winner" to father the next generation exclusively; this is still practiced widely in the sea and jungle environment, as in walruses and elephants. The pattern displayed by the subject type of men is so very close in basic nature and effective function as to suggest its same origin.

And thus the women are "won" by default, a result of which man could do the most harm rather than who could cause the most well being.

That nature of that kind of men spills over into other areas of their life. They must be "tamed" enough to fit into a constructive society.

The cooperative part of these folks comes from where they are part of one team which is assaulting another team so that one team gets the winnings essentially abandoned by the more injured and unsuccessful team. So being part of a team brings out a cooperating function. Yet it has to be in the context of joining to assault others ... and that is where the basic problem comes in. When there is no conflict, there is boredom; so guess what is needed to get the excitement going again ... watch out, bystanders!

And so many women are in accordance with that activity whereby the women are "won and bought" by the doings of men with other men, not particularly with their doings with the woman. Those women are "tuned in" to the status of men they encounter, apparently going on the implication that a man who is "winner" in contests of men vs men, will be an equally good bet for being able to be supported by them and supporting children resulting.

And for the women's part, they paint up their face so perfectly, hang their currently stylish clothes on their frame so nicely, implying she will be a socially savvy helper to the man and that her bod will crank out progeny for him and be so very nice in bed to start the ball rolling.

Does it work? Are the men who are top abusers of other men, optimum providers for family? The shelters for abused women seem to suggest otherwise. Yet, along the way, life happens.

It is very probable that all of us have some of that heritage in our ancestry, if not in the immediate family. Thus the urge to join to assault and prevent other's success can easily become evoked. For example, join the military and you will have to take on that attitude to do your job; the focus basically is on harming others so they cannot harm you. Same old thing. When the big bulls are out there in the heat of battle ramming and banging without consideration of what or who else gets obliterated along the way, utterly focused on destroying the other bull, absolutely obsessed, a do-or-die instinct that comes from way back. Gets lots of attention; and that is part of the purpose of it all, to get the attention of the breeding females, that is how the next generation gets selected much too often, setting the continuing pattern.

Yet looking around at the construction works of civilization, like one's car, home, computer: somehow those of us who were of the harmonious constructive nature managed to make them happen despite that wildly destructive rampages of the big bulls with their focus on overwhelming other bulls instead of focus on the problems of survival of the whole system.

And those who believe they can't lose because the Big Guy is on their side, may find their opponent also believes they are the ones who can't lose because the Big Guy is on their side instead; just a somewhat different spelling of the name of the Big Guy. Does their Big Guy enjoy watching their romps, the pain and anguish of the losers and the triumphant adulation of the winners... what kind of Big Guy is that? Seems like a lot of bull to me; dangerous messy bull.

There is far better available leadership by the constructive Creator; and the choice is ever there. Not easy however when knee-jerk reactions are needed when things are getting crashed around us due to the hierarchical romps of the big bulls seeking their reproductive top dog status.

So surely it would be wise to watch for and successfully put down any urges we find in ourselves to assault others in the slightest way, as solutions to problems; and instead focus on the constructive harmonious natures we also have, continue with our good works no matter what; or we will all too quickly go the way of the millions of other extinct species. And from what can be seen, making a horrible mess of the planet in the rampages before going down the final time.

I would really like to see the constructive harmonious side of mankind be the focus of civilization, instead of the endless snazzy fracas among men for territory and reproductive exclusive access. There are 50% men and 50% women on this planet, one for one, none need go without. Maybe lots of shuffling around going on so as to serve all needs of the people would be needed, but with every night having every man with a woman (and of course visa versa) the craving to plunder might be on hold indefinitely. With the energy for butting horns being diverted to constructive use by civilization, surely mankind could do fantastic wonders, far beyond the pittance we now achieve.

And hopefully along the way I will once again have a fine woman to adore.

Yeah ... dreamer!

There is a human trait that has always enabled human beings to unite and have a higher utilization of their manpower. This human trait is not shared by the other mammals, however, and it makes a huge difference in the way humans function in harmony. It is a trait only possessed by the females, however; and it is a trait in fundamental conflict with the bully males and thus is ever under attack in various ways by the males who believe all women belong to them because they can and do assault other males. Besides the well-taught human traits of opposable thumbs, speech, writing, upright stance, big brain, the trait females have that other mammalian females lack is that of being sexually interesting and available to the males every day of their physically mature life. Other mammalian females are only attractive and available to males during their fertile periods, which is what enables the alpha male syndrome. Since all human adult females are always sexually attractive and potentially physically available to males al the time, every day of every month of every year, there is a huge amount of that resource potentially available, far more than a few alpha males can utilize, thus there is room for all males. Surely this has in a basic sense enabled the female to bring in menfolk close on a daily basis, where he then is handy for getting things done for her. If he is off doing battle games with the other males, he is not there to help her achieve her goals; so if he has to be with her every day to fill his sexual needs, she will have him there helping her constructively instead of being out ther a big nuisance to the world messing things up in battle games with other men. Simple as that, harmony and constructivity get maximized among humans, thus becoming a far more effective species.

This invention by the human female, however, is instinctively hated by the alpha male types, so they are ever contriving ways to block women's ways which are otherwise innately designed to leave no man out, plenty of room in there for all men all the time. The reproductive exclusivity demanded by the alpha-male bully types is in direct conflict with this; their urge to assault and control other males to force them to do their bidding (and of course to also stay away from the females in the process) instead of doing the females' bidding, with their furious bull rage inside almost of satanical nature if one really looks at it, thus has the opposing force of women's vast sexuality. This human female invention could possibly rule the world, essentially enslaving all the males, if let loose totally, so some balance seems prudent, but not nearly the level now generally practiced in the world by men. Some alpha-male-based "religions" then counter with violent oppression of women, which may enable monogamy truly but due to the requirement of females wearing apparel to hid them, lots of room for manipulation at strategic moments by the leader alpha males whom none dare challenge... same old herd-mammalian bull stuff.

So a quite familiar old pattern is still active, where the ancient herd-mammalian alpha male types are ever working to have exclusive reproductive access to the females by assaultively driving the other males away, no longer able to help the species and the group; while the women are doing what they can to counter this by their wonderful invention of their ever-available sexuality, insofar as the social system enables, which would have effect of bringing all men into closeness with them on a daily basis and therefore available for helpfulness to the women to provide for her and progeny, a far more successful species technique than the jungle mammal alpha male controlled herd critter types.