Senseless tragedy patterns making sense

It takes me awhile - often hours or days, sometimes years or decades - to see the patterns that non-Asperger's apparently know instinctively. Yet occasionally I figure out patterns that only then become "obvious" to others. I don't initially know which is which, however, except maybe later getting reactions from others - but they typically either ignore me because they were born knowing the pattern; or instead were embarrassed that they had not already seen the pattern. (People-stuff is complicated.)

So this blog post is about such a basic pattern I have suddenly seen. It too is probably one that most others instinctively knew all along; but maybe not.

The pattern is one I first saw as portrayed in the movies. It is of a crime gang boss giving a member of his gang the "kiss of death" which means the man that got kissed by the gang boss has to go out and do some extremely horrible thing to targeted previously-unknown other people that will get himself killed too. The "horrible thing" was usually to do fulfillment of a "contract" the gang "wrote" to do some dirty work for a nameless client, so that it cannot be traced to the "client" but lots of people will realize what happened, yet cannot prove it, and are thus presented with having to comply with some very uncomfortable demand, or risk having another "senseless tragedy" done to them again sometime without warning.

So this insight is of that kind of pattern happening. And it seems to perfectly fit the recent "senseless tragedy" at the naval base in Washington DC a few days ago.

A perfect fit, and its scope suggests the very heavy-duty players in the game, and the real stakes involved in whatever is being pressured to happen, without being traceable to the real commanders of the events.

It takes real courage in a nation to not give in to such activities, either to comply; or for others to perpetrate; when to not comply means another bunch of innocent people will get killed, somewhere, but exactly when the gang-boss says it will. So it is "comply or innocents will die and only you will know that you could have prevented it" kind of thing.

Do I need to use the word "bullying"? Or is the huge scale and deceptions involved, able to obscure the bully mentality that plays this game?

The part that the public is shown, is the mangled mess physically done by the "suspect" who seems to have acted without reason, but yet with lots of preparation and probably key invisible support along the way - but the public is led to believe that the "suspect" just suddenly went crazy "hearing voices" or "on drugs" etc and that somehow that had caused the "suspect" to go bonkers - for the media to do otherwise might invite the crime-gang-boss to give another "kiss of death" that would result in media personnel and facilities to be next. Scary, and paranoid-inducing; much easier to comply, and besides the real targets are likely strangers anyway so who cares....

So my insight of this pattern, so closely fitting the Naval Base incident a few days ago, also suggests to me that other "inexplicable" tragedies, like the Auoura-Batman-movie-theater incident that took out the Canada-event-survivor soccer game reporter young woman, and the Tucson event including Gifford, are among the events that could be actually the playout of "contract" assaults that are intended to be untraceable to the original instigators - except perhaps by their ultimate effects. (The expertise of deception of the big-players is "people-stuff is complicated" really big-time to me. But what a waste of otherwise good human capability to be constructive and collaborate so all can live better in a long-lasting world. Their choice, not mine.)

I might also be the only one who noticed that Giffords and Kelly were both very much into expansion of support of space utilization prior to the assaults; but since the "crazy man's sudden assaults", they no longer mention space, but only gun control. Is that only an incidental effect?

To solve a problem, it must first be correctly defined. Remember?

Or is it too scary sometimes? Rightfully so; there is very little defense against the Organized Stalkers.

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.