Now would you look at that…

I’ve been away for some time now.

But it’s Sunday morning, and I’m at work; covering a call-out shift. And it’s very quiet. I’ve been printing out some materials from both my security companies’ files, and Homeland Security. I expect to get notification tomorrow to do it anyway, so I’ll save myself some time.

And what I’ve been thinking while I go over this stuff myself and set it up for my roster of guards to go over this week…has to do with the Wakefield Doctrine.

So I’m going to write a Doctrine post; but I’ll do it here, because this kind of thing is generally not appreciated on that side of the pond. But nonetheless…a WD post over here? Didn’t see that coming.

The thing about the Doctrine…is that it simply works. If you take every imaginable type of classification or conceivable way to group or categorize humans away…if all you’ve got left is three naked cavemen ( or cave people…sorry ) and a stick, lying on the ground…there it is. The goddamned Doctrine.

Which one interacted with the stick first, and why? And then what?

Three fundamental personality types, and how they interact. That is literally the whole thing. Everything else is adornment.

But, as opposed to the general tone of things over at the Doctrine site, things are not always fun. If the WD is true and real, then it must cover the entire span of human interaction, or admit that it’s flawed somehow.

So…a Doctrine post for your perusal, but of a decidedly different tone.

The horrific shootings in Connecticut leave me with a totally empty void. As opposed to 911, there isn’t even a definable enemy to associate the event to. Just a typical profile of a typical shooter. It just happened, and now it’s over. I, personally, would much prefer to have a definitive enemy; something that your mind can address it’s need to respond to.

But no…just a sadly twisted loner kid, and a mother with guns.

The materials I’m preparing are emergency instructions; the subject matter in this case is specifically how to respond to an active shooter.

And there are additional materials that address the psychological profiles of active shooters.

And I’m wondering, because it’s hard to read into this clearly. Which WD type would an active shooter most likely stem from? Is it possible for it to vary? And what factors would combine to create such a profile?

At first, I thought that they’re probably scotts; being the type that would most likely see violence or aggression as a viable outlet. But then again…scotts are also most likely to act immediately, and therefore have the highest likelihood of a usable release valve for their perceived resentments.

They just don’t fit the profile.

Clarks? They define themselves as outsiders, are only comfortable, if at all, in the outer perimeters of interactive groups; are certainly capable of holding and fostering deep resentments, not just over months ( as the profile reads) but over decades. They would be extremely capable of assembling a detailed plan to address their perceived resentments. And yet is is still difficult to determine what the final trigger to act would actually be. But overall…much closer to the profile.

But… I think that the closest type would have to be among rogers. I sense that the very prolonged alienation from social groups combined with ultra-personal incidental resentments could create the justification that would be needed. The victims are actually completely random, but are chosen from the social group that must be punished; and always seems to be supplemented with very particular punishment for a few particular individuals.

I therefore say that they’re most likely rogers, probably every time. In the end, I think it’s not about the targets at all. It’s about the importance of healthy socialization at a very young age. Just look what can happen when kids are abandoned at a societies’ outer perimeters for too long.

Should this be read by any interested parties ( especially amongst the Doctrine readership ) I would be most intrigued to receive your comments. For those that are entirely unfamiliar with the idea of the Wakefield Doctrine, please click the link in the right-side margin.

And though this isn’t pleasant subject matter, it’s nice to be back.