| |
|
Regarding perpetrators, so used to giving it out but not taking it. How do they deal with a different role? How does a former perpetrator learn how to be a victim? Do they know how to avoid this? Do they understand, having been at the other end of the stick, what works? They have indeed, and as most human victims are placed in this situation because they must deal with these Service-to-Self entities, we will undertake a compare and contrast analysis in order to show the reader how to recognize the Service-to- Self entity, and how to react most effectively to their forays.
The Service-to-Self entity, or one strongly polarized in that direction, first seeks to remove itself from a bad situation.
However, most humans are neither strongly polarized toward Service-to-Self or working firmly and consistently in the Service-to-Other orientation. In many cases the situation cannot be avoided without causing harm to others, breaking promises or commitments, even deserting other innocents. In many cases the situation is a physical trap, too. The job cannot be left as the human will become homeless, for instance, and forced perhaps into a life of crime which for the victim is not an alternative that is acceptable. Therefore, this option, which the Service-to-Self take without thought of the after affects, is not, in the main an open option. Can the victim not simply stand up to the attacker? Most certainly, and in this discussion we are assuming that this avenue has already been considered. If escape is not possible, then a straightforward defense is next tried. The victim calls the situation to the attention of the authorities. The situation under discussion here is where these tactics are not possible. The avenue for appeal is not possible, or would in fact worsen the attack. In human society, the tendency to blame the victim is used frequently, to deal with frustration. One need only to follow closely the trail of the rape victim, from victimization to trial, to see this process in action.
The Service-to-Self entity will next seek to savage the perpetrator, through intimidation or by undercutting their supports.
This is a scene familiar to humans, much played out in the media. Individuals are framed for crimes they did not commit. There are threats, and blackmail attempts. Certain acts of vandalism are done, with the message that this is only the start. For those not oriented to Service-to-Self, these acts are unacceptable, and not even considered. Therefore, this option, which the Service-to-Self take without hesitation, is not an open option at all.
The Service-to-Self entity will then proceed to attempt to disable the attack, by diverting the attack onto another or some sort of diversionary tactic.
Offering up another victim, the one least likely to have defenses or retaliate against the entity selecting them, is tried first. Should this be a situation where the resulting attacks from the substitute victim are anticipated to be as bad as the original attack, this ploy is abandoned. Distraction is tried. The victim may attempt to start a fire, literally and figuratively. The child anticipating a deadline at school, for which he is unprepared, may foist a bomb scare on the school to buy time. The dog ate my homework, an excuse often used by all, is not the route taken by the Service-to-Self youngster, who would prefer to cause distress and chaos for the power trip this elicits. For those not oriented to Service-to-Self, diversionary tactics, where they exist and are acceptable, will have already been taken. If the victim cannot escape, they may point to the side, hoping to distract the attacker. This seldom works, or when it does, seldom works for long. The victim, having been chosen because he or she is helpless, is like a mouse in a box.
Is there nothing the victim can do?
The reader may have noted that there has been much discussion about Service-to-Self maneuvers. We have brought this forth in this discussion for a reason. Service-to-Self entities, seeking to gain converts to their orientation which they deem will be under their domination, use fear and resentment situations to gain converts. In the situations described above, the entity not oriented toward Service-to-Self will be torn. Should they take the option used with success by others? Should they counter intimidate, toss another victim into the mouth of the attacker, or cause a chaotic situation with unpredictable and perhaps regrettable results? They decide not. Some decide to try these tactics, and draw themselves toward an orientation where victimization and perpetration are the name of the game. The psychology at play in prisons, or in slum areas where gangs emerge, show what happens to victims who take this route. They are caught, the way back fraught with greater victimization than the original situation they sought to escape.
What does this leave the entity who does not wish to enter the Service-to-Self game? Where love is the answer, this has been tried. Where the victim is dealing with a hardened Service-to-Self entity, such tactics only bring forth a cynical laugh. Escape is not possible. Appeal to authorities non-existent or tried and failed. Diversion tried and failed. The strength of the victim not enough to counter the threatened attack, whether the attack is physical or psychological. What does the victim do? In this case they are best counseled to keep their eye on the horizon, the long term, and bear in mind that any situation of victimization must end, if only in death. We are saying, do not give in to the urge to get the upper hand by adopting the tactics of the Service-to-Self crowd. Gain the upper hand by stoicism. This robs the attacker of his goal, his reward.