this is an outline for a book
as well as part 1 that is written (not an outline) 

please provide suggestions for the outline and book etc

and apply those suggestions to part 1 (written and not outline part) using the same style 


Emotional Suppression: They may suppress positive emotions or connections, leading to further alienation and emotional numbness.
Emotional Isolation and Self-Evaluation
Punished individuals may isolate themselves to protect against further pain, leading to emotional numbness and an inability to form genuine connections with others.
Story: A former victim of bullying may choose to stay alone, avoiding social situations because they fear rejection. This isolation leads to deep-seated loneliness and a lack of belonging, perpetuating feelings of worthlessness.



----------------------------------------------------------------------




Paragraphs 33-41: Toxic Relationships and Dependency


Paragraphs 42-47: Influencing the Punisher

 for Approval: The punished actively seek to influence and gain the approval of their abuser, believing that this will lessen their punishment.
Manipulative Dynamics: They may unconsciously resist or manipulate their relationship dynamics to retain control or exert influence, often at the cost of their own well-being.

Toxic Attachment: The punished may develop a toxic attachment to their punisher, fearing abandonment and becoming dependent on them.
Resignation: The punished individual may come to accept their fate, leading them to “rot” in their situation while vying for validation from their punisher.
 Toxic Relationships and Dependency
A history of being punished can lead to toxic attachments, causing individuals to fear abandonment. They might remain close to their punisher out of desperation,  they cannot survive without them.
Case Study: An individual in an abusive relationship may stay with their partner despite harms, thinking it is better to endure the pain rather than risk being alone. They cling to the relationship, avoiding any attempts at independence.


Paragraphs 10-13: Hypervigilance and Obedience

Approval seeking: The punished engage in hypervigilance regarding the needs of the punisher, suppressing their individuality to gain approval.
Insecurity: This behavior leads them to reject their own thoughts, compensating for flaws by suppressing themselves
Hypervigilance and Obedience
Hyper-vigilance regarding the punisher's emotional state can lead to unhealthy compliance. This can create a cycle of dependency where the punished individual suppresses their needs to cater to the punisher's desires.
Example: A child raised in a dysfunctional home might learn to anticipate their parents' moods, tailoring their behavior to elicit praise or avoid punishment. This behavior pattern can continue into adulthood, causing difficulty in personal relationships.
 Acceptance of Punishment
As the dynamic of punishment continues, the individual may resign themselves to their , accepting that they are unworthy. They may view themselves as inherently flawed and deserving of their predicament.
Story: In a long-term abusive relationship, a partner may come to believe that their mistreatment is justified, telling themselves, "I must have done something to deserve this." They become entrenched in this complicating the possibility of leaving or seeking 



Outperform the Abuser: There is a compulsion among the punished to prove themselves ‘finer’ than their abuser, often leading to self-destructive behavior to maintain this façade.
Outperform the Abuser
The punished individual's  to prove themselves "finer" than their abuser often leads to self-destructive behaviors. This might manifest in overachieving or compensating to gain recognition, but it also may result in burnout or mental health struggles.
Story: A woman in an emotionally abusive relationship may work tirelessly to climb the corporate ladder, pushing herself to exhaustion in hopes that achieving success will validate her worthiness and shield her from further abuse. However, her self-worth remains tied to external validation, leading to chronic anxiety.


Paragraphs 48-56: Repetitive Patterns of Relationship Dynamics

Cycle of Abuse: The punished may find themselves repeating destructive relationship patterns due to unresolved trauma.
Difficulty in Healthy Relationships: Their experiences make it hard for them to engage in healthy dynamics, as they expect turbulence and punishment.
Repetitive Patterns of Relationship Dynamics
Unresolved childhood wounds often result in the repetition of harmful relationship patterns. Individuals may find themselves attracting similar partners, cycles of abuse.
Example: Someone who grew up in an abusive household may unconsciously seek out similar dynamics in romantic relationships, finding themselves drawn to partners who replicate the toxicity they have known.




------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 3



could have a break here? 



Summary: The Way the Punisher Operates


Core Logic:
The punisher operates by inflicting punishment to coerce the punished into compliance. Compliance temporarily stops punishment, making the punished “fine” in the punisher’s view. However, the punisher continuously finds faults, maintaining the power dynamic and keeping the punished trapped.

Dynamics and Tactics



Punisher-Punished Dynamic:
The punisher seeks to keep the punished in a subordinate position.
The longer this dynamic continues, the more entrenched it becomes, creating a cycle of punishment and compliance.


Types of Punishment Used:
Situational: Guilt-tripping, false agreements, different criteria, privacy removal, bullying, weakening, pitting against others, creating dependency.
Verbal: Feigned concern, fake praise, criticism, ridicule, belittling, expletives, projection, lying, smear campaigns, threats/ultimatums.
Physical: Direct violence (hitting, pushing), punishment using objects, natural (fire, water), forced actions (labor, confinement).


Situational Punishment Details:
Starts with making the punished feel inferior or guilty.
Uses false agreements where compliance is the only way to escape punishment, but new faults are always found.
Enforces different rules for the punished to justify unequal treatment.
Removes privacy to control and monitor punished actions.
Uses bullying to maintain submission and deter escape attempts.
Destabilizes the punished through inconsistency to cause uncertainty and reduce autonomy.
Pits multiple punished individuals against each other to compete for approval.
Creates a dependency where the punished increasingly relies on the punisher physically, psychologically, socially, or financially.


Verbal Punishment:
Used to enforce and maintain the situational dynamic.
Involves manipulative tactics like fake praise to keep the punished striving for approval.
Constant criticism and ridicule to induce stress and obedience.
Projection and lying to deflect responsibility and confuse the punished.
Smear campaigns to justify punishment and suppress dissent.
Threats and ultimatums to coerce compliance.


Physical Punishment:
Includes bodily harm and harmful use of objects or elements.
Forced labor or actions under threat or harm.
Physical punishment is both coercive and used as a reminder of the punisher’s control.


Psychological Aspects: Neglect and Extinction
The punisher uses neglect (ignoring complaints or needs) to break the punished’s instinctual behavior of seeking help, known as extinction in behavioral psychology.
By depriving the punished of support or encouragement, and convincing them that their basic needs are useless, the punished internalizes helplessness and stops resisting or seeking improvement.


Stay-Put Sentiments: Persuasion to Maintain Control
Once weakened, the punished are kept in place not just by punishment but by persuasive speech or "stay put sentiments," which make the punished believe only the punisher’s way is possible.
The punisher dismisses or discredits the punished’s views, efforts, and aspirations, using tactics such as:
Highlighting past failures of the punished and successes of the punisher.
Insisting the punisher’s way is proven, superior, reliable, and universally accepted.
Labeling the punished’s desires as naïve, impossible, or inferior.
Cherry-picking evidence to favor the punisher’s narrative.
Emphasizing the punisher's authority, superiority, and correctness.
Undermining the punished’s confidence and autonomy.
This discourages the punished from pursuing their own goals and reinforces obedience.


Conclusion
The punisher uses a comprehensive strategy combining situational control, verbal assaults, physical enforcement, neglect/invalidation, and persuasive domination. These tactics condition the punished to comply and feel trapped within this relationship, normalizing the powe


-------------------------------------

Part 4


How to Escape the Punisher-Punished Dynamic
The dynamic thrives because the punished engage in behaviors that keep them entrapped, and punishers feed off this engagement.
Disengagement from the punisher and refusal to play the punisher-punished game is the key to escape.
Growth and self-development, focusing on one’s own goals rather than on changing or winning over the punisher, is crucial.
Avoid engagement with individuals exhibiting punisher or highly punished behaviors to prevent the cycle from perpetuating.
Sharing knowledge of the dynamic broadly with unaffected groups can act as “herd immunity”, making it harder for punishers to establish control.
Punished individuals may defend their abusers out of trauma bonding (Stockholm syndrome) or dependency, complicating intervention.
Awareness and collective recognition undermine the power of punishers who depend on secrecy and denial.
Ultimately, strength comes from fostering environments free of punisher-punished dynamics, allowing individuals to thrive without coercion or control.





-------------------------------------------------------------



could have part 1






Intro


When the world is fucked, generally a certain repeatable and predictable dynamic tends to take place. 
A person/group of people label themselves as "fine" individuals
These "fine" indidivuals establish themselves as the reference or criteria for what a person should do. 
they are the people that if followed or people behave like, would bring about the world "as it should be". 
They then say that these other people are not "fine" individuals. and are actually the cause of all our woes. and are stopping the world "as it should be". 
They then take to these people with certain repetable behaviors in an attempt to bring them under control so that the world can become "as it should be". 

Something of a shit show takes place as both sides battle. one side attempting to control another, and the other trying to stay sovereign. 

After much damage and destruction has taken place, both sides basically have become one and the same in their behaviors. 

something of a resolution is put into place when the damage that has taken place becomes no longer worth it. 

and yet both sides hold resentment for the things that each side had done prior. When the world is as desperate for answers and the situation of people isn't getting better. 

A person/group of people label themselves as "fine" individuals
These "fine" indidivuals establish themselves as the reference or criteria for what a person should do. 
they are the people that if followed or people behave like, would bring about the world "as it should be". 
They then say that these other people are not "fine" individuals. and are actually the cause of all our woes. and are stopping the world "as it should be". 
They then take to these people with certain repetable behaviors in an attempt to bring them under control so that the world can become "as it should be". 

Something of a shit show takes place as both sides battle. one side attempting to control another, and the other trying to stay sovereign. 

After much damage and destruction has taken place, both sides basically have become one and the same in their behaviors. 

something of a resolution is put into place when the damage that has taken place becomes no longer worth it. 

and yet both sides hold resentment for the things that each side had done prior. When the world is as desperate for answers and the situation of people isn't getting better. 



The people are usually different, the criteria for "fineness" is sometimes different, and the behaviors and dynamics are generally the same. 

Somtimes his name is jeff or fabianne or whoever, sometimes man sometimes woman, sometimes older sometimes younger.  but it's the same person. 
soemtimes the criteria for fineness is color, race, place of birth, lineage, etc.                                    but it's a basis of factionization. 
and the behaviors are generally the same that are used to subjigate and "control" the other side.




This book isnt here to talk about the people and their stories. 
it is not here to talk about the validity of using color, race, place of birth or other criterias for "fineness" as a means of factionization. 
These things generally change. 

What does stay the same though is the dynamic and behaviors that are easily spotted once you know what to look for. 

It seems so obvious to us when reading a history book that doingcertain things were literally NOT the thing to do o reach a certain goal. 

Having the ability to spot these behaviors and patterns is like being able to read history in real time and avoid getting sucked into the same old story with different characters and reference criteria that generally leads to the same outcome. Consistent destruction, and questionable achievement of the quest that was set out on in the first place. 



-------------------------------------------------------
























People often look at an abused individual and feel pity for that abused individual. People that are abused generally garner our sympathy. We think to ourselves if only that person could stop getting abused by that particular individual then they would obviously have a better life and they could stop suffering. We look at the situational factors that produce such a “victim” to say that if this person had other circumstances then surely they would have come out different. Maybe they would have been a president or a millionaire, a kind father or a great middle school teacher. A kind individual that contributes, even in some small way, to society. We empathize feeling their pain having gone through it ourselves at one point in our lives. The general consensus is that if only a person like that could escape that abusive situation then they would have a great life and contribute all the things that they could contribute to society. 

The issue with that narrative is that it is too simplistic. It paints the person that is going through the pain as this innocent person that has done nothing wrong to the person that is punishing them; which is often times the case. 

Take for example the african american man, before he was american. He was simply an african man. Living in africa. A continent away from the so called “american” (european) man. He was minding his own business in africa while all of a sudden a group of armed white men came and stole him and his family from their homes. 

Today this very same man is accused of being lazy, horrid, and the worst criminal in the united states of america .

The african american man contributes most to the crimes that exist within america considering how little of the population they are. 

Again, the narrative of the abuser or the abused dynamic is usually simplified to favor one side or the other. Which causes people to look at the situation like, “this is the fine individual, this is the horrible individual, we must work with the fine individual while destroying the horrible individual”. 


Let us take a look at that narrative when it was the white man that for some reason that (just because) that they were the “fine” individual. 

As a result of this narrative, being a “fine” individual, the white man took it upon him/herself to enslave an entire population. For considering themselves a “fine” individual. 

The other group, the “niggers” were horrible individuals. Their crime, having a skin color that was different to their own, among other things. 

The main concept was, you are not like me, i am a fine individual, therefore you are not a fine individual since you are not like me. 

As a result, the white man justified all the things that they would do to this not fine individual who was not like the the white man. 

The concept was, person with black skin color is different from this other person. The other person as a “fine” individual took it upon themselves to punish this other person for not being like them, ie a fine individual. That was the “overt” narrative of course. 

As a result the people with black skin color sought to “erase” all evidence of the crime that they were getting punished for. They sought to become more “white” while erasing their “blackness”. 
They even started to behave more white. If only they could become “white” then the white person would stop abusing them.  People with black skin color started to behave more “white” in order to avoid the abuse of the person with white skin color. They started to dress like them, talk like them, do their hair like them. Till this day there are products that make people more “white” and less “black” such as creams that bleach the skin. 



Enter uncle tom

Furthermore a new breed of black person was made, one that was “superior” to the other people with black skin color, those that were “reaching” towards the white man to become more like them. Incorporating or inheriting this “hatred” towards “blackness” to associate with their white masters. If only they could buddy up with their punishers, by punishing the other black people then they would become fine as well. They could escape the “inferior” class of black people and no longer get punished. They could finally get accepted into the superior class of white individuals and live as they do. 

However they were never accepted by the “superior” white man. Doing so would topple the whole dynamic between the two. As a result they may have been a better than the average black man, or a “betraying” black person. A justification given to maintain the dynamics between the two. The situation is there is nothing that the person with black skin color could do to escape the dynamic established between the two. No amount of erasing their blackness. Since it wasn’t about their blackness. 



White man going loco


Look then at this white man, getting born into this situation. Seeing a group which you belong to as a “superior” group to those other “inferior” people with black skin color. Every possible measure you could measure them on, they would prove again that they are inferior. The world around you says that they are inferior. Less educated, weaker bodies, bad social ties, no money. Ontop of that imagine seeing them sucking up to you while throwing eachother under the bus for your approval. 

What then would say to you that you are the same. 

Look at this man then, if you were to go to him and challenge that narrative or this world view tha he lives in. telling him that people with black skin color are not inferior to you in any way. That they could do anything that you could. 

It would be nothing short of laughable. 
And if it were true, it would topple the whole order on which he lives in. His whole life dynamic basically would get turned upside down. To think… That is white and is getting told that hating black people doesn’t make them a better person. That punishing and controlling them doesn’t actually make them a superior individual. Imagine the upset that this person would get put through. To think that all the pain that he/she had caused other people was no longer a sign of his/her “superiority” but actually the very evidence of his/her horridness. Can you imagine the turmoil that this person would get put into. To think of his/her friends that are also suddenly horrible if they were to consider the things that you were saying as correct. To consider their whole society was horrible and that there were too many of them for them to all have made this mistake.

You would become public enemy number one over night. To challenge the whole order that he lives in. Accusations of chaos, bringing about public disorder and disruption. A “threat” to civil society. People like that were severely persecuted and attacked. Worse things were done to them to let go of this threat to “civil” white society. What would you do, have those people that are humans with black skin color, get treated as normal people. WHAT ARE YOU, MAD!?

Although it may appear very obvious to us in retrospect that this is totally idiotic, that a persons color of their skin causes them to behave in particular ways by default as though their nervous system is fundamentally different from the rest of the world, there are similar narratives that we hold on to today that basically follow the same fundamental formula that are basically just as idiotic if not more so considering that we should have looked at past scenarios and learned from them. 







Within “modern” society, groups of individuals have seemingly established themselves as “fine” individuals stating that they are the reference for what should happen within a society. That they are actually the upholders of the reference. As a result all those that follow or “comply” with the things that they are sharing are also fine individuals and all those that do not comply are the basis of all that is wrong with society and as a result must get punished .Once they are wiped out or punished into compliance then the woes of our society would get solved. 


The issue with this is that there is actually a constant new “threat” that must get punished enabling these people to keep their jobs. The incentive in this scenario is to find new things that must get punished. As a result they get to enjoy or maintain their status of a “fine” individual that upholds the “fine-ness” of society so to speak. If they were to punish everyone into compliance they would effectively have worked themselves out of a job and their status as a “fine” person. 

Once any of these groups of “fine” individuals have conflicting views with the punishable person, the punishable person is punished into compliance or acceptance into the “finess” that the punisher is forcing them into under threat of harm. 

So we must observe then, in our history as people, if there has been a misconviction of a person for their “nonfiness” and if that had ANY measurable influence on the fine individual. 

For example, if the african man was in africa, imagine he was not fine. Would this siginficiantly impact the white european american man. It should not have. And yet under the guise of betterment (by force) the african man was punished into compliance to become a better individual. 

Parents cops judges governments countries establish themselves as “fine” indiviuals. Consistnelty finding “fault” with others, justifying the atrocities they commit to them as “betterment” of those individuals. 

Blaming them for the woes of society, while simultaneously seeming like a benevolent helper of these wretched people. Behind this guise, all things are deemed justified. 

As one former general in the vietnam war was quoted as saying “ we had to bomb them to save them”. 





From there the “uncle” “toms” come into play forcing the other punishable or non fine class into acquiescence so that they could remain away from the punishment that the “fine” individuals infer upon the nonfine individuals. It doesn’t matter if at one point it was a matter of race or otherwise. The concept is the same. 

A group of “fine” individuals establish themselves as a reference
Deem that another group of individuals are not “fine”
They must get punished into compliance to become “okay” 
Some of the punished go into compliance out of fear of further punishment
Become “better” than the non fine and yearn or reach towards the “fine” individuals
And yet remain peasants still. 


The issue with this setup is at one point “fine” is if your black or white, fine is if you are this or that. 

Something of a shit show starts to take place. Where it would seem that there is this group of “fine” people that all they seek to do is to make others become “fine”. The issue arises when the other group doesn’t recognize that they are “not” “fine”. 

Here the two groups of people one an apparently kind benevolent helpful and brave group that will bear any amount of hatred from the non fine group to make them better. The aggression that they show the “nonfine” group is only for their betterment. While the other group is forced into becoming “fine” and is the “resistance” that is fighting for “freedom” from oppression from this horrible group of people. They are the fine victims that have done nothing wrong and only seek to live without another group forcing their way onto them. 


And from here the confusion begins. Who’s really who in this scenario. 
Should those other people become “fine”. 
Should those “fine” individuals stop trying to make the other people “fine”. 



The woes of the world or some “incompleteness” is thrust onto the “not fine” group. And this is the way that both sides polarize and “gain” “power”. 

One side says that we are “incomplete” since this other group is “not” “fine” and there is no way we could just sit idly by. 
While the other side says we are “incomplete” not because there is anything wrong with us, but only because this other side sees us as such and is forcing itself onto us. 

Although it is no doubt that a group can work to STOP another group from attaining the things that they would like to do and thus becoming an enemy, here all personal responsibility of attaining an outcome is thrown off of a certain group and thrown completely onto another group. 

Yes a certain individual or group have often worked to DENY another person or group access to things or to even stop them from achieving anything. This DOES happen. However authroitary states establish their position in the sense that we must WIPE OUT these other people in order for us to be fine. 

At some point during their engagement, both sides start to seem eerily similar to one another. 

How then can we distinguish between a group that is ACTUALLY denying another group access to something, is blaming them for things that they didn’t do (having black skin color for example) or a group like men/women with black skin color that are then doing to people with white skin color what they did to them in an effort to stop THEM from hurting them. 







Tamam ✅ ?             (the crux) 

To be able to separate both of them from each other we could look at both “groups” of individual’s “stances” so to speak. 


The group that for some reason found itself “fine” 

They say establish themselves as “fine” individuals
They then say you must fit into this box that we’ve made for you in order for you to be “fine” 
Under threat of punishment (and actual punishment) the “not fine” group is forced into this standard of “fineness” 


And the “not fine” group

The “not fine” group doesn’t like
Getting forced
Into a standard (that they may or may not like) 
Under threat of punishment
Or acceptance from hypocrites who don’t themselves follow that standards of that “box”, ie they would like them to be submissive while they behave tyrnaically. 


If one were to look at the stance of the “fine” group it may seem that they are totally out of order, while the “not fine” group is actually the ones that are “fine” since they aren’t “forcing” themselves onto anyone. Although that may hold up in one instance, in other instances the “not fine” group is actually harmful in some way. Their ignorance of something may be causing harm to another group or to themselves in some way and all the “fine” group is trying to do is to mitigate that harm from spreading. 

Which makes sense. 

But if you look at it from the “not fine” group they think they’re just as “fine” as the group that says they’re “fine”. Who’s to say the can’t establish themselves as “fine” and it as actually the first “fine” group that needs to fit into the box under threat of punishment lest THEIR harm (of forcing people into boxes under threat of punishment ) spread. 


Let us dive deeper into this dynamic. 











----------------------------------------------------------------------






Enter
Who’s who

-(intergroup punishment dynamics)


Imagine a person called person 1
Then another person called person 2

Person 1 says person 2 is the root of all pain and suffering. 
Person 2 must be stopped. Attacked, and enslaved (must follow our ways)

Does this automatically make person 2 a horrible person?
Is person 2 actually responsible for the pain and suffering of person 1?

Now person 2 is attacked stopped and enslaved. 
Person 2 is now a person that is attacked stopped and enslaved
Person 2 now says
Person 1 must be stopped. Person 1 attacks stops and enslaves. 
Then person 2 attacks stops and enslaves person 1. 

Then person 1 is attacked stopped and enslaved. 
Person 1 says look at person 2. Person 2 attacks stops and enslaved. 
They must get stopped attacked and enslaved for the things that they are doing. 


So person 1…


The narrative of the abuser and the abused is a very simplistic one that one can easily fall into. Looking at the person that is claiming abuse saying that he/she is so wronged and that other person is not so right. Only for the tables to turn and for them to justify it when they do it but not when the other person does it.  person 1 does it but not when person 2 does it. Or to claim it fine when person 2 does it but not when person 1 does it. 

To establish this narrative all one has to do is say

This group or person is to blame for our pain
Look at all the things they do to us
Now let us do to them those things that they do to us
In order for us to stop these things. 


For as long as we have known our history. This has been the history of humanity. With people citing examples and situations as to how the OTHER group actually deserves this punishment while their particular group doesn’t and any punishment of their particular group is actually wrong and must get met with more punishment. Just as the other group does and talks about themselves that THEY are the ones that are undeserving of punishment and that it is the OTHER group that should get punished for attempting to punish them and any punishment that befalls their group is actually wrong and is evidence for just how much the other group is deserving of punishment. 

In other words

If you punish me, you deserve to get punished. 
But if i punish you, its okay. 
And if you punish me for punishing you, you deserve to get punished .


Does that mean that there is no person that is actually in the wrong. That they are all actually one and the same person. 




The victim hood flip

—-justifying abuse through “retribution” —-------


So let us look at this “narrative” then… 
that the punisher is the harmed individual and the punished is the harmful individual. 
Is it then right to assume that the punisher is a harmed individual and the punished as a harmful individual?
That the person that is able to establish victimhood is then justified to do to another the things that they are claiming that has happened to them. 

If this is the case then all a person has to do is claim that another person did to them the thing that they would like to do to another. 

For example. You disrespected me and now i can disrespect you. 

The other person may have not done anything at all. 

Or if you would like to take another persons money
All you have to do is claim that this person has robbed you one way or another. And robbing them is okay. 

Or if you would like to take something from someone
All you have to do is claim that this person took something from you so it’s okay for you to take this thing from them. 

If you would like to abuse another individual
All you have to do is claim that this person abused you so its okay for you to abuse them. 

The other person may not have done anything at all. 


Surely no one would just unjustifiably do that would they?

They couldn’t/wouldn’t just go to someone else for no reason and literally enslave a whole continent right?

They mustve done something wrong. They were punished after all with slavery right?

This is a narrative of the abuser and the abused. 
But it lacks a particular nuance. 





Deal with it

How then can we actually separate between an abuser and an abused individual. 
It is obviously not by the person that is getting punished is obviously in the wrong because at times the person getting punished

Has done exactly what the punisher is doing (person 1 person 2 dynamic) 
Or has done nothing at all. (a claim of victimhood against them)

For example. 
A person that is getting whipped. 
Might have done nothing at all. 
Or might have whipped this person prior. 
 

So to say that the punished person is in the wrong and the punisher is in the right is just nonsense. 


(what punishment does to individuals as well as the way it works)


To say there is no such thing as an “abused” individual is an outright lie. 
There are individuals/groups/and countries even that are mistreated and “punished”. 

How then can we come to look at a “punished” person and come to understand the abuser and abused relationship. 






By understanding how NOT to look at the situation (person 1 person 2 dynamic or claim of victimhood) it is a lot easier not to get sucked into a shallow consideration of the situation between the punisher and the punished. 


Instead we can look more deeply at the dynamics that occur with each individual. 


The punisher as well as the punished. 

The punisher. 
The punisher puts the punished in a tough or horrible situation. Doing whatever it is that they do to them. (page x). SOmetimes as a wway to get someone else to stop doing something to them, and other times because they are “fine” individuals. 

However the punisher must contend with something that is quite difficult. 
The punisher may think, if the punisher is such fine individual how then do  they do such heinous things to the punished. 

This is something that the punisher must content with. And so the punisher says, it is not because the punisher is horrible that that the punisher does horrible things, it is that the punished is so horrible that they deserve these horrible things to happen to them. 


On the other hand, the punished dynamic works as follows. 
The punished says to themselves, if the punished is such a fine individual, then how come they are getting punished. 
It MUST be that the punisher is such a horrible individual and so they aer punishing the punished. 


Between them there is a conflict so to speak, or a gridlock or a game of hot potato. 
Each one is attempting to “pass” “the” “buck” onto the other person. 

By punishing the other person, and keeping them in a punished position they effectively get to answer the question of whether or not they are “fine” individuals. The more each one of them engages in the dynamic, and the more escalated the things that are done become, the more imperative it is to make sure that the “other” “side” is the punished one, otherwise they would have to contend with all the horrible things that they did. Ultimately accepting that all the horrible things they did to the other in an attempt to make them the punished weren’t actually justified. 

In other words, the punisher is the one who ultimately gets to “prove” that they are “fine” individuals while the punished has to conted with the nnotion that all the heinous or horrible things they did in an attempt to put the other side in the punished position is actually evidence of how heinous they are. 




The way it works is as follows. 

The punisher punishes the punished. (could be person 1 person 2 dynamic or because they have established themselves for some reason as the “fine” individual) 

If the punisher is able to keep the punished in the punished position. The punisher says to themselves that the punished deserves it. (otherwise they would have to say that they are horrible people and should get punished instead for doing heinous things to the punished, so they attempt to explain away their punishment by saying its because the punished is so horrible) 

The punished on the other hand has two options, accept the punishment (ultimately agreeing with the punisher stating that they are horrible people) or rejecting the punishment stating that they disagree with the punisher. 

The real issue arises when the punished individual REJECTS their punishment.
This is a statement that says to the punished, your punishment is evidence of how horrible YOU ARE and not evidence of how horrible the punished is. 

Rejecting this notion, (since the punisher may be engaging in the person 1 person 2 dynamic or already named themselves a “fine” individual) the punisher uses this as FURTHER evidence that the punished individual MUST get punished. 

As a result, the punished individual gets put in a situation where

They must either accept this punishment to avoid FURTHER punishment. 
Or get this punishment, reject it, and get punished further for rejecting it. 
Ultimately they lead to the same outcome, where the punished individual gets punished. 

Some punished individuals  label themselves as “smart” saying its pointless to resist since it will only lead in further punishment while the revolutionaries would say that it is worth punishing the other people that are punishing them. By doing so they could get back their glory and self respect. They could prove that all the punishment they did isn’t evidence of how horrible they are but how horrible the other side is. And they must “get” how great they are in order to bring about this shift. 


The dilemma here is that if the person punishes the person that punished them 
They start the person 1 person 2 dynamic where they must continue to punish the punished individuals (to continually justify their abuse and not admit to their heinous behavior)
And if they don’t, they are engaging in the punisher punished dynamic where they are getting punished. 


This is the dynamic of the punisher and the punished as well as the dynamic that occurs between the two. However in the midst of all this one can come to understand which one exactly is the punished and which is the punisher by examining the following.