The Strange Direction of Conflict: Ordinary People Instead of Institutions

Written on 9 August 2026.

The Strange Direction of Conflict: Ordinary People Instead of Institutions

Introduction

An interesting feature of Mike Saha's worldview is the difference between the powerful forces he talks about and the people toward whom his anger is actually directed.

Mike presents himself as someone resisting a hidden system of persecution. He speaks about gang stalking, handlers, police involvement, secret programs, and other large forces supposedly operating against him.

Yet in practical life, his anger is often not directed primarily toward the police, psychiatry, or other real institutions that possess legal and coercive power.

Instead, his anger frequently becomes directed toward ordinary people.

This creates a strange reversal.

Mike describes himself as resisting powerful forces, while many of his practical enemies are people encountered in shops, caregivers, strangers walking past him, people wearing particular clothing, people wearing perfume, or people who have spoken to him in ways he regarded as bullying.

Real Institutions and an Alleged Hidden System

It is important not to combine two different categories.

Police and psychiatry are real institutions.

They have buildings, employees, laws, procedures, records, and formal powers. They can directly affect a person's liberty and daily life.

The hidden persecution organization described within Mike's gang-stalking worldview is different. It is part of the explanatory system through which he interprets events.

These things should not be treated as though they were the same category.

The interesting question is therefore not simply whether Mike believes he is fighting "the system."

The question is:

Who actually becomes his enemy in everyday life?

The Enemy Becomes the Ordinary Person

In practice, much of Mike's anger becomes focused upon ordinary individuals.

A person may walk past wearing a particular shirt.

A person may wear perfume.

Someone may appear at a shop at the same time as Mike.

Someone may say something Mike interprets as directed toward him.

A caregiver may make a comment he considers insulting or bullying.

Such people can then become incorporated into the larger explanatory framework.

The consequence is that an ordinary person can cease being simply an ordinary person and instead become interpreted as a participant in persecution.

This is especially significant because the ordinary person may not know anything about Mike's explanatory system at all.

From that person's perspective, they may simply be:

• shopping,
• walking somewhere,
• wearing their normal clothes,
• using perfume,
• doing their job,
• or expressing an ordinary opinion.

Yet within Mike's interpretation, the same behavior can acquire an entirely different meaning.

The Caregiver Example

A particularly revealing example is Mike's anger toward a former caregiver.

He describes her as having bullied him and refers to an occasion where she asked whether he was scared or whether there was something frightening in the direction he was avoiding looking.

It is understandable that a person can become angry when they believe somebody has mocked or humiliated them.

But what becomes interesting is the amount of significance the incident receives.

Mike repeatedly imagines meeting the woman again and confronting her.

The conflict therefore moves away from an abstract struggle against powerful institutions and becomes a personal conflict between Mike and an ordinary individual who said something to him that he considered offensive.

The ordinary interpersonal encounter becomes part of a much larger worldview.

A Reversal of the Supposed Power Structure

This produces a peculiar result.

The worldview describes Mike as being opposed by powerful forces.

Yet the practical direction of his hostility often runs downward or sideways toward people who possess little institutional power.

The person wearing a T-shirt does not control psychiatry.

The shopper in the supermarket does not control the police.

The person wearing perfume does not control government policy.

A caregiver may have some authority within a particular situation, but she is still very different from the institutions themselves.

Nevertheless, these individuals can become the immediate objects of suspicion, anger, denunciation, or confrontation.

The State Does Not Become the Practical Enemy

This is where the pattern becomes especially interesting.

One might expect somebody who believes powerful systems have harmed him to concentrate his hostility upon those institutions.

Yet that is often not what happens.

The police remain the police.

Psychiatry remains psychiatry.

Government institutions continue functioning.

Meanwhile, the practical conflict becomes:

• Mike versus a caregiver.
• Mike versus somebody in a shop.
• Mike versus somebody wearing particular clothing.
• Mike versus somebody wearing perfume.
• Mike versus somebody who made a remark.
• Mike versus somebody whose behavior he interprets as coordinated.

In this sense, ordinary people absorb much of the conflict.

The Practical Effect

Whatever Mike believes the ultimate cause to be, the practical effect can therefore be almost the opposite of rebellion against institutional power.

His attention becomes occupied by people around him.

He watches what they wear.

He listens to what they say.

He interprets their timing.

He examines their behavior.

He becomes angry with particular individuals.

He considers confronting them.

The institutions themselves can consequently remain relatively distant while ordinary social life becomes the battlefield.

This does not require the conclusion that Mike consciously supports the state.

The more limited observation is sufficient:

A worldview presented as resistance to powerful forces can, in practice, redirect hostility toward ordinary people instead.

Autism as the Organizing Identity

Another important part of Mike's worldview is autism.

He repeatedly identifies himself through the modern category of autism and interprets many conflicts partly through the difference between himself and people who do not share his way of experiencing or understanding situations.

This can produce another division:

Mike versus ordinary or neurotypical people.

People who react differently from him may appear insensitive, hostile, mocking, or threatening from within his perspective.

Consequently, a secular diagnostic category becomes part of the structure through which social conflicts are understood.

The Biblical Difference

This is also significant from a Bible-centered perspective.

The King James Bible does not contain the category of autism.

Nor does it contain the modern "targeted individual" framework.

These are modern categories brought from outside Scripture.

The Bible certainly discusses persecution, oppression, false accusation, rulers, authorities, enemies, suffering, peculiar people, weakness, affliction, wisdom, foolishness, fear, anger, and many other aspects of human life.

But it does not instruct the believer to organize his identity around a psychiatric diagnosis.

Therefore a Christian can reasonably ask whether a worldview is actually being derived from Scripture or whether Scripture has merely been added to an already existing secular interpretive system.

A Worldview Built Outside the Biblical Vocabulary

This may explain an important difference between two apparently Christian approaches.

One approach begins with concepts such as:

• autism,
• neurotypicality,
• targeted individuals,
• gang stalking,
• handlers,
• covert signals,
• psychological classifications.

Biblical language can then be incorporated into that framework.

Another approach begins with the Bible itself and asks what categories Scripture provides for understanding human conduct and suffering.

Those approaches are not identical.

The first can remain fundamentally dependent upon modern secular categories even when biblical verses are subsequently attached to it.

Conclusion

The striking feature of Mike Saha's worldview is therefore not simply that he believes powerful forces oppose him.

It is where the conflict ultimately lands.

The theoretical enemy may be enormous.

The practical enemy is frequently an ordinary human being nearby.

A shopper, caregiver, passerby, neighbor, or person making an unwanted remark can become the concrete representative of a much larger imagined struggle.

At the same time, real institutions possessing actual coercive power — such as police and psychiatry — may remain considerably less central to his anger.

This creates a paradox:

The worldview presents itself as resistance against powerful systems, while much of the actual conflict is transferred onto ordinary people.

AI Disclosure: Parts of this page may have been created, edited, or assisted by artificial intelligence tools (such as ChatGPT or other language models). All AI-assisted content is reviewed by a human before publication. For questions, contact the site administrator.