Data in the form of recognizable patterns will be taken from the Conceived in Liberty book by Murray Rothbard.

From a general viewpoint already expressed many times the pattern will emerge to fit the narrative offered.

General Viewpoint; Narrative Offered:

Members of the Cult of Might Makes Right alone or in groups, combined groups or independent groups, desire a goal, they create the means to arrive at the goal, and they perpetrate those actions that achieve the goal.

Dogma of the Cult of Might Makes Right:

1. Might Makes Right

"Right" is not moral, it is immoral in this case. A self-contained confession that is self-evident within the dogmatic falsehood is, and it does not depend upon what is: is. The lie in the message Might Makes Right is the fact that might (power) overpowers lesser mighty power, and there it is, in the phrase itself, do you see it for what it is? It is merely factual on its own, without the false connection to "right," that the greater power (might) overpowers the lesser power: less mighty. Adding "right" confesses the lie.

Not a lie: Greater Might overpowers Lesser Might (as in greater evil overpowers lesser evil)
Self-evident, self-confessed, documented lie: Might Makes Right

In Rothbard's book is the often repeated term Force Majeure

Example definition of Force Majeure
"Greater, superior, or irresistible force."

Dogma of the Cult of Might Makes Right Continued:

2. Mankind is bad, therefore it requires one exceptional individual to force mankind to be good.

The individual making the claim is the same individual who exemplifies all that is bad about mankind, an exceptionally bad individual who is intimately aware of just how bad mankind is, an authority if you will on just how bad mankind is in fact. That exceptionally bad example of mankind has a solution for the evil of mankind, and that solution is to allow that individual to steal all the power produced by mankind, including children, and allow that individual to do whatever that individual pleases with that stolen power, and no one is allowed to question those actions done by that exceptionally evil expert authority on just how evil mankind will be.

So here is a report in the Conceived in Liberty book:

Chapter 46
King Philip’s War

"Since the massacre of the Pequots in 1637, there had been no open warfare between whites and Indians in New England. The expansion of the white settlers encroached seriously on ancient Indian lands, hunting grounds, and fisheries. Generally, the land was sold voluntarily by the Indians, but, as previously noted, the Indians had no firm concept of private property in land, as landed property was held communally and inalienably by the tribe. The Indians therefore regarded the purchases as a form of lease and thus could not help being hostile to the whites’ clearing the forests for agricultural purposes. More justifiable was the Indian resentment at the white government’s arrogant insistence on imposing white colonial laws and sovereignty over the Indians. Indians were hauled into white courts to settle disupotes (even all-Indian disputes), and for failing to pay tribute and to obey such rigorous white laws – obviously incomprehensible to the Indians – as observing the Sabbath, and not blaspheming. Blasphemy, in fact, was punishable by death. And particularly significant was the New Englanders’ penchant for confiscating Indian land as punishment for Indian infractions."   

Page 334

I could quote the words in the same book, the words that narrate the massacre of the Pequots earlier in the time-line, but for now please know that this is a repeating pattern. Certain individuals seize power over everyone else in an area, but these individuals want more power. These individuals then cause conflict among the people in the area. There are many ways to narrate this process. The word destabilization fits to describe this pattern. The words "divide and conquer" works. Those in power gain more power after the goal is reached. What is the goal?

"massacre"

That is the goal. Now look in the mirror. How many people have you massacred today? How about yesterday? Is that your goal for tomorrow? Will you be blamed, are you responsible for, and therefore accountable for a massacre or two or three?

From the above is this:

"...there had been no open warfare between whites and Indians..."

The time span in question is from 1637 to 1675 which you can check to find as the start of King Philip's War.

Above in the Dogma I showed how false blame is projected from an evil individual who blames everyone else for the evil of mankind, and this individual claims to be the only one capable of forcing everyone else to be good, so this individual has that goal, to force everyone else to be good, which is the only right thing to do, and to do that, there will be a few massacres along the way, blamed, of course, on the people being massacred along the way.

My narrative is different. I see that the goal is to massacre, and all the lies are there just to make the victims less powerful, and to make the criminals more powerful, because the tyrant, the dictator, the Mob Boss, cannot perform the massacre on his own and get away with it. The lone gunman massacre criminal is obviously just another Serial Killer, Serial Murderer, Mass Murderer acting alone for selfish, psychopathic, sociopathic, reasons or non-reasons. So...how to mass murder and get away with it? How does one gather up all the fellow mass murderers to work in concert? How does one inspire people to join the cult, to become mass murderers too?

Put on your thinking caps.

“At this point, Plymouth began a series of outrageous harassments of the Wampanoags, who had by this time been driven into the Mt. Hope Peninsula, on Narragansett Bay, now the site of Bristol, Rhode Island. On mere rumor, and with no real evidence, Plymouth ordered Alexander into the General Court in 1662 to defend himself against the absurdly vague charge of plotting mischief. Having successfully defended himself against this accusation, Alexander unfortunately died, giving rise to suspicion among some Indians that he had been poisoned by the whites. Shortly afterward, Alexander’s successor, his brother Metacom (or Philip), was similarly hauled into court to defend himself against similar rumor-based charges. He too was found innocent.”
Page 335

So King Philip is found innocent in some nebulous court. Was it trial by jury, was the jury stacked? He was found innocent. It was King Philp's War, or at least blamed on him, right?

How does one reach the step called destabilization? How can one get the power to cause people to go at each other’s throats in the land of plenty? The answer is to seize control of all those things that are valuable, such as, for example, the truth, and thereby the truth finding process also known as the law, and on the list of things to steal is the land. Once those powers are in hand, what is in the way of reaching the goal?

Remember the goal? Put on your psychopath hat and think. What is the goal?

“The New England Confederation, in the summer of 1675, faced the question: Should it limit the war to its existing confines, or should it use the war as a point d’appui for virtual extermination of the Indians of New England?”
Page 337

There is much more to that narrative by Murray Rothbard in that book Conceived in Liberty. There is a lot in that narrative that I do not agree with, but for now I just want to stress the importance of recognizing, being cognizant of, the pattern.

Peace.
Then massacre people on land that is rich in value.
Peace.
Then massacre of people on land that is rich in value.
Peace.

Some people blame those who are massacred. Some people blame people ordered or inspired to do the murdering, and I agree that there is a name for that type of accountability, and then there are people whose minds are filled with the desire for innocent blood before the fact, during the fact, and after the fact. Those individuals, historically, create involuntary associations, whereby they are then in front of a number of empty seats on a pyramid shaped hierarchy that awards and affords the best and brightest their ladder to the top, the price of admission, however, is moral cognizance. You can’t get in the cult without leaving morality behind, as a matter of fact.

"Actus reus refers to the act or omission that comprise the physical elements of a crime as required by statute."
[law.cornell.edu]

In context the term actus reus means those who are moved into a corner, such as a cornered animal, and there is at that point very few remaining options, a lesser power facing force majeure, the one cornered has an undesirable choice and a greater undesirable choice, and often the force of nature, instinct, self-preservation takes over at that moment in that place, at that time. Why would people be inspired to voluntarily move themselves into a corner like a rat? What force, what power, and be specific, is at work to move people, in a land of plenty, to situations, places on earth, where it becomes kill or be killed?

"Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is "guilty mind.""

What is the goal?