Decoding the Red Pill: Social Media and the rise and radicalization of the Alt-Reich.

Greetings and welcome to a detailed discussion of the specific psychological mechanisms that underpin the radicalization process and how social media has been weaponized by corporate and political actors to exploit this specific (naturally occurring) emergent behavior. This essay will explain how certain types of media (often heavily reliant on the spoken word) can "teach" the human brain to accept/reject new information based on its adherence to a recognizable formula, (a process I call "Narrative Induction") and that once so induced a specific types of media result in a predictable and steady process of radicalization- progressing from nonviolent (at first) to violent* (the "Radicalization Engine"). 

*Violence appears first as lone wolfs attempting to fire the "first shots" of what they expect to be a great war (e.g. the Charleston Shooter), and if left unchecked this progresses to small groups taking to public spaces to enact violence on targeted minorities (e.g. Charlottesville).

But first a few words about the author. I was raised in an authoritarian cult environment and despite rebelling against the specific cult I was raised in wound up involved in a series of cults during the early stages of my adult life. Eventually my dysfunction (as well as my untreated mental illness) resulted in my becoming homeless. While homeless I finally hit my personal rock bottom and checked myself into treatment. I spent several years in intensive therapy learning to deprogram myself. (as well as manage my schizophrenia) During the process of deprogramming I started a personal vanity project meant to both help myself understand the environment I had been raised in as well as to help others understand the authoritarian mindset. With the (genuinely heartwarming) support an an internet community I was able to develop my ideas into the "Narrativist Framework- a detailed psychological framework that describes the behavior/mindset of the extremists I was raised around and used to be myself.

I mention all this upfront because I want to make clear that I am not a credentialed expert and do not have a college education. The cult I was raised in had its own school and they were largely responsible for my education growing up. (I have been trying my best to fill in the gaps ever since I graduated high school but I was largely taught irrational fantasy nonsense.) Rather I prefer to think of myself as being akin to Mowgli trying his best to explain the Jungle to those who have never lived in it. I understand all of this on an intuitive level and (as a result of my schizophrenia) have an unusual capacity for pattern recognition. I am therefor doing my best to convey an intuitive understanding of this topic- I am not always perfect or completely correct but I feel my work is well reasoned and insightful enough to be worth hearing out.

Lastly before I dive into the meat of this (it's coming I swear) I want to clarify my reasons for writing this in the first place. I aim to 1.) explain the radicalization process in such a way as that the average person can both recognize and understand why groups like Gamergaters or r/Incel became so radicalized and 2.) prevent the same from happening (even more than it already is) on the progressive left. (The progressive lefts love-affair with purity tests can result in the exact same radicalization process playing out in progressive communities if left unchecked.) While much of this essay will cite examples from the Alt-Reich that is only because they present the most clear and well-known examples of the behaviors described- I could have used examples exclusively from the left if I had been willing to put in about 4 times the legwork/been willing to use examples that required more explanation. (Radicalization is much more widespread/developed on the right at present than it is on the left, but there is plenty enough radicalization on the left to warrant concern.)

Returning (finally) to the main thrust of this essay let me first explain how new Narrativists are created before I explain how radicalization occurs. Narrativism is what I call a "Self Replicating Behavior Pattern"- that is to say that Narrativism is a naturally occurring behavior pattern that results from changes to the way the way the brain processes information. These changes in the way the brain accepts/rejects new information are caused by exposure to Narrativist media over a sufficiently long period of time. (The younger the mind the less overall exposure required- this is why tweens and young teens are becoming very quickly radicalized by youtubers like PewDiePie.) Specifically media that communicates using what I call "Bypass Logic" through the medium of the spoken word seems to be the most reliable method of inducing the brain to adopt Narrativism.

For a demonstration of this process impacting an adult mind I would like to cite the excellent documentary "The Brainwashing of My Dad". In the trailer for this documentary you can see the general premise of my argument demonstrated: A normal father begins to listen to right wing radio (spoken word relying heavily on Bypass Logic) during long commutes. This results in the father becoming a clear example of a Narrativist and undergoing a steady radicalization over the years. (Thankfully in this case the story ultimately has a happy ending.)



Next we come to the Radicalization Engine. In order to explain this concept I will need to heavily reference terms and concepts from the Narrativist Framework. While brief descriptions of each of these concepts are provided here it is strongly recommended that readers new to this material also read the longer definitions provided for each term.

*I am occasionally asked why I rely heavily on using the Narrativist Framework instead of referencing similar concepts that exist elsewhere in academic circles. The reason is because while it may lend a bit of credibility it would require so much extra explanation as to ultimately cancel out any positive benefits in my view. While a number of my concepts have similar counterparts, there are are often enough differences that I would need a significant explanation next to each term- in addition to a number of my concepts being completely novel and requiring the creation of a new term in either case. Furthermore modern psychology has not yet attempted to connect these concepts in the way I have and I would be taking pieces from 20 different theoretical frameworks while needing to explain what pieces of which theory are relevant and why. The overall result would be a confusing mess for both myself and the reader. As a result I feel it is just far simpler to use my own terms for these concepts: the Narrativist Framework was meant to describe how these concepts are interlinked to begin with and once understood it requires far less effort to communicate far more information with the Narrativist Framework than it would be using/adapting existing concepts within academia.

The Radicalization Engine is a three step process:

• 1.) Narrative Dysphoria: When the experience of the real world does not align to the expectations generated by the Inner Narrative a form of cognitive dissonance that I call Narrative Dysphoria. This cognitive dissonance is relieved in a Narrativist group by engaging in a 
• 2.) Compaction Cycle: The ritualized scapegoating and expulsion of a member of a Narrativist community*. Events that generate large amounts of Narrative dysphoria often produce visible Compaction cycles in online communities as the less radicalized are driven out by their more radicalized brethren. Those driven out from one Narrativist group very rarely stop being Narrativists however and instead will often join a new Narrativist group. After a Compaction Cycle there is very frequently a clear period of
• 3.) Inner Narrative Evolution: The stresses of the Compaction Cycle cause the brain of the Narrativist to adopt Bypass logic ever more heavily- resulting in The Enemy becoming a steadily greater threat (with an ever-increasing retinue of unearthly powers) and justifying ever greater (and eventually violent) responses in order for the Narrativist to defend themselves from expected annihilation.

*If the Narrativist community is large and radicalized enough they will also target non-Narrativists for scapegoating/harassment and expulsion from society.

The above process can be seen playing out over and over in virtually every single right-wing affilaited space at present- from the notorious FreeRepublic.com to the (thankfully now closed) r/Incels and r/physicalremoval*. (This process can also be observed playing out in smaller scales on a number of left-oriented online communities as well.) Once recognized the cycle becomes clear and almost routine: a wave of Narrative Dysphoria (of late these are often caused by the bumbling of the Trump administration) is followed shortly thereafter by a Compaction Cycle (often targeting anyone who publicly questions the emerging groupthink), then shortly after the Compaction Cycle there is a noted uptick in the radicalized behaviors exhibited by the involved groups.

*I would argue that the very name "Physical Removal" is a direct reference to the psychological imperative to engage in Compaction Cycles.

One of the cleanest examples of this process comes from the Trump administration itself in the form of the firing of Reince Priebus. The various leaks in the administration were an ongoing source of Narrative Dysphoria and Reince was first scapegoated for these leaks before being publicly Compacted out of the Trump administration. Shortly thereafter there was a noted uptick in radicalization among Trumps inner circle- particularly when a month after Reince was fired Trump gave his infamous speech supporting white supremacists in the wake of Charlottesville.

It is my contention that Narrativism (and all attendant behaviors like Narrative Induction) are naturally occurring behaviors: I would even argue that early on in mankinds history Narrativism likely provided a community with more benefits than costs. When human communities were very small (often sub 200 members) Narrativism would have presented a way of creating a group united by common beliefs instead of by familial ties- and during the first 180,000 odd years of human existence that very likely may have been a significant survival advantage over human groups that relied solely on familial ties for alliances. Narrativism would have spread from speaker to listener- but only very slowly as much of the average persons time was occupied with meeting basic needs. The much smaller community sizes also meant generally fewer opportunities for Compaction Cycles- and therefor a sort of "soft cap" on the degree of radicalization that could occur in a given community before it became too small/dysfunctional for the process to continue unabated. 

However modern mass media overcomes all these soft limits and makes it possible for large numbers of individuals to be radicalized quickly (as happened in Nazi Germany). The 24/7 barrage of Narrativist media enabled by modern social media has enabled Narrativism to develop even faster-it has also enabled hostile foreign actors to interfere in rival countries simply by monetarily supporting media that supports either Narrative Induction or some portion of the Radicalization Engine.* (Russia has been slowly trial-and-erroring its way to a better understanding of how to manipulate Narrativism over the past several years: Its most notable successes thus far being Brexit and Trump's election.) 

* The following video demonstrates this very nicely I think:

An Ouroboros of Delusion: Why Cults and Other Extremist Groups are Often Lead by Narcissists.

Greetings gentle reader, my name is Prester Jane. I am a reformed authoritarian cultist who has written a detailed guide for understanding how extremist groups function, operate, spread their ideas, and radicalize- called the "Narrativist Framework". Although familiarity with the Narrativist Framework is not required to understand the following blog entry, it is strongly suggested. While most of this article will be a discussion of a novel way to understand narcissists it presumes a familiarity on the part of the reader when discussing some of the finer points of how narcissists interact with Narrativism. (For the convenience of readers new to this material I have included a link to the definition of each concept from the Narrativist Framework the first time it appears in this article.)

This blog entry will address one of the more common topics I am asked about by readers- the relationship between narcissists like Donald Trump and Narrativists. Many readers have noted the similarities between the delusional self-image that a narcissist projects and the delusional reality that a Narrativist experiences and query me about various aspects of how they relate- as a result I have addressed aspects of this topic in a sort of piecemeal fashion across a variety of platforms (reddit, FB, SomethingAwful, etc). Naturally this state of affairs is proving quite unsatisfactory as my readership grows, so I am making this blog entry as a way of providing a centralized resource for the specifics of my thinking on how narcissists and Narrativists interact.

Presuming one is already familiar with my definition of a Narrativist I must define specifically what I mean by a narcissist. I am not speaking of someone who merely has a few narcissistic traits or very low empathy in conjunction with very high self image- I am talking about an individual who has a combination of two very specific psychological traits which I will describe in detail below. As I do so I ask the reader to keep Donald Trump in their mind, as he is by far the clearest example of an individual with these two traits that exists in the public sphere.


As regards this discussion a narcissist is an individual who has a personality disorder that results from the combination of two distinct psychological conditions:

1.) They are in a more-or-less permanent state of disassociation, a psychological state which is most frequently caused by severe childhood abuse. (It can occur naturally in certain rare individuals, but the majority of Narcissists are created by their parents/caretakers during childhood.) As a result of this a narcissist has literally no internal dialogue and is functionally incapable of processing information from a first person perspective. This is not an exaggeration, a narcissist cannot process information from a first person perspective and must rely on the reactions of those around them to process any information about themselves at all. A narcissist can only recognize their own existence within the reactions of other human beings. Without human beings to get reactions from a narcissist is quite literally unable to recognize any sense of themselves and experience a tremendous existential dread. Much of their moment-to-moment existence is premised upon first and foremost avoiding the experience of this dread by constantly getting reactions from those around them.

2.) The Narcissist has developed a literal psychological addiction to what I will call here "Narcissistic Supply", hereafter just "Supply" for short. A Narcissist creates a false self image that they use to constantly force reactions from those around them. The Narcissist will actually have multiple false self-images but will have a few that represent unrealistic fantasies that the Narcissist has of themselves. When these particular false self-images are validated by the reactions of those around them, the Narcissist experiences a massive rush of the brains natural feel-good chemicals. This results in an almost heroin-like euphoria that can last far far far longer than heroin ever can. (Once a developing narcissist makes the connection between validating a particular false self and experiencing a rush of bliss the the onset of addiction is rapid.) However- like any other addiction the pleasure of Supply is subject to the hedonic treadmill. Greater and greater Supply are always needed to maintain ever diminishing results. Also like a heroin addict a Narcissist can "binge" on Supply. Under the right circumstances they can sustain a binge for months or years- however this will take a massive toll on their cognitive abilities and a narcissist will noticeably deteriorate during a prolonged Supply binge. (e.g. the rapid degeneration of Donald Trump from his performances during the first GOP Primary debates compared to his public conduct at present- Trump has been on one long Supply binge the entire time and is now starting to deteriorate before our very eyes.)

With these two factors understood I can elaborate a little bit on the behavior of a Narcissist. Their primary goal is to avoid experiencing the empty sense of dread that is the result of their lack of an inner dialogue, so first and foremost they must generate any reaction from anyone around them. However, they will always have a preference for having their idealized fantasies of themselves validated, as this results in a drug like euphoria that is literally on par with heroin.

Unlike heroin however this drug-like euphoria can crash within moments, and the narcissist can switch from experiencing this euphoria (which they will believe is their default "true" state) into experiencing the existential dread that is their true existence. This switch can cause them to lash out at the slightest thing that interrupts their delusions of themselves. Although they often understand enough to restrain these impulses in public, in private they will unleash their full fury on those they have control over.

Broadly speaking Supply can either be Positive (worshipful praise) or Negative (hatred and scorn), and each Narcissist generally acquires a taste for their own particular mix. In the case of Donald Trump he seeks purely positive Supply, in the case of Martin Shkrelli purely negative, and in the case of Milo Yiannapolis he prefers a mix of being adored by his fans and hated by his enemies. To the narcissist what matters is the euphoric rush of brain chemicals- how they get it and what they have to do (or how badly they have to hurt someone) are completely irrelevant concerns.

The narcissists' need for constant validation is where they interact with Narrativists. Narcissists naturally learn how to be incredibly manipulative people- as a result they become experts at detecting individuals whom they can potentially manipulative. A Narrativists' need for constant validation/reinforcement of their Inner narrative drives them to seek social authority figures who will provide that validation/reinforcement. As a result many a narcissist has figured out how to appeal to Inner narratives in order to gain Supply- and in the course of history more than a few well-positioned narcissists have been able to convert Narrativist movements/organizations into their personal Supply dealers.

The relationship is entirely transactional: The narcissist receives constant Supply by spouting whatever nonsense his Narrativist supporters desire him to, and the Narrativists get the ability to (at least psychologically and temporarily) live in the delusional world of their Inner narrative. Once a narcissist gains power within a Narrativist group they can be exceedingly difficult to remove or impede- the regular tactics of a narcissist (such as smear campaigns) make them natural masters of the Compaction cycle, and they often become quite adept at using Compaction cycles to both eliminate rivals and deflect consequences for their personal failures.

An example of the above playing out would be the firing of Reince Preibus- a textbook Compaction cycle if there ever was one. Trump (a clear example of a narcissist as discussed above) was successful in pinning the blame for the Narrative dysphoria his supporters were experiencing (resulting from the leaks to the press) on Reince Priebus. Trump then arranged in grand fashion to have Priebus compacted out of the group in what amounted to a public ritual. The result shortly thereafter was that Trump's inner circle became noticeably more radicalized and extreme.*.


*Thankfully that trend has been reversed now that Kelly has become White House Chief of Staff, but it is still rather concerning that a military low-compaction Narrativist (which Kelly demonstrably is) is so influential within the halls of power.)

How the GOP (accidentally) became a doomsday cult: Introduction to the Narrativist Framework.

Greetings gentle reader, my name is Prester Jane and I would like to welcome you to a very fascinating and ongoing discussion about the present political situation in the United States. To explain why this discussion is so interesting I will have to provide some background both on myself (the primary author of the Narrativist Framework) as well as explain the context and conditions under which this discussion evolved.

Over the years I have learned that with a history like mine the only viable approach to explaining it is to be frank and direct. So without further preamble I was raised in a cult that had its own k-12 school, and I either attended this school or was homeschooled under the supervision of this cult until I turned 14. At which point I went out and got a Social Security Number of my own volition (SSN's were a precursor to "the mark of the beast") and enrolled myself in a public school.

In my high-school years and for approximately a decade afterwards I become involved in a series of small cults. Also during this period I slowly developed schizophrenia. The net result of these two factors was that I eventually hit my personal rock bottom and checked myself in to receive professional mental health help. I shortly thereafter received a formal diagnosis (schizoaffective disorder) as well as extensive medication support and therapy.

In the course of my recovery and deprogramming (which as you can imagine involved rather a great deal of therapy) I began to develop my own personal framework for understanding the mindset and behavior of the extremists groups I had spent so much time living in and amongst. In 2015 I began publishing pieces of this framework on a paywalled discussion forum.

The community that I chose to publish on permitted an unusual experiment in collaboration. I approached the community very openly about my schizophrenia as well as my lack of formal education. I was also very open about explaining that the source of these ideas was an artifact of how my mental illness altered the way I think. Under these conditions the community was able to engage with my ideas as a sort of collective experiment in directing the freewheeling nature of a schizophrenics thought process and was very honest but fair in its reactions/disagreements/critiques, and as a result a (rarely seen on the internet these days) spirit of collaboration became the underlying groundrule for the discussion.

In short I approached the conversation well aware that I was both a schizophrenic (as well as lacking in a formal education) and that I would need to be on guard at all times for how my illness can impact my thinking, and the community approached my material by investing enough of their own time/energy to be able to discuss my ideas in my own (often very schizophrenic) terms. In general the discussion proceeded by my introducining a new concept (often with its own associated vocabulary) along with a some supporting examples culled from media and my best attempt at a rough explanation of what it meant and how this concept fit in with others. There would then follow a great deal of back and forth discussion as the thoughtful reactions of many other participants allowed me to hone both my own understanding of the concept as well as how to better explain it to others. Then there would follow a discussion about the refinements themselves and so and so forth.

One of the fruits of over two years of this unusual experiment is what this paper is primarily about: The Narrativist Framework. Before I delve deeply into that discussion just yet though I must further beg the gentle readers patience by first providing a discussion on exactly what I feel this framework describes- and what it does not. (The import of making these distinctions early will become obvious over time as the reader delves into the body of this work.)

The Narrativist Framework is a description of a particular set of behaviors and the social environment that individuals exhibiting these behaviors tend to recreate whenever they reach a sufficient threshold of influence in society. These behaviors (and their underlying causes) are ultimately apolitical in nature: They are explicitly and emphatically not inherently right or left wing in nature. Any individual or organization can potentially exhibit these behaviors regardless of their political leanings.

The Narrativist Framework is also primarily a description of the structure of the beliefs that Narrativists/Narrativist organizations embrace. The nitty-gritty specifics of the beliefs any group discussed here are not nearly as important as how those specifics all conform to an identical structure, a story-like format that I have named the Grand Narrative.

Finally the Narrativist Framework is (and I must emphasize this here) not an attempt to pathologize the right wing, it is an attempt to describe a particular set of behaviors exhibited by individuals whom within the present American zeitgeist tend very frequently to be right wing oriented- this is a result of historic forces with the Republican Party itself (notably the backroom dealings of Barry Goldwater) as well as the logical consequence of utilizing the particular public relations strategy ("dog-whistling") that the GOP has embraced for several decades now. I want to state very clearly that in my view the present insanity we see playing out in the Trump administration could just as easily had a D next to its name if the Democratic Party*** had made the same sorts of decisions.

***In fairness to the Democratic Party, despite this Millenials' personal criticisms of the DNC (and they are varied, nuanced, detailed, and acid edged) the Democrats as a whole have not engaged in the sorts of political strategies that court Narrativism, and as a result left-leaning Narrativists in the US are a rare and mostly toothless breed, although pockets of them do exist. (TERF's, Tankies, "Tumblrina's" various tiny Marxist cults, etc.)

And last of all I would like to take a moment to thank the numerous community members of SA that have made significant contributions to this work, and in particular I would like to thank poster Fuschia Tude for taking the time to condense a great deal of material into the present format, as well as taking the time to clean up many of the particular artifacts that my illness had on my earlier writing.




Authors Note: The structure of the ideas and their meaning is mine, but much credit is owed to the SomethingAwful.com Debate and Discussion community for making numerous contributions to the descriptions contained as well as the naming conventions used herein. Further this present work represents a first attempt at uniting the entire framework into a single cohesive whole. As a result I have struck the supporting arguments (which are considerably larger than the definitions themselves) presented for each of these terms, as some of these terms have individually resulted in 10's of thousands of words worth of debate in and of themselves. The following Glossary therefore represents the easiest path to learning the basics of the Narrativist Framework without diving into the (incredibly interesting but nonetheless lengthy and tedious) underlying discussions that spawned many of these terms.





Continue on to "Narrativism/Narrativist".

Full Glossary of Terms.

Authoritarians and the Bypass of Perfect Safety: Why Sessions threats to journalists will resonate with Trumps radicalized base.

Greetings gentle reader- my name is Prester Jane and this article is intended to use a nuanced discussion of Jeff Sessions recent threats to jail journalists as a way of both providing insight into the authoritarian mindset as well as providing a detailed introduction to a couple of basic concepts of a theoretical framework used to describe/understand the behavior of authoritarians- the "Narrativist Framework".

I am the author of the Narrativist Framework* and before I delve into it I need to clear a few things up. The Narrativist framework is based upon my own experiences growing up and around several cults throughout my childhood and young adult years. To cut a great deal of personal testimony down to its relevant bits I eventually escaped and sought proper mental health treatment. (I was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder as well as PTSD and general anxiety disorder and have taken my ongoing recovery very seriously). The Narrativist Framework then is a product of my best-faith efforts to convey the b mindset that I formerly lived in- and to make that mindset comprehensible to those who have no direct experience of it. I mention all this up front because I feel it is important for the reader to bear in mind that my work here is that of (at best) a talented amateur with a unique insight- I readily concede that my theories would be well served with refinement at the hands of formally trained experts.

*More like primary author- an entire community has contributed to the overall framework and I have at times served more as conductor than author.

With all that pre-amble out of the way let us return to the matter at hand- putting Jeff Sessions recent public threats to arrest journalists into context. I will refer the reader to the video below as the rest of the article will be centered around explaining how the Narrativist Framework can provide deep insight into the rhetoric that Sessions is using here as well as why that rhetoric will resound so deeply with Trumps radicalized base (while turning off everyone else.)

Whew, we made it through that. (Scary stuff, huh). Well to my mind the fear of the unknown is the greatest fear of them all and to that end I shall en-devour to enlighten the reader as to the nature of authoritarians (hereafter referred to as Narrativists) with an aim to make the unknown into the known. Whether or not this will reduce the readers fear of authoritarians is a question that is presently stuck in endless clinical trials whose participants are bound by ironclad NDA's. There is much more at work here then generic impending fascism stuff- there is a comprehensible method to the madness of how Jeff Sessions is thinking and why he is making this threat in this very specific way.

You see Jeff Sessions is what I would call a Narrativist**- a specific type of extremist that filters their conscious experience of reality through a story-like filter that I call the "Narrative". Jeff Sessions is here appealing to other Narrativists- a group that presently composes the bulk of Trumps hardcore supporters.  Specifically Sessions is using a particular form of rhetorical manipulation of Narrativists that I call "Bypass" logic. That is to say; Sessions is framing his words in such a manner as to appeal to Narrativists by exploiting a conditioned response- one that is inherent to Narrativists.

** I consider Jeff Sessions to be a Narrativist that falls comfortably within the Racist Cluster.

While there are calculating imitators of Narrativists who understand how to do this only through careful study (e.g. Ted Cruz), Sessions is a Narrativist himself and as such understands how to perform this particular form of rhetorical manipulation on an instinctual level. The inner world of Jeff Sessions is governed by Bypass logic, and as such when he seeks to justify an action in pursuit of his Inner Narrative he does so using Bypass logic by default.

Now we can (finally) get into some serious meat here- the above video allows me to provide a real-world demonstration of all three primary forms of Bypass logic:

• Bypass of Perfect Safety: Sessions directly implies that leaks are killing our troops and putting us all at risk- this we must be made perfectly safe from this threat by stopping all leakers. How do we stop all leakers? Narrativists know only one solution to every problem, and that is the Bypass of Maximum Force.
• Bypass of Maximum Force: "Use as much force as you can as quickly as you can in every situation" is more or less the Narrativist credo. Sessions is threatening to imprison journalists because that is the maximum amount of force he can bring against them right now. That is literally the entirety of the depth of the reasoning at play here. Thing (journalists reporting on leaks) bad so me hurt thing bad. Why is thing bad? Because journalists reporting on leaks is both a strong source of Narrative dysphoria (described in detail below) as well as the simple existence of leakers running contrary to the Bypass of Purity
• Bypass of Purity: Everything is black and white in the Narrativist world- Good guys are all good and bad guys are bad. The world is a series of conflicts between clearly identified foes and allies. You can always trust your allies and you must always destroy your enemies. When your allies turn out to be untrustworthy (when Trumps subordinates expose his insanity) this simplistic teamsport-based conceptualization of reality is damaged, and a Narrativist will instinctively reject information that violates the Bypass of purity because the Narrativist subconsciously presumes that the natural state of the world is in full adherence with the Bypass of Purity. (Therefor if something violates the Bypass of purity, it must be discarded because it must be wrong.)

Now lets get into some really neat stuff. Remember that term above that I promised to go into detail about ("Narrative dysphoria), well now it is time to discuss what that is and how it is the fuel that drives the complicated process of radicalization among Narrativists. All Narrativists have some form of Inner narrative- a set of beliefs that always pits them as a participant in a (desperate and ongoing) grand battle between good and evil- with the stakes always as high as they can possibly be and rising ever higher. (Broadly speaking the more radicalized a Narrativist is the more they emotionally invested themselves in their Inner narrative.) The belief in this Inner narrative generates certain expectations about how situations the Narrativist feels invested in will play out, (Narrativists think they are living in a story (Grand narrative), and they expect the story to unfold according to their Inner narrative). When this does not happen (which is often) the Narrativist experiences this conflict between reality and what they expected from reality as a particular form of cognitive dissonance, and it is this cognitive dissonance that I have labeled "Narrative dysphoria".

There is a common belief shared among a lot of non-narrativists, when they observe how narrativists behave, that narrativists are incapable of feeling cognitive dissonance, or as I previously coined it, "Narrative Dysphoria". This belief is so prevalent that it has become one of those unstated assumptions about extremists that everyone takes as read. Based on my experiences both growing up with and having been a Narrativist, I strongly disagree with this idea. In a Narrativist group wherein a sufficient portion of the members are experiencing Narrative dysphoria at the same time the (eventual) result will be a building of tensions that finally gets released via a "Compaction cycle"- the ritualized scapegoating and casting out of members of the group. (If you read one concept I link to you then I urge you to make Compaction cycle that one thing- it is such an important concept that I even linked it twice.)

A Compaction cycle is when a Narrativist group such as Trump, his inner circle and his base - although Trump himself is just a parasite with a particular mental illness that allows him to easily exploit Narrativists - forcefully expels someone from their midst. This is often done after placing the blame for the Narrative dysphoria on them. Compaction cycles are often conducted in the most publicly humiliating and vicious way possible. Reince Priebus is an excellent demonstration of these concepts: Reince was scapegoated as the source of Narrative dysphoria (the leaks to the press from the Trump White House) and was ritually forced out of the inner circle in the most vicious and publicly humiliating way possible. 

In the wake of a Compaction cycle there is also another distinct step in the process of radicalization of a Narrativist group- the process of "Inner narrative evolution". In the wake of a Compaction cycle any negative emotions a Narrativist might experience (they are still in fact human beings who just attacked a comrade for no reason, that still hurts deep down) will drive them to develop a more elaborate version of their Inner narrative- one that makes their actions into a heroic act against a wicked enemy rather than a sudden betrayal of an associate. Developing this Inner narrative will cause the Narrativist to incorporate Bypass logic on an even deeper level- impacting even more of their thinking. This process often takes a few days/weeks to play out- but we can see some of the early impacts of the Compaction cycle against Reince Priebus (Scaramucci was a Compaction cycle as well but for contextually complicated reasons beyond the scope of the present discussion) resulting in Sessions public attack on journalists.

Following along this theme we can see a pattern emerging within the Trump Presidency, one that allows us to have some fairly detailed expectations for how events are likely to continue to play out in the Trump administration - absent the intervention of some external force, that is. Sources of Narrative dysphoria (the leaks, though important, being far from the only one) will cause more Compaction cycles to play out within Trumps White House.

And then more Narrative dysphoria will set the whole process in motion again.

Update to the Glossary: Added Clusters.

(In the ongoing process of improving the Narrativist Framework Glossary section I have now added a new page with a more formalized definition for Narrativist Clusters. This is meant as a general introduction to the concept of Clusters and not as the final word on Narrativist Clusters. I have included the new section below to make it easier for readers to stay up to date.)




Within Narrativism in the United States (and probably all populations with a sufficiently developed number of Narrativists) these individuals tend to organize themselves into groups aligned along commonly held . These group Inner narratives are aligned first by reaching a general agreement over whom the group perceives as the Enemy and then filling in the blanks for the rest of the Grand narrative as appropriate.

Narrativist groups (or groups that are not necessarily Narrativist in origin but happen to have lave a large percentage of Narrativists in them) can be broadly spoken of as belonging to one of four "Clusters"- which can be classified by the general format of who they perceive as their great Enemy. That is to say that Narrativist Clusters are classified not so much by [i]Who[/i] they view as the Enemy but rather the underlying aspect of human behavior/society that they are most afraid of and then declaring that the solution to the any and all problems is the destruction/subjugation their chosen Enemy. There are four such Narrativist Clusters (Racist, Religious, Economic, and Paranoid) and each shall be examined in some detail below.

• Racist Cluster: Examples of Narrativist groups in this Cluster would include the KKK, Neo-Nazi's, Confederate apologists, and various aspects of the Alt-Right. Racist Cluster Narrativists are obsessed with external physical differences in human beings and build their entire Grand narrative around setting strongly enforced levels of acceptable/unacceptable differences in human beings. A Racist Cluster Narrativist often views their own DNA/Blood/Skin as their God force and will declare their physical body as proof of their membership in the Elect as well as their direct connection to the God-Force. Racist Cluster Narrativists always desire to set their own particular group (those who posses whichever physical features they have deemed in their Inner narrative to be "pure") as a ruling class over tiered system of "lesser" groups that they view as useful for work but requiring supervision. At the bottom of this tiered system will be the group possessing whatever physical traits that have been deemed to be the Enemy, and in social structures wherein Racist Cluster Narrativists have taken control they will often exorcise Narrative dysphoria in their community through the public torture/execution of one of the Enemy rather than engage in a Compaction cycle against one of their own. 
• Religious Cluster: Examples of Narrativist groups in this Cluster would include both Christian Dominionists and ISIS (although ISIS is much more highly compacted the structure of their Inner narratives is virtually identical) as well as Jehovah's Witnesses and various groups of Southern Baptists and Christian Fundamentalists. The Religious Cluster is obsessed with both human behavior and human belief and seeks to create social environments wherein "incorrect" behavior or beliefs are punished viciously and publicly. Religious Cluster Narrativists always see themselves as divine messengers of the God-Force and seek to create a strongly controlled social hierarchy based upon a combination of correct beliefs and behaviors. The more correct your beliefs/behaviors the higher your place in a social environment dominated by Religious Cluster Narrativists. Conversely, behavior and beliefs are what distinguish the Enemy and Religious Cluster Narrativists will obsess over every phrase uttered by their Enemy as well as how every belief their Enemy holds about the world is wrong/dangerous. Religious Cluster Narrativists are also obsessed with the idea that incorrect behavior or beliefs can make one "impure"- unworthy somehow (perhaps permanently) of either the love of the God-Force or basic human dignity.
• Economic Cluster: Members of this Cluster are obsessed with the way that resources are distributed within society and always choose as their Enemy some sort of "takers"- or group that takes more from society than it returns and will thus consume society out of existence. Objectivists, An-Caps, and Libertarians are the goto examples for Economic Cluster Narrativists. This Cluster normally has some sort of abstract concept as their God-Force with the two most common examples being the "Free Market" or the "Non-Aggression Principle" and always declares themselves a member of the elect (e.g. "Captain of Industry) because of their claimed "true" understanding of and obedience to this abstract principle. Economic Cluster Narrativists are notably less likely to become high-compaction than other Clusters as a result of their tendency (within the modern zeitgeist) to attract highly individualistic and ambitious individuals. As a result Compaction cycles tend to fracture Economic Cluster Narrativists easily (e.g. virtually every An-Cap group, ever) or tend to have a very hard time attracting anything more than a small core of dedicated followers (e.g. Stephan Molyneux). Economic Cluster Narrativists are always pre-occupied with ensuring that their chosen Enemy has no access to any of societies resources (including food) and often views poor people as a sort of pestilence that threatens to wipe out society unless the poor themselves are either put down viciously or at least kept out of sight. Economic Cluster Narrativists associate possession of resources (which in our modern culture has been reduced simply to money) with proof of good character and obedience to the God-Force and desire a social environment that is dominated by those who control the most resources.
• Paranoid Cluster:Conspiracy Theorists ala Alex Jones and David Icke would be the classic examples of Narrativists from this Cluster. The Paranoid Cluster always views the dominant social structures of the society within which the Narrativist exists as the Enemy, that is to say that the Paranoid Cluster sees itself oppressed by the structure of society itself first and foremost and therefor constructs its Inner narrative around this theme. Opposition to whatever is viewed as the true power secretly controlling society is a central theme of the Paranoid Cluster. They are consummate synthesizers of Outer narratives- holding no particular affinity for ideology or origin of an Outer narrative- so long as it attacks the dominant social structures in some way a Paranoid Cluster Narrativist is more than happy to either use it directly or re-purpose (very common, e.g. the John Birch Society's Blue Book is essentially just Russian anti-semitism with the word "commie" scribbled over "Jews") it in some way. The Paranoid Cluster is a bit of an oddball in that in any given society they are often the first to break word or suss out genuine misdeeds by the powerful within their society- however they are also unable to distinguish fact from fiction and often rapidly discredit themselves in the event they do uncover an actual conspiracy. The Paranoid Cluister always sees themselves as possessors of special insight (and very often special or supernatural powers) that marks them as superior to the rest of the population who accepts the dominant social power structure. Often the Paranoid Cluster's God-Force is an abstract concept like Freedom! (shouted at the top of ones lungs), variations on the God-Force as some sort of "ascended" intelligence sending instructions through a priest to guide the planet into some sort of Gaia state are frequently found within the Paranoid Cluster as well.

Trump Supporters, Narrative Dysphoria, and destroying the Enemy. A demonstration of how Trump suppoters experience cognitive dissonance and believe that harming Democrats is the solution to all societal ills.

Authors Note: The following article presumes a working understanding of the Narrativist Framework on the part of the reader. If you are new to this material then the relevant concepts from the Narrativist Framework have been linked the first time they appear in the article.



So I came across an interesting article that is a fascinating example of someone who is a mid-compaction (neither particularly high but certainly not really low) Narrativist trying to process all the Narrative dysphoria they are experiencing as a result of Donald Trump/Republicans slowly outing themselves as hollow conmen. The GOP Congress Better Get It's Act Together, Or It's Sunk. The entire article is for the most part a badly formatted polemic blaming the Republican Party for the Narrative dysphoria the author is experiencing, and further threatening a massive retaliatory compaction cycle. I decided to examine some portions of this article in depth with an eye towards both illustrating Narrative dysphoria as well as the authors unusually frank admittance of a concept I call "Victory by Destruction of the Enemy" when he flatly declares that his expectation is for the GOP to do only things that hurt Democrats because hurting Democrats is both what they were elected to do as well as the key to success.

First off let us start out with the opening paragraphs of this article because even as badly written as this article is the opening at least does a good job of setting the tone.

Kurt Schlichter posted:

“Everything’s fine,” smiled Captain Paul Ryan smarmily as he steered the Titanic into an iceberg. “Now, let me get back to shafting our own voting base via my incomprehensible determination to cancel the tax deductions that Republicans use instead of cutting handouts to Democrat-voting freeloaders!”

We are sailing toward disaster in 2018 and no one seems to want to acknowledge it. Let’s look at the facts and evidence.

Data Point One: We scraped by in a couple of House special elections so far, including Punchy McSlugahack’s in Montana, but that Daily Kos reader-funded-12-year old non-resident Democrat dork is going to beat the charisma-free Republican in the Georgia 6 race next week. Our enemy is motivated and smells blood.

Data Point Two: Because she is a droning non-performer, Theresa May took a 24 point advantage and turned it into a loss in Britain.

Data Point Three: Our GOP Republican legislators are droning non-performers who have a 10 point disadvantage going into 2018.

The theme underlying these opening paragraphs is that the author is experiencing quite a bit of Narrative dysphoria because of the contradictions between what her Inner narrative is telling her should be happening now that Trump is in power and the reality of what is happening now that Trump is in power. In fact in just 8 sentences this author references seven separate sources of Narrative dysphoria that are obviously causing her stress. (In point of fact the opening of this article is barely more than a list of sources of Narrative dysphoria with barely any attempt to relate them to each other.) Let us take a moment to briefly examine each of these sources.

• “Now, let me get back to shafting our own voting base via my incomprehensible determination to cancel the tax deductions that Republicans use instead of cutting handouts to Democrat-voting freeloaders!”: Paul Ryan's actions will hurt Republicans and Democrats and that puzzles this Narrativist. Narrativists can only conceptualize improving society by harming their Enemy (a theme this author shall return to later in this article) so the fact that Ryan's actions will harm both Democrats and Republicans disagrees with the expectations generated by the Inner narrative, thus Narrative dysphoria is experienced.
  
• ["i]We scraped by in a couple of House special elections so far[/i]": Now that the country has risen up and elected the champion of the people the GOP should be crushing every single election.
  
• " including Punchy McSlugahack’s in Montana": Behaving like a brazen thug and being rewarded for it is something that this Narrativist is certain only the Enemy would do. Seeing it come from his own side (which is supposed to be made up only of pure-hearted "good guys") is clearly disconcerting.
  
• "but that Daily Kos reader-funded-12-year old non-resident Democrat dork is going to beat the charisma-free Republican in the Georgia 6 race next week.": Weak intellectuals are not supposed to defeat manly/heroic good guys, even if they are "charisma free".
  
• " Because she is a droning non-performer, Theresa May took a 24 point advantage and turned it into a loss in Britain.": Narrativists will almost instinctively flock to and support Narrativist leaders no matter where in the world those leaders are or what group they represent- see for example the rights strange love affair with Vladimir Putin. (Putin knows how to appeal to Narrativists) Seeing even a foreign leader who is associated with Narrativism take such an unexpected defeat is a source of Narrative dysphoria in this case.
  
• "Our GOP Republican legislators are droning non-performers who have a 10 point disadvantage going into 2018.": Now that Trump has won and the GOP controls all three branches we should be being ushered into a glowing Conservative utopia. (As seen on the documentary Leave it to Beaver.) Instead deadlock has continued and little has changed despite all the power in the hands of the Republican party at the oment.
  

From here on out the article is more or less just pure lashing out at Narrative dysphoria. None of these bits are particularly worth diving deeply into (although you can see other portions of the Narrativist Framework at play here there are better examples to use to illustrate them) so I will simply quote a couple examples.


[Bracketed comments are mine.]

Kurt Schlichter posted:

“But stuff is getting done!” the GOP leadership insists, which might be true but is definitely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if “stuff is getting done” if your voters don’t know it and support you. Now, when Paul Ryan talks directly to us on Hugh Hewitt's show or elsewhere, he actually makes sense. He explains his strategy, so we can sigh “Oh, there’s a reason for all this and a coherent plan. Phew.” But then Ryan says something unbelievably stupid along the lines of, “As Speaker, my job is to pass legislation, not to go out and sell our agenda to voters.” No, that’s a steaming pile of Harry Reid.

....


Stop failing. Start doing what we sent you to do and letting us in on the plan. Let us see you are intent on winning and you’ll start to rebuild the confidence your incompetence has shattered.


....


You must get the President’s agenda passed, but, at the same time, you must keep us in the loop. See, we don’t trust you. You haven’t earned our trust. We know you hate the idea that we are going to hold you accountable for what you do and fail to do and you don’t like it. Too bad. Because now we’re watching, so you better communicate with us to explain what we see and why it’s not surrender or failure. As the hep kidz say, we’re woke. [Note the threatened compaction cycle here.]


....


So stop wasting time and effort cavorting with the Democrats about their fake Trump/Russia obsession. Those crusty senators with their “We must uncover the truth about these questions” nonsense need to stop. We all know the truth. It’s all a liberal lie.

Cut our taxes, like the GOP promised.

Rebuild our military, like the GOP promised.

Fix infrastructure (wisely), like the GOP promised.

Build a wall, like the GOP promised. [The wall with Mexico is a physical manifestation of the Bypass of Perfect Safety which is why Narrativists cling to it so much.]

Kill Obamacare, like the GOP promised.


....


The Democrats are out there recruiting military vets – there’s one jerky liberal everyone finds annoying in every big unit, and that’s who they pick. They’ll preen and pose and get elected and then salute General Pelosi and vote as ordered on every item of Democrat soldier-shafting liberal hackery. That’s the threat – are you ready for it? You need to spend some time and effort on candidate selection and grooming; you need to make sure that in every district our money is on a winner. Are you doing that? Who is doing that? Why do none of us know about how you are doing that?

Finally we come to the end of the article and probably the best demonstration of the Narrativism benchmark of "Victory by Destruction of the Enemy" that I have yet found. I will first quote the relevant portion of the Narrativist Framework and then quote the article's much more succinct summation of my ideas.

Narrativist Framework posted:

Victory by Destruction of the Enemy: All Narrativist models for changing society involve destruction of an identified "other", and nothing else. "If we just got rid of X, everything would be fine." When I was a conspiracy theorist, I believed that simply eliminating the globalists and getting out of humanity's way would basically fix everything. When I was a David Icke-loving UFO nut, merely destroying the Reptilians and their agents would have resulted in humanity raising its vibration to a heavenly level and fix everything. When I was a fundamentalist, I believed that converting (or destroying) all the unbelievers would fix every problem on Earth. Objectivists believe that getting rid of all regulations would result in the emergence of a new golden age of prosperity for all. For racists, crime and social ills would disappear if we just stopped coddling blacks or illegal immigrants (or killed them all).

No thought is given to actual policy or the reality of a given situation. Much like all Narrativist battle plans boil down to "fight big, fight hard", all Narrativist strategies for fixing society's ills boil down to "destroy the other". Nothing is planned beyond that. There is no "what do we do when we win?" because that question is pointless. If they win, they have already won, you see? They believe that the simple non-existence of whoever or whatever they chose as their enemy would result in a natural order emerging or reasserting itself and harmony would ensue.

In short, the one weird trick that will give them everything they want is always "destroy the enemy". And the way to destroy the enemy is always in a big battle.

(Italics in original)

Kurt Schlichter posted:

And we need to stop jamming our own voters in the name of some arbitrary, D.C. think tank g-generated conception of good policy. Good policy is what wins. How about not imposing anything upon us that hurts the GOP base? You see, you're there to represent Republicans. Some goofs and wusscons have the idea that you're there to represent all voters, but that's nonsense.

You are there to represent the people who voted for you, not the liberal whiners and welfare cheats who didn't and who hate you and us. So we're not going to close off deductions that help Republicans and we're not going to increase taxes on Republicans and we're not gonna do other things that hurt Republicans. We're going to hurt Democrats.

That's called politics. Try it. It’s amazingly effective.

If you do, we win. If the economy is cranking in November 2018 and health insurance premiums are under control – and they will be if you keep your promises – then you’re fine. Otherwise, you’re gone.

As demonstrated above this Narrativist can only conceive of advancing his agenda by harming those he deems to have lost a struggle against his side. There is no "Do good things for Republicans" step in the above, rather the above author is operating from the logic of "If the Democrats are harmed then Republicans are helped by default and if we harm the Democrats enough then the economy will boom. There isn't any thought given to how harming Democrats will help Republicans, it is simply accepted as a patently obvious truth that Republicans/society benefits when Democrats are harmed. Note how there isn't any thought given to how to harm Democrats, it is simply accepted that if they are harmed then it is good for Republicans.

Or to put it another way the above quotation is just a really angry way of saying "Lottery in June, Corn be heavy soon." (Assuming of course that only a particular group of people were drawing folded pieces of paper out of hat.)

Oathkeepers are now openly declaring their expectation to engage in violence against the left.

So I came across this video today and wanted to comment on it. As predicted (or really expected at this point, these are hardly even predictions anymore) the Oathkeepers have emerged as a quasi-vigilante force providing armed "security" for Proud Boys and the like at demonstrations. This video is a demonstration of a high-compaction Narrativist that has reached a 10 on my hypothetical compaction scale. He is fully prepared to engage in violence and at this point the only thing really holding him back is our militarized police force. (He admits this pretty directly.) In this video he demonstrates many of the Benchmarks for Narrativism as well as winging that even Hitler admitted that Islam is more "masculine" than our "feminine" Christianity.

Based on my experience in cults/being a high-compaction Narrativist, the way this individual calmly asserts that there will be a Civil War within three years while calmly describing anything his perceived Enemy does as preparations for the coming conflict. Within Trump supporters at present I believe that there is momentum building for another Rapid Narrative Convergence Event, and under the current circumstances a R.N.C.E. would have a very high probability of turning violent. Thankfully with Trump running the Federal government it is much harder for his Narrativist supporters to find a venue for this R.N.C.E to play out (taking over a federal wildlife refuge isn't going to cut it this time) so for now very little is likely to come out of this. However with this much momentum building towards a R.N.C.E. if a venue opportunistically presents itself (hard to imagine how, although I can see a militia targeting a facility owned by a state government in a blue state like California) then we could see civil order break down on a small scale wherever the R.N.C.E. winds up playing out at. (Civil order was severely strained during the Malheur occupation and required turning portions of the city into a fortress.)

"Introduction to the Narrativist Framework" or "How the GOP accidentally turned itself into a doomsday cult".

Authors note: The following represents the first draft of this work to be published for public consumption. The most up to date version of this work can be found at this link.


Greetings gentle reader, my name is Prester Jane and I would like to welcome you to a very fascinating and ongoing discussion about the present political situation. To explain why this discussion is so interesting I will have to provide some background both on myself (the primary author of the Narrativist Framework) as well as explain the context and conditions under which this discussion evolved.

Over the years I have learned that with a history like mine the only viable approach to explaining it is to be frank and direct. So without further preamble I was raised in a cult that had its own k-12 school, and I either attended this school or was homeschooled under the supervision of this cult until I turned 14. At which point I went out and got a Social Security Number of my own volition (SSN's were a precursor to "the mark of the beast") and enrolled myself in a public school.

In my high-school years and for approximately a decade afterwards I become involved in a series of small cults. Also during this period I slowly developed schizophrenia. The net result of these two factors was that I eventually hit my personal rock bottom and checked myself in to receive professional mental health help. I shortly thereafter received a formal diagnosis (schizoaffective disorder) as well as extensive medication support and therapy.

In the course of my recovery and deprogramming (which as you can imagine involved rather a great deal of therapy) I began to develop my own personal framework for understanding the mindset and behavior of the extremists groups I had spent so much time living in and amongst. In 2015 I began publishing pieces of this framework on a paywalled discussion forum.

The community that I chose to publish on permitted an unusual experiment in collaboration. I approached the community very openly about my schizophrenia as well as my lack of formal education. I was also very open about explaining that the source of these ideas was an artifact of how my mental illness altered the way I think. The community approached my work and was very honest but fair in its disagreements/critiques, and as a result a (rarely seen on the Internet these days) spirit of collaboration became the underlying groundrule for the discussion.

In short I approached the conversation well aware that I was a schizophrenic and that I would need to be on guard at all times for how my illness can impact my thinking, and the community approached my material by investing enough of their own time/energy to be able to discuss my ideas in my own (often very schizophrenic) terms. In general the discussion proceeded by my introducining a new concept (often with its own associated vocabulary) along with a some supporting examples culled from media and my best attempt at a rough explanation of what it meant and how this concept fit in with others. There would then follow a great deal of back and forth discussion as the thoughtful reactions of many other participants allowed me to hone both my own understanding of the concept as well as how to better explain it to others. Then there would follow a discussion about the refinements themselves and so and so forth.

One of the fruits of over two years of this unusual experiment is what this paper is primarily about: The Narrativist Framework. Before I delve deeply into that discussion just yet though I must further beg the gentle readers patience by first providing a discussion on exactly what I feel this framework describes- and what it does not. (The import of making these distinctions early will become obvious over time as the reader delves into the body of this work.)

The Narrativist Framework is a description of a particular set of behaviors and the social environment that individuals exhibiting these behaviors tend to recreate whenever they reach a sufficient threshold of influence in society. These behaviors (and their underlying causes) are ultimately apolitical in nature: They are explicitly and emphatically not inherently right or left wing in nature. Any individual or organization can potentially exhibit these behaviors regardless of their political leanings.

The Narrativist Framework is also primarily a description of the structure of the beliefs that Narrativists/Narrativist organizations embrace. The nitty-gritty specifics of the beliefs any group discussed here are not nearly as important as how those specifics all conform to an identical structure, a story-like format that I have named the Grand Narrative.

Finally the Narrativist Framework is (and I must emphasize this here) not an attempt to pathologize the right wing, it is an attempt to describe a particular set of behaviors exhibited by individuals whom within the present American zeitgeist tend very frequently to be right wing oriented- this is a result of historic forces with the Republican Party itself (notably the backroom dealings of Barry Goldwater) as well as the logical consequence of utilizing the particular public relations strategy ("dog-whistling") that the GOP has embraced for several decades now. I want to state very clearly that in my view the present insanity we see playing out in the Trump administration could just as easily had a D next to its name of the Democratic Party*** had made the same sorts of decisions.

***In fairness to the Democratic Party, despite this Millenials' personal criticisms of the Democratic Party (and they are varied, nuanced, detailed, and acid edged) the Democrats as a whole have not engaged in the sorts of political strategies that court Narrativism, and as a result left-leaning Narrativists in the US are a rare and mostly toothless breed, although pockets of them do exist. (TERF's, Tankies, various tiny Marxist cults, etc.)

And last of all I would like to take a moment to thank the numerous community members of SA that have made significant contributions to this work, and in particular I would like to thank poster Fuschia Tude for taking the time to condense a great deal of material into the present format, as well as taking the time to clean up many of the particular artifacts that my illness had on my earlier writing.


Authors Note: The structure of the ideas and their meaning is mine, but much credit is owed to the SA D&D community for making numerous contributions to the descriptions contained as well as the naming conventions used herein. Further this present work represents a first attempt at uniting the entire framework into a single cohesive whole. As a result I have struck the supporting arguments (which are considerably larger than the definitions themselves) presented for each of these terms, as some of these terms have resulted in 10's of thousands of words worth of debate in and of themselves. Belief it or not, the following actually the abridged version of a much larger compilation of this work that I am presently composing.

The Narrativist Framework.

Narrativist: An individual who filters their experience of reality through a story-like internal structure (the inner narrative) and who further engages in compaction cycles (ritualized scapegoating). Narrativists often select their leadership based entirely upon whom they perceive as presenting the most credible threat to "The Enemy". Everything that doesn't compose to their delusion that their chosen leader is going to lead them into smashing the enemy is simply discarded, resulting in them ignoring large chunks of reality. In a sense, they are playing chess while half the pieces are invisible to them. No matter what game plan they ultimately concoct in order to achieve their goals, it will really only make sense to them. To anyone who can see the entire game board as it is set out, what they are doing looks irrational and random, if not outright self-defeating. If however you could perceive the game board the way they do, (that is only seeing the pieces that they want to see), then i would argue that their strategy would make more sense.

So it isn't so much that Narrativists are inherently irrational so much as they are arriving at irrational conclusions as a result of how they are filtering reality. Understanding how Narrativists filter reality enables one to understand the Narrativists themselves. (Ultimately they are just humans trying to meet the same needs as everyone else.) It is my contention that once an individual understands how Narrativists are filtering reality then the pattern behind much of the odd behavior on display in the present political situation makes a great deal of rational sense.

Narrative: Contrary to the common view that Narrativists live by the dictates of some unseen and vengeful God, they actually base their decisions and live their lives based upon a Narrative, of which a petty and vindictive God is always a feature. Whether it be a fundamentalist zealot or rigid objectivist, Narrativists always have a narrative that determines everything they say, think, or do. Narrative is the true god of the Narrativist, which is why what God actually says or does in their scripture has very little practical worth. What Narrativists care about is what God (or a force of nature; say, for objectivists, the free market) should be doing according to the narrative. No matter what is actually happening, they will believe and behave as if the narrative is playing out exactly as they expected it to. Regardless of actual real world circumstances, outcomes, situations, or influence, Narrativists always prize the narrative above all else.

 Grand Narrative: One of the curious things about Narrativists is that no matter what form the narrative they live by ultimately takes, it will always conform nearly identically to certain (surprisingly narrow) details and themes. The names, characters, and settings may change, but the ultimate shape and themes of the story remains uniform. I call this the Grand Narrative. From start to finish, this narrative always follows the same path, to the same eventual conclusion, no deviations. This narrative has multiple sections and each section has certain expectations for behavior. For example, various Narrativist Communist movements have believed themselves living in the "Dawn of a New Age" (the start of the Grand Narrative) and have conducted themselves accordingly. In contrast, American Evangelicals believe themselves to be living at the "End Times", or the end of the Grand Narrative, and they base all their decisions on that perception. Understanding then what part of this universal story an Narrativist thinks themselves living in is critical to understanding what decisions an Narrativist is going to make, and why.


Outer Narrative: The Outer Narrative is what a given Narrativist (or group of Narrativists) claims to believe. "Jesus is Lord!" "Tax Cuts Increase Revenue!" "We are just a concerned citizens militia asserting our 2nd Amendment rights!" etc. Whatever it is that an Narrativist will not shut up about, that is the Outer Narrative.

The Outer Narrative is not the totality of what an Narrativist group believes; it is only the watered-down version, acceptable for public consumption. Whatever it is that an Narrativist proclaims as sincerely held beliefs in public is always going to differ from what gets discussed behind closed doors. Curiously, Narrativists are completely oblivious to this fact. Each Narrativist group believes itself the sole possessor of some great knowledge or insight that makes their group special and uses this as a justification to deliberately obfuscate their real beliefs. However, each Narrativist group judges every other Narrativist group solely by the other group's Outer Narrative.

Another interesting facet of the outer narrative is how often it is used to shield the Narrativist's beliefs from criticism. Broadly speaking, attacking the outer narrative with facts or logic has little result primarily because you are not attacking what the Narrativist actually believes. This is why debating an Narrativist often seems so fruitless; nothing you say seems to make a dent.

Outer Narratives can also be used as coded language to communicate between different groups of Narrativists. If an inner narrative is too socially dangerous to be spoken in public, then outer narrative's will be used in their place. The most ready example of this would be white supremacists using coded language and/or coded arguments when speaking about black people.

Inner Narrative: This is what a Narrativist (or a group of Narrativists) actually believes. Inner narratives are often closely guarded from prying eyes, seldom discussed anywhere that someone outside the in-group may hear. (Alternatively, it will be discussed in a coded fashion using jargon.) Examples of the inner narrative could be a council of elders of a Southern Baptist church discussing their pastor's latest revelations from God, or a racist militia hanging out at Bill's house to drink beer and discuss the coming RaHoWa (Racial Holy War), or a politically active group of Ron Paul libertarians discussing 9-11 truth conspiracy theories in hushed tones at a restaurant. The Inner narrative is always used as an over-arching justification for everything else the Narrativist individual or group is engaging in. Arguing against the Outer Narrative is generally fruitless, as if you do prove an aspect of the Outer Narrative wrong, the Narrativist will turn to the secret Inner Narrative to avoid any painful introspection.

Inner Narratives are generally very self centered (almost narcissistic), placing the believer in a central heroic role, the noble few "True X" struggling against an almost invincible opponent, on behalf of the ignorant (and probably unworthy) masses. It's like living one's entire life in some sort of self-insert fanfiction.

Inner narratives are often realized as a sort of personal revelation, (frequenlty during "narrative evolution", described below) the result of what they consider to be serious "soul searching". A Narrativist in psychological pain from unmet human emotional needs will latch onto a personal inner narrative that brings apparent relief. Often, these come during period of intense struggles in a Narrativist's life. Consider the "born again" process of Evangelicals: they suddenly find all the answers they were seeking, often guided to those answers during prayer surrounded by a group of strangers who are suddenly intensely interested in them as a person. The attention is flattering, the pain is real, and the adoption of the inner narrative brings real relief to a Narrativist. (And thus they adopt the "born again" inner narrative after a moment of manufactured-but-nontheless real emotional relief.)

Narrativists live in a constant state of anxiety or fear, and the more compaction cycles they have experienced the more profoundly they experience this fear, and so they struggle to calm themselves in a complex world. Inner narratives often serve as a salve. It is easier for a Narrativist to think of themselves as a character in a story that centers on themselves and their personal choices having an impact in a holy battle. Fundamentalists, for example, think that Satan and God personally fight over who gets their soul at the end of their lives. God demands obedience, Satan sends people to trick and deceive you into losing your salvation. God will protect you, no matter what, if you obey. You can feel safe and never fear so long as you know what God's commands are and follow them to the letter. A great deal of Narrativist behavior stems from this idea that they must be able to feel perfectly safe at all times, and a key feature of Inner Narratives is how safe they make the Narrativist feel, no matter what.

A Narrativist derives their value as a human being and purpose in life from their Inner Narrative. Debate the outer narrative all you want and nothing will happen, because outer narratives serve as a shield, a deliberately obscured version of the inner narrative. It is expected that parts of it will not hold up to scrutiny from unbelievers, because unbelievers are not ready to accept the more profound truth of the inner narrative. Inner Narratives are always charged with intense emotion, and should you ever attack the Inner Narrative (even inadvertently), watch out!


The Four Structural Points of the Grand Narrative: a conceptual framework upon which all Inner Narratives are constructed. While the specifics of any two Inner Narratives will vary greatly, no matter what form the Inner Narrative ultimately takes, it will have something that satisfies these four specific concepts. A given Inner Narrative, no matter what sort of elaborate justifications and logical gymnastics it performs, will always include elements of these four structural points.

• The God-Force: Within any Inner Narrative will be some concept of either a deity, or an abstract force that functions essentially identical to a deity, that must be obeyed. This deity is always perfect and always makes perfect decisions, and there is always some sort of natural order that would assert itself if all human beings simply obeyed the God-Force without hesitation. For the religious cluster, the God-Force is very simply whatever their concept of God is, be it Yahweh or Allah. For the economic cluster, the God-Force is "the free market".
  
  
• The Elect: This is the group the Narrativists claim to belong to, a group that always has some sort of unique capabilities that makes it best suited to be the group in charge of running Society. The Elect always deserve special rights, privileges, and considerations, owing to the invaluable contribution they give to society by simply existing. A society run according to natural principles with the God-Force at its proper ruling place is a society in which the Narrativist will naturally rise to a position of prominence. The Elect often view themselves as a buffering Force, preventing the dire consequences of violating the will of the God-Force from manifesting within society (and they're not given enough credit for this, and society owes them a debt of gratitude). For example, Narrativist Christians believe that it is their existence that prevents God from wiping out the entire human population because of its wickedness, similar to how an economic cluster Narrativist feels that it is his taxes and his labor that keeps society running despite the near crushing burden of supporting so-called "takers". Economic cluster Narrativists often use terms to describe the Elect like "makers" or "captains of industry".
  
  
• The Beta Class: People whom, for one reason or another, the Narrativist does not identify as belonging to the Elect, but whom are not actively considered enemies of the Narrativist. The Beta class can be best conceptualized as either a group of people that the Elect are meant to be leaders of, or people that the Elect are meant to bring under their power through some form, for example through religious conversion.
  
  Whereas the Elect are always considered to have some sort of super abilities related to the Inner Narrative, members of the Beta class are completely average, run-of-the-mill dunderheads who require constant supervision lest they inadvertently destroy themselves. As a result, any society that adheres to the natural order of obeying the will of the God-Force will naturally place the Elect as a managerial class over the Beta class. The Beta class are, as a whole, considered above whoever The Enemy is.
  
  For the economic cluster, the Beta class are usually just employees, people whose services can be bought and sold to suit the needs of the Narrativist, who in turn directly controls the amount of compensation the Beta class receives.
  
  
• The Enemy: Dark, mysterious, and menacing, The Enemy is a dangerous, powerful, uniquely threatening group, an evil force that plots endlessly to destroy the Elect. The Enemy is seriously, seriously, seriously dangerous. Often, only the Elect are able to understand what a cataclysmic threat the Enemy represents, and one of the big separators between the Elect and the Beta class is that the Elect are always able to recognize the true threat that The Enemy represents. The Beta class are simply too naïve to recognize the threat of the enemy, and this is one reason they must be protected from themselves.
  
  The Enemy is a moving Target, a multi-faceted, complex organism that must be fought simultaneously on multiple fronts. The Enemy always has a collection of absurd advantages, a collection that will only grow over time in reaction to narrative dysphoria in order to explain the various blows suffered by the inner narrative.
  

Narrative Dysphoria: The cognitive dissonance experienced by a Narrativist when observable reality directly contradicts the predictions of their inner narrative. All of reality is interpreted through the storylike filter of the inner narrative- as a result this frequently leads to the Narrativist to have bizarre expectations for future events to play out in a very specific (and highly improbable way).The story-like structure of the inner narrative is "turning a page" if you will, and the Narrativist expects events to line up according to the expectations generated by the storylike delusion of the inner narrative that they are embracing. When real world events directly contradict the expectations generated by the inner narrative, the Narrativist experiences cognitive dissonance as a result. The Narrativist is psychologically compelled to resolve this conflict between observable reality and their inner narrative, and in so doing they are forced to choose between their delusions (which are tied into their sense of identity) or reality. Very rarely does reality win this confrontation. An individual Narrativist will most frequently resolve this stress by selecting someone close to them and labeling them as either incompetent/defective or in some way colluding with the enemy, and they will expel that person from their lives. When a Narrativist group experiences narrative dysphoria the group will collectively resolve the inner stress by selecting a member (or small group of members) of the group as a designated scapegoat and then expelling that member(s). The remaining members then become more radicalized as a result. (Compaction Cycle, described elsewhere).

Compaction Cycle: The compaction cycle is a major factor in how Narrativist groups function and is my term for an unrecognized (but very important) constant low level cycling of individual Narrativists through a variety of different Narrativist groups. The compaction cycle is of primary importance because it describes the trend towards radicalization in Narrativist groups, and even provides something of a barometer than can be used to approximate the general pace of and anticipate when a Narrativist group is about to radicalize. That is to say, when you see a compaction Cycle play out you know the group is about to radicalize further. The more frequently that compaction cycles are occurring, the more rapidly a given Narrativist group is radicalizing. This cycle is also important because it is a major factor in how Narrativist groups build common ground with each other when they are looking for allies. (It also plays a large role in the cross pollination of various strings of Narrativist thought.) To explain this facet of Narrativist behavior I will call forth the metaphor of a snowball. Specifically, a snowball made of that wet slush shit that is right on the border between being frozen and being a puddle.

If you have never gotten a chance to play with such a snowball then let me elaborate. By snowball standards they are heavy, awkward projectiles that travel slowly and are easily dodged. Even when you do hit something with such a snowball, the effect is minimal, usually a wet *punt* sound. This snowball then is a metaphor for the average Narrativist group when it is not under pressure. Unwieldy, awkward, not terribly effective, but can still get the job done. Put a Narrativist group under the pressure of "Narrative Dysphoria" (Defined in detail elsewhere) though, and things change.

Let us return to our wet snowball. If you take it in both hands and compact it, you will squeeze out a surprising amount of water. You will then be left with an ice ball. Although much smaller and having less total mass, an ice ball is a nasty projectile. Fast, accurate, hard to see coming, and can leave a hell of a bruise. To take this example a bit further, if you drop your new ice all in a pile of snow and scoop it all up, you will now have slush ball with an ice ball core. A better projectile than you started with, but not as good as the ice ball by itself was. However, if you compact this new ball down, you will squeeze out the water, and be left with an even larger total amount of ice in a solid ball at the core. Now you are creating a dangerous weapon indeed. And you can keep adding on layers of ice so long as you have a supply of snow, eventually getting a baseball sized projectile of solid ice that can really fuck something up. Even though you lose much mass every time you compact the ball down, as long as you have a snowbank handy to keep dipping your ice ball in, you can keep adding more total ice.

Now back to Narrativist groups. An average Narrativist group when not experiencing narrative dysphoria is like our slush ball. A mixture of hard and soft members, since when forming Narrativist groups are like an annoying new guild in WoW. ("LAID BACK FAMILY GUILD THAT RAIDS AND PVP'S RECRUITING ALL LEVELS AND ROLES PST) They will accept anyone willing to pay lip service to the groups ideals. When not under pressure or threatened, Narrativist groups are much more relaxed and make a conscious effort to be welcoming to outsiders (some of whom are then selectively groomed for admittance into the ever-present-in-Narrativist-organizations "inner circle").

All such groups when under pressure (particularly narrative dysphoria) however, start to drive softer members out. Stress rises, tempers flare. Rhetoric becomes harsher, group identity becomes more important, aggressive members start to scrutinize for any perceived flaw in the tribe. Eventually someone (or a group of someones) finds themselves on the wrong side of an internal dispute. It could be that they are genuinely at fault fault, it could not be, doesn't really matter. In the end they were guilty of the sin of not spotting the group think searching for a scapegoat fast enough and as a result they became the scapegoat and are summarily driven out. (This can be seen in Freep's regular purges of all Freeper's who don't toe the offe line once JimBob utters his official pronouncement on a subject.)

With the "softer" members (or water in our slushball) compacted out, the remaining members are more radical overall. While the overall mass, or number of members has decreased, the remaining members are the ones who have proven themselves to be the most competent at falling in line and will prove less likely to disagree with the group think in the future. They have become like the Ice Ball.

Next the Narrativist group will enter a growth phase, and seek to add new "softer" members (or more snow/slush) who will be welcomed in while a semi-secret inner circle not so publicly makes all the real decisions. This addition of new members will continue until the Narrativist group comes under pressure or is subjected to narrative dysphoria, at which point a new compaction cycle will form and another member (or potientially small group of members) will be made into scapegoats for the group's failures and cast out. (In the metaphor of our slushball, this is another round of compacting the water out of our slushball once again and winding up with an even larger core ball of ice.) The remaining members will become more extreme/radicalized, and will then seek to add new members to the group one again.

The metaphor does not end here though, because we need to consider what happens to those outcast members. Most of the time (85% or so if I had to guess) they will go on to join another group. Since they are Authoritarians they will join another group that also follows the Grand Narrative. (While I would like to mention that this is how you get 9-11 truthers that become UFO nuts that become objectivist shitlords and then wind up being 9-11 truthers again over the course of a long enough period of time, I want to stay mostly with the Freep example.) The Freep members that join some other online Conservative community will be quite a bit more shy about rocking the boat. They will be more sensitive and more alert for changes in their new home-tribes groupthink. They will find themselves drawn to the new groups hardliners and will become more hardline themselves. Often, abused becomes abuser, and when this Narrativist group finds itself under pressure, (particularly narrative dysphoria) the formerly outcast member will be among the most vicious attackers of whoever winds up as the new groups scapegoat.

The overall trend here is that Narrativist groups swap members more often than many realize, and one groups rejected softie becomes the next groups hardliner. Just like our slush ball, the weak are driven out and the ice remains, then more members are added and the cycle repeats until eventually everyone is either a hardliner or has stopped associating with Narrativist groups altogether. I feel this is a good explanation for what we observe in the modern GOP. In raw numbers GOP voters/supporters are in serious decline, but the remaining members are rapidly becoming radicalized. Because of the Authoritarian takeover of the GOP over the past 40 years the less hardcore Republicans are being pressed out of group after group until they either become hardliners themselves or find no home in the GOP.


Think of the Grand Narrative as a sort of basic format that the Inner Narrative will take, a set of hooks that you could hang any Inner Narrative on. So the more compaction cycles a Narrativist experiences, the more developed their Inner Narrative becomes, which inevitably leads to the Inner Narrative conforming more and more with the basic framework of the Grand Narrative. As the conceptual confines of the Grand Narrative are embraced, the Narrativist is compelled to more extreme forms of anti-social behavior, until at the highest levels the Narrativist feels morally justified in committing acts of violence. Think of it as a scale from 1-10, with 1 being the lowest level of compaction and 10 being the point at which there is a strong compulsion to engage in acts of violence. As a Narrativist experiences more compaction cycles, the compaction of their Inner Narrative increases. Put a Narrativist through enough compaction cycles and eventually they will experience a strong compulsion to commit acts of violence.

I must specify here that just because a Narrativist reaches a 10 on my hypothetical scale it does not mean they will become violent; rather, it means that they feel morally justified and obligated to commit acts of violence. Whether they engage in those acts depends mostly on two factions: 1.) how much social stability is there in the community in which the Narrativist resides, and 2.) how much encouragement the Narrativist is receiving from communicating with other Narrativists who are at a similar level of compaction.


Narrative Convergence: When Narrativists perceive a threat (which is often), their first instinct is to strike at the jugular with overwhelming force. It does not matter how insignificant the threat really is, or how wide the gap in power between them and their target; they want to hit a vital spot with every ounce of force they can muster. Their goal is to establish dominance, first by destroying any trace of the threat, second by having witnesses so that other potential threats learn their place. Narrativists are always looking for a big dramatic battle. They are looking for every conflict to go down like the final battle of a Lord of the Rings movie. Fierce, fast, big; that is how a Narrativist wants to fight every battle be it a swordfight or a debate.

With this in mind, Narrativists have been absolutely nonplussed with their steady losses in the culture wars. Despite their attempts to fight cartoonish caricatures, they have found no real solid target to aim their aggression at. While the internal groupthink is certainly strong enough that they all now agree that these devilish liberal strawmen exist, every time they try and go out looking for them they find very little.

Distinctly aware that they are losing the culture wars but unable to find the big battle they crave, the long term stress has lead many Narrativists to do something unusual: seek allies.

Usually, minor differences between their Outer Narratives are enough for Narrativist groups/individuals to reject associating with each other beyond the minimum necessary. (Obligatory Emo Phillips bit here.) However, the pressure of losing the culture wars has forced many Narrativists to become more willing to compromise on elements of the Outer Narrative, so long as the Grand Narrative remains intact. That is to say, in seeking to find common ground with each other (like any other group of people), Narrativist groups have started to become more closely knit than before, united by the Grand Narrative. Whatever differences in Outer Narrative exist are slowly being discarded so long as the over-arching themes of the Grand Narrative are preserved. The Compaction Cycle also plays a role here, as Narrativists that have been members of other groups often serve as bridges between various factions.

In other words, the Outer Narratives of many Narrativist groups are converging on the themes of the Grand Narrative.

Narrative Convergence only occurs when a Narrativist individual or group perceives an unusually severe threat that they either cannot defeat or cannot attack directly. If there is no severe threat, there is no Narrative Convergence.


Rapid Narrative Convergence Event: Rapid Narrative Convergence Events are so named because they occur very quickly. They are essentially one-off self-contained events that occur within the context of a larger Narrative Convergence, but are themselves too short-lived to be a trend in and of themselves. They are a symptom of differing groups of Narrativists being under long term stress, and act as a sort of relief valve for pent up rage and fear. They are dramatic events in which several different groups of Narrativists temporarily suspend their own Inner Narratives in exchange for a new, very short-lived Outer Narrative. These happen only in the presence of a mutually perceived threat to the tribe and last only so long as the threat lasts. As soon as the threat ends, so does the R.N.C.E. As a result, as soon as the threat ends, Inner Narratives suddenly reassert themselves, and the once-united Narrativist groups fracture quickly as they squabble over power. This is my explanation of what occurred at the Bundy Ranch, and to a certain extent, what caused the 2013 shutdown.

There are several factors that must be in place for an R.N.C.E. to occur. These are

• An ongoing long term Narrative Convergence between multiple Narrativist groups.
  
• The presence of a perceived threat to the tribe/prominent member of the tribe.
  
• A long term emotional buildup in Narrativist groups.
  
• Recent humiliating defeats.
  
• A method to create a public fight with clear battle lines and defined sides. (A conflict of Good vs Evil)
  

These are my personal benchmarks for identifying what I label Narrativists. None of these is individually enough, and a given group or individual does not need to possess every single one of these attributes. There are also plenty of examples of one or more of these attributes applying to some non-Narrative individuals or groups. That said, a Narrative individual or group will possess most, if not all, of these traits.

• Binary Thinking: Everything either is, or it isn't. A thing is either good or evil. Black or white. Zero or one. Shades of grey do not exist.
  
  
• Differential Cognition: Any given thing (a person, an object, an idea) can only be understood in opposition to another thing. The entire world is only understood through the filter of how things are different from one another. In addition, these differences must be understood as making one thing better than another.
  
  A Narrativist only understands the world by how this thing is different from that thing. They cannot perceive similarities to anywhere near the extent that they can perceive dissimilarities. Rather than "compare and contrast", Narrativists can only "compare by contrast".
  
  
• Rejection of Introspection: Narrativists do not possess introspection, do not develop introspection, and become highly agitated if they are put into a situation where introspection is called for. Inner Narratives often serve to deflect any potentially painful introspection. If, say, a fundamentalist Christian is feeling guilty over wronging someone, they simply confess their sin, in their heads, to God, and then they experience genuine relief from the guilt, avoiding introspection. Alternatively, the victim of a Narrativist's misdeed could simply be dismissed by employing a just-world fallacy.
  
  
• Victory by Destruction of the Enemy: All Narrativist models for changing society involve destruction of an identified "other", and nothing else. "If we just got rid of X, everything would be fine." When I was a conspiracy theorist, I believed that simply eliminating the globalists and getting out of humanity's way would basically fix everything. When I was a David Icke-loving UFO nut, merely destroying the Reptilians and their agents would have resulted in humanity raising its vibration to a heavenly level and fix everything. When I was a fundamentalist, I believed that converting (or destroying) all the unbelievers would fix every problem on Earth. Objectivists believe that getting rid of all regulations would result in the emergence of a new golden age of prosperity for all. For racists, crime and social ills would disappear if we just stopped coddling blacks or illegal immigrants (or killed them all).
  
  No thought is given to actual policy or the reality of a given situation. Much like all Narrativist battle plans boil down to "fight big, fight hard", all Narrativist strategies for fixing society's ills boil down to "destroy the other". Nothing is planned beyond that. There is no "what do we do when we win?" because that question is pointless. If they win, they have already won, you see? They believe that the simple non-existence of whoever or whatever they chose as their enemy would result in a natural order emerging or reasserting itself and harmony would ensue.
  
  In short, the one weird trick that will give them everything they want is always "destroy the enemy". And the way to destroy the enemy is always in a big battle.
  
  
• A deliberately misleading Outer Narrative: Not merely the existence of a more socially acceptable Outer Narrative, but an Outer Narrative that has been designed to shield the Inner Narrative from exposure and criticism. Outer Narratives are often designed to attract new converts by getting them to accept "simpler" forms of what the Inner Narrative actually is.
  
  
• Absence of Nuance: Narrativists do not understand nuance, or even the concept of nuance. As a result, they never develop sophisticated thinking.
  
  
• Belief in innate superiority: Pretty straightforward. A Narrativist group always believes it is somehow innately superior to all (or virtually all) other groups. White supremacists, fundamentalist Christians, objectivist "captains of industry", Scientologists, etc etc.
  
  
• Unchageable God: Whatever the concept of "God" is for a Narrativist group, God cannot change; you can only change yourself to be more aligned with God. While personal communication with God may or may not be possible, God will never change, God will only change you to be more like him.
  
  
• The Authoritarian Prime Directive: All beings must earn their right to continued existence.
  
  The most primal, important, and deepest assumption about the world underpinning the Narrativist worldview is this idea that living must be "earned" on a recurrent basis. They apply this standard to all beings (themselves included) except their designated God. So, in order to feel secure, a Narrativist must have "earned" his right to exist, and this right is earned primarily by adherence to the Narrative. Whatever the Narrative says a Narrativist should be feeling or doing is what a Narrativist will be do to relieve the endless stress of having to constantly prove oneself worthy before God.
  
  Conversely, providing sustenance to beings not following the Narrative (food stamps for the unemployed, for example) is seen as a personal attack. A taking of their just rewards earned through their merit (the reward provides proof of adherence to Narrative, which brings a genuine sense of relief and accomplishment to the Narrativist) and giving it to people that do not deserve it (nonadherence to the Narrative). This is experienced emotionally by the authoritarian as theft, and the thieves are hated for it. "Why should they get to live easy while I have to work (adhere to Narrative) for everything I have?" is a common refrain from Narrativists.
  
  Social programs are thus viewed with suspicion by default, and very stringent requirements for charity must be met before a Narrativist considers someone truly deserving of assistance. (Basically, you damn near need to be a quadruple amputee at this point to be viewed as deserving not to work.)
  
  
• The Natural Order: "Adherence to Narrative brings reward, disobedience to Narrative brings punishment." Narrativists believe that simply following the Narrative is the prime purpose in life; the true, sole meaning behind the existence of everything. That goes for everyone and everything. Obeying the Narrative brings reward; disobeying the Narrative brings punishment. The only way the natural order can be disrupted is if the actions of the enemy interfere somehow. Thus, if someone is disobeying the Narrative but still being rewarded (wealth, happiness, etc) then they MUST be cheating, somehow. That is the only way to receive reward without adhering to Narrative.
  
  
• There is Always an Enemy: One curious factor in Authoritarian behaviour is that Narrativist groups generally only align against a non-Narrativist threat. So long as the perceived threat is Narrativist in nature, there will be plenty of opposition, but various Authoritarian groups will generally squabble rather than form alliances. However, in the presence of a non-Narrativist threat, narrative convergence will begin and compaction cycles will increase in frequency. In the presence of a Narrativist threat, narrative convergence will not occur, and compaction cycles will be generally slower (although still ongoing).
  
  
• Negative Introjection: All negative aspects of self that the Narrativist experiences are projected onto their chosen enemy. Because of the need for self-purity as justification for continued existence, all aspects of the Narrativist that are considered taboo by the standards of their Narrative are projected outwards, upon the world generally and upon their chosen enemies specifically. Whatever part of themselves that they are ashamed of, that they refuse to acknowledge (for failing to live up to the standards of the Narrative), they project onto their opponents. Thus, by listening to what an Narrativist is declaring about their enemy, you can determine exactly what their own darkest impulses and weaknesses are.
  
  
• Bypasses: Rather than being subtle and difficult to describe, the effects of Narrativism are very pronounced and, once identified, fairly easy to describe. This ultimately comes down to the underlying cause of Narrativism: the specific way that it impacts the brain is what causes Narrativism to be such a pronounced self-replicating behavior pattern. Narrativism is the result of the brain being very "lazy" and evaluating the accuracy of information by using a simplified binary formula instead of the normal, energy-intensive critical evaluation process. As a result of using this simplified process, the brain begins to consistently mis-evaluate the world and perceive threats and chaos where none actually exist. The constant stress of living is in turn what makes Narrativist behavior so distinct.
  
  The brain in a normal person has learned to evaluate new information before either accepting or rejecting it. This process of evaluation consumes electrical energy. The three bypasses represent areas of the human psyche where the brain can be influenced to "bypass" this expensive process of critical thought and simply accept or reject the new information based on its adherence to a simple formula. The brain then favors processing information in this way over time because, from the brain's perspective, it is simply a more energy-efficient way to accomplish a task. (The brain is being "lazy".)
  
  Keep in mind that each of these bypasses functions as a way to replace energy-intensive critical analysis with a simple binary question and accepting/rejecting information based on that. Once a brain has been conditioned to use bypasses, it becomes more energy efficient by switching from evaluating each piece of information on its own merit to evaluating whether or not the information adheres to the proper format. If the information adheres to the format, it is accepted; if not, it is rejected. There is no inherent political bias in these, but rather the political bias of people can be manipulated (or created out of whole cloth) using these bypasses. A bypass will always eliminate the more complicated or nuanced response to a problem, so by framing a topic such that your opponent's ideas seem complicated or dangerous while your ideas seem straightforwards or logical, you can manipulate the way a bypass-reliant brain will perceive the topic.
  
  
  • Bypass of Maximum force: Narrativists' solutions to every problem is to hit it with as much force as possible. There is no concept of a proportionate response, just throw everything we have at it, right now! Rather than invest energy in evaluating a proportional response, the Bypass of Maximum Force simply states that the solution is always Maximum Force. How do we stop ISIS? Glass the Middle East, of course! Conversely, using anything less than the maximum force is considered a sign of weakness, or a signal for The Enemy to attack.
    
    
  • Bypass of Perfect Safety: Note: not the "Bypass of Safety", but the "Bypass of Perfect Safety". You must not be merely safe or reasonably safe, you must be made immune to every threat possible. No matter how small, no matter how remote, no matter how tiny or fictional a threat, if you convince a Narrativist that there is a threat, then they will shut down all nuanced thinking with this bypass. An example of using this bypass is the infamous "Bowl of Skittles" meme about Syrian refugees. The implication of the meme is that because of the tiny chance that a Syrian refugee might pose a threat, all Syrian refugees must be rejected. The Bowl of Skittles meme uses the Bypass of Perfect Safety by amplifying the incredibly remote chance of a Syrian refugee killing you personally into a seeming very real source of mortal danger to the viewer of said meme. The threat is personalized by inviting the viewer to contemplate the act of eating from a bowl of food that has had several small portions poisoned.
    
    
  • Bypass of Purity: Probably the most selectively applied bypass, the Bypass of Purity is used to to bypass critical thought in matters that pertain to the Narrative, typically by implying that something is impure in some way. By implying that something is either impure or tainted-by-association in some manner, events or facts that generate Narrative dysphoria can be readily dismissed. The simplest example would be showing a Narrativist an article on CNN that disproves part of their Narrative. (Either IN or ON.) The Narrativist responds by rejecting the entire article wholesale because it comes from a tainted source. The Bypass of Purity is often involved in the creation of the (frequently ex post facto) justification for running a compaction cycle as well, and the implication that a person who has just been compacted out of the group was somehow impure (e.g. connected in some vague way with The Enemy), then much of the collective guilt around the event can be superficially alleviated, while at the same time the Inner Narrative becomes more developed. I/my group have become important enough that The Enemy is sending agents to spy on us now.
    
  
  To summarize: exposure to media that uses bypass logic can train the brain to use bypass logic as well. Adopting bypass thinking creates streses that result in the creation of an Inner Narrative, and if sufficient Narrative Dysphora is experienced, compaction cycles will result. Compaction cycles drive the Inner Narrative to develop, which in turn increases the potential to experience Narrative dysphoria (by placing a greater gap between their expectations and reality), driving further compaction cycles. The more compaction cycles a Narrativist goes through, the more simplified their thinking becomes (through the increasing adoption of bypass logic), the more the Inner Narrative comes to dominate their lives, the more they perceive a looming threat from an increasingly vile Enemy, and the more prone to violent behavior they become as a result. Compaction.
  

Narrative Awakening: the process via which a Narrativist transitions from one set of Inner/Outer Narratives to another. This is often simple teenage rebellion, but it could be witnessing a trusted leader commit a heinous violation of Narrative, being on the losing end of a compaction cycle, or any similar disillusionment event, causing a Narrativist to lose their faith in the version of Narrativism they are currently involved in. In such situations the Narrativist often enters a psychologically lonely period while they strike out on their own. They have lost their Inner Narrative, and without it they feel forlorn and lost. This period can lead the Narrativist to develop the requisite introspection to recognize the old Inner Narrative as having satisfied some nameless psychological childishness, and subsequently reject any new Inner Narrative they encounter. But most often, the Narrativist feels depressed and miserable without the comfort of an Inner Narrative, and this psychological longing eventually drives the Narrativist to search for a new one.

When a new Inner Narrative that comports to the Grand Narrative is discovered by a Narrativist in this vulnerable psychological state, Narrative Awakening occurs. As the Narrativist is exposed to the "new" ideology of a Narrativist group, there is an instinctual recognition of the comforting presence of the Grand Narrative. Embracing this new Narrative (both Inner and Outer, although the exact order of introduction varies significantly between Narrativist groups) satisfies a deep longing within the psyche of the Narrativist. The presence of the Grand Narrative makes the Narrativist feel safe from the nameless anxiety that had been rising within them ever since they left the previous Narrativist Inner/Outer Narrative.

When the Narrativist is exposed to the new Narrative, he experiences a sudden rush of deep recognition, of need, of acceptance. The Narrativist finds themselves recognizing a deep inner truth, as the once frightening and inexplicable universe suddenly falls into a comprehensible pattern--comprehensible because it is just a new variation of the Grand Narrative. The Narrativist experiences a profound outpouring of emotions and frequently their behavior changes as a result of the high caused by the acceptance of the new Inner Narrative.

This process is most commonly driven by plain old teenage rebellion. To simplify somewhat, Narrativist parents often raise Narrativist children, but a Narrativist child often loses faith in the variation of Narrativism in which the child is raised, later embraces a new Inner/Outer Narrative, and thereby joins a different variation of Narrativism than what they were originally raised under.


Outer Narrative Tailoring: the process whereby Outer Narratives are created or adapted to attract new adoptees of the Inner Narrative. This is done when the Narrativist group feels they are under threat by the source of the Narrative dysphoria, as it generally requires the perceived threat of annihilation to bring a Narrativist to the point of seeking new sources of support.

Outer Narrative tailoring is also a large factor in the phenomenon of Narrative Convergence. Through the process of experimenting with new Outer Narratives, successful ones, those with wide enough appeal to attract new supporters, are naturally discovered. But because of the nature of Narrativist thinking, Narrative Tailoring usually only results in attracting support from other Narrativists. The structure of Outer Narratives generally only appeals to Narrativists or people with a shallow understanding of the topic at hand.

Because of this, a feedback mechanism results: ONs that appeal to the most other Narrativists become adopted as the mantra of the Narrativist group(s) trying to attract new support. The Outer Narratives that attract the most support will naturally be the ones mostly closely adhering to the conceptual framework of the Grand Narrative. This results in various Outer Narratives from different groups of Narrativists "converging" around themes and ideas that are centrally agreeable.


Inner Narrative Evolution: a structural process driven by compaction cycles whereby the Inner Narrative progresses from less extreme to more extreme, following predictable steps. Whenever The Enemy somehow "wins" (and it may not have actually been a real conflict), the Inner Narrative surrounding The Enemy is modified to inflate The Enemy into a more powerful and immediate threat.


Narrativist Wave Event: the general structure of Narrativists seizing control of a society. A portion of society becomes vulnerable to the Narrativist pattern--long term stress results in the brain looking for ways to reduce cognitive load, making it much more susceptible to adopting bypass thinking--in conjunction with being exposed to communications structured using bypass logic. Thus the formation of Narrativists within a population, who then start running compaction cycles when they experience Narrative dysphoria. If there are enough Narrativists feeling enough Narrative dysphoria, then Narrative convergence will occur between all such Narrativist groups. If, as a result, enough Narrativists become sufficiently compacted, Narrativists will disrupt society or opportunistically exploit a disrupt that is occurring for unrelated reasons, unite behind a strongman (often a person with a cluster B personality disorder who has simply learned that Narrativists are the easiest people in the world to manipulate), seize control of social structures, and begin reconfiguring them to reflect their collective Inner Narrative. During this process of reconfiguring society, Artisans become the target of Compaction cycles and are removed from society in some way, often violently.

Classic examples of a Narrativist Wave Event would be the Cultural Revolution in China, the rise of the Nazis, and the rise of Stalin. In each of these cases we have a stressed population that was exposed extensively to propaganda using bypass logic, who then united behind a person with a cluster B personality disorder during a period of substantial social disruption. These highly compacted Narrativists then tried to restructure their society to accord with their Inner Narrative. Finally (and most relevant to our discussion), during this restructuring process, all the intellectuals who would not go along with the Narrative were rounded up and executed.

Once Narrativists have seized enough control to begin to structure society according to whatever the inner narrative demands, Artisans stick out like sore thumbs. Their behavior seems suspicions, indicative of a person who is insecure about themselves. Artisans are also unswayed by arguments that utilize Bypass logic, and so Artisans will only pay lip service to the inner narrative. Artisans then become easy targets for compaction cycles. Compaction cycles in a high-compaction environment have often evolved from removing someone from your weird little group to removing someone from existence.



Debating Narrativists:

I would like to explain what "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" means to a Narrativist. When defeated, what a Narrativist does is try to do the exact same thing again, but to invest themselves more emotionally in the outcome. Narrativists believe that the reason for their failure is almost always not being motivated enough/trying hard enough, and their answer is always to try and whip themselves up into a bigger frenzy next time. They are following the Grand Narrative and the Grand Narrative always says that if you lose it's because you didn't work hard enough.

In practice, this means every defeat will only make them more strident, more aggressive, and more shrill as time goes on.

The only method I have had success with isn't very pretty, but it does work (in the long run). You basically have to figure out what the Inner Narrative is, and then attack that. Then, when they lose their mind, remain calm no matter what. If there is any hope for them, they will later apologize and may have some introspection/guilt over their temper that leads them to develop a bit. Beyond that, you are arguing with a brick. (I'm not saying this is the only/best way, but it is the only method I personally know of that has even a tiny track record of success.)

This all works best if you have the debate in public, where their inevitable overreaction is witnessed by enough people that they can't just later deny it to themselves.

Honestly, I might be the wrong person to ask, because I don't know a gentle or polite way to do this. Narrativists occasionally move past the behavior pattern on their own if they are introduced to new information in a non-threatening manner, and you can also occasionally reach out to one in private. In public, however, the only thing I know how to do is provoke them into surfacing their inner narrative and let them suffer social consequences for it. But this requires a ton of personal inside knowledge and is, frankly, more than a touch manipulative.

In my personal experience during my time as a Narrativist, there are moments when you get hit with a stunning burst of narrative dysphoria. That is, some element of your Inner Narrative is publicly and profoundly disproven. This experience is akin to an identity crisis to a Narrativist and is incredibly unpleasent. It often leaves the Narrativist with only two options, either to (A) begin the process of shedding their inner narrative and leaving their delusions behind, or (B) retreating even deeper into the inner narrative, embracing it publicly, and pretending the burst of narrative dysphoria never happened. A surprising number of Narrativists will take option A in that situation (I have personally known over a dozen Narrativists that deprogrammed themselves over a period of years), but the majority will take option B.

If this burst of narrative dysphoria happens to occur at the same time that the Narrativist is on the losing end of a compaction cycle, then the ratios actually reverse a bit. More Narrativists will choose to leave behind the inner narrative than continue to cling to it in that particular situation. In my experience, having a group of deluded morons that you thought were your friends throw you out of their weird little group over some imaginary bullshit is enough to snap most Narrativists out of it.

It is not, however, enough to snap every Narrativist out of it. Some Narrativists in that situation (burst of Narrative dysphoria + losing end of a compaction cycle) will retreat deep, deep into the protective delusions of their inner narrative. In this state they will publicly lose touch with reality while beginning to speak as if some momentous event is imminent. They will become convinced that themselves and those they identify as their own are about to play a vital role in some earth-changing drama.