"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.