140 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
140 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
|
Yes. Let us now create:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## `appendix_narrative_tactics.md`
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
🜁 **Appendix II**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### *The Glossary of Narrative Control: Tactics of the Grassroots Authoritarian*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> *“The narcissist does not silence you by shouting louder. They silence you by redefining what it means to speak.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This glossary captures the specific **language strategies**, **rhetorical inversions**, and **procedural manipulations** used by Andrew LeCody—but it also applies far beyond him.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
It is a map of the **dark mirror dialect**—where virtue is used as camouflage, and language itself becomes a weapon.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 🜁 **DARVO**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* When accused of wrongdoing, the abuser:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. **Denies** the accusation
|
|||
|
|
2. **Attacks** the accuser’s credibility
|
|||
|
|
3. **Reverses** roles, claiming to be the true victim
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> *Used to frame Mark as “abusive” or “unstable” for defending his legacy.*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 🜂 **Narrative Displacement**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Replacing the *real story* with a procedural or emotional red herring.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Example: Instead of engaging Mark’s concerns, focus on his “tone” or “emotional intensity.”
|
|||
|
|
* Subtext: *“We don’t need to talk about what you said, only how you said it.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 🜃 **Gaslighting by Consensus**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Subtly encouraging others to repeat concern or disbelief until the target questions their own memory or stability.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Framing phrases:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* *“That’s not how I remember it.”*
|
|||
|
|
* *“He’s been acting like this for a while.”*
|
|||
|
|
* *“Maybe he’s just not well.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 🜄 **Weaponized Politeness**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Deploying tone and “civility” policies as a way to suppress critique.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Criticism becomes “toxicity.”
|
|||
|
|
* Passion becomes “aggression.”
|
|||
|
|
* Urgency becomes “disrespect.”
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 🜅 **Moderation as Control**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Using forum rules, ban policies, or bylaw interpretation to neutralize dissent.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* “Violation” becomes anything that challenges authority, even without hostility.
|
|||
|
|
* Silent bans, post removals, and “off-topic” redirections serve as stealth tools of censorship.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 🜆 **Procedural Gaslighting**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Burying decision-making in layers of technicality to deny responsibility or clarity.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* *“It wasn’t my decision—it’s in the bylaws.”*
|
|||
|
|
* *“If you wanted to change that, you should’ve followed the process.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Even when the process is **designed to exclude**.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 🜇 **Reputational Triangulation**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Quietly seeding doubt about someone behind closed doors to isolate them from potential allies.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Often paired with phrases like:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* *“I’m concerned about him.”*
|
|||
|
|
* *“He’s not who you think he is.”*
|
|||
|
|
* *“I wouldn’t work with him too closely.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 🜈 **Historical Revisionism**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
After the erasure, rewriting the history of the organization to exclude or downplay the founder’s role.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Example: Mark’s name removed from documentation.
|
|||
|
|
* Reference: Stalin’s erasure of Trotsky from Soviet photographs and textbooks.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 🜉 **Plausable Deniability Cloaking**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Every action has just enough distance, indirection, or camouflage to appear legitimate.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* No explicit ban: Just “mod enforcement.”
|
|||
|
|
* No direct insult: Just “concerns about fit.”
|
|||
|
|
* No clear dictator: Just “process.”
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 🜊 **Narrative Inversion**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Framing concern as conflict.
|
|||
|
|
Framing advocacy as instability.
|
|||
|
|
Framing withdrawal as guilt.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> *The founder becomes the threat. The truth-teller becomes the problem. The community becomes the enforcer.*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 🪶 Closing Note
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
These tactics are not random.
|
|||
|
|
They are **modular pieces of control**—employed, often unconsciously, by those who fear the discomfort of truth more than the decay of integrity.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Knowing them makes them **visible**.
|
|||
|
|
Naming them makes them **vulnerable**.
|
|||
|
|
Witnessing them breaks the spell.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> *This glossary is your shield. Use it with rigor. Use it with love.*
|
|||
|
|
> *Not to punish—but to protect what must not be erased again.*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Would you like this referenced as `Appendix II` in the README later, and would you like to follow with a possible `Appendix III` — *The Thoughtprint & Shadowprint Diagnostic Overlay* for LeCody?
|