Skip to content
Read • Question • ConnectAnthony’s notes & researchReturn with a new question
Anthony’s NotesA personal field guide
From the notebook

The DARVO of "You're Divisive!"

Summary

Episode Overview and Purpose

  • [0:11] New Discourses Bullets: James Lindsay offers a short, bullet-point style summary on a tactic from abuse literature (DARVO) and a specific variant he observes in \“woke\” infiltration and also a \“woke right.\” Goal: understand it to defeat it.

DARVO: Definition and Background

  • [0:36] Definition (from abuse literature): DARVO is an acronym for \“Deny, Attack, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender.\”
    • [1:05] Letter mapping: D = Deny, A = Attack, R = Reverse the roles of, V = Victim, O = Offender.
  • [1:14] Use-case: A tactic used by narcissistic and psychopathic abusers when called out—\“turning the tables\” on the accuser.
  • [1:27] Contexts: Seen in abusive relationships, and also in relationships with government and media.
  • [1:35] Prior content: He has an earlier Bullets episode on DARVO.

Framing: Left, \“Woke,\” and the \“Woke Right\”

  • [1:38] Focus here: A specific kind of DARVO within woke infiltration.
  • [1:48] Scope: Occurs on both the left and a so-called right he labels variously:
    • [1:51–2:18] Names debated: \“fake right,\” \“woke right,\” \“right hand of the left,\” \“far right,\” \“cringe right,\” \“alt right,\” \“faux right.\” He emphasizes these are not the \“real right.\” Calling them \“right hand of the left\” or \“woke right\” angers them, which he notes approvingly.
  • [2:23] Characterization: These actors present as advancing conservative values, but do so via leftist/dialectical methodologies:
    • [2:30–2:47] Methods: Word games, traps, setups, manipulative behavior, lying, blending truth and lie.
    • [2:47] He will cover this blending topic in another podcast.

The \“You’re Divisive\” DARVO: What It Is and Where It Shows Up

  • [3:05] Introduces the variant: the \“you’re divisive\” DARVO.
  • [3:12–3:17] Timing: Most common at the beginning of a campaign or radical splinter movement.
  • [3:19–3:49] Woke maturity: Woke is not new; it has been a major cultural force for ~8–10 years (late 2014/early 2015 with Black Lives Matter activism moving into mainstream beyond campuses).
  • [4:04–4:18] Thus, this variant is less frequent now from the left (though still occurs), but more often seen early in splinters.
  • [4:20–4:47] Common venues: Especially frequent in churches (which aim for unity), and generally where group cohesion is expected (workplaces, any cohesive group).
  • [4:49–5:03] Mechanism overview: The tactic uses the concept of divisiveness—be divisive first, then accuse those who object of being divisive.

Link to Mao’s \“Unity–Criticism–Unity\” (U–C–U)

  • [5:06–5:18] Claim: The \“you’re divisive\” DARVO operationalizes Mao Zedong’s Unity–Criticism–Unity formula.
  • [5:20–5:39] Resources: He has a Bullets podcast on U–C–U and a long episode reading Mao’s 1957 speech introducing its importance.

How the Tactic Operates: Sequence and Examples

  • [5:49] Entry: A radical group infiltrates or arrives as \“fellow travelers.\”
  • [6:01] Trigger: They introduce a radical policy—by nature not everyone will agree; the introduction is immediately divisive.
  • [6:10–6:26] Examples:
    • Workplace: An accusation of racism; diversity trainings after George Floyd’s death fracturing workplaces.
    • National: Accusations of racism splitting the country post–George Floyd’s death.
    • Church: A radical, transformational policy proposition.
  • [6:37–6:45] Nature: The policy is transformational and dialectical (left-oriented), carrying a divisive quality.
  • [6:48–7:13] The flip: As long as all comply, \“unity\” appears intact. Once someone asks \“what’s going on?\” they are accused of being divisive—preventing unity around the radical idea.
  • [7:13–7:21] Result: The whistleblower becomes labeled the divider, not the proposer of the intolerant policy.

Mao’s U–C–U in Practice (and the Course Analogy)

  • [7:21–7:57] Mao pattern:
    • Propose a policy; declare unity toward it.
    • Dissenters are labeled divisive to the \“new unity\” and subjected to criticism and struggle to \“correct their values.\”
    • After \“resolving the contradiction between the people,\” a \“new unity on a new basis\” is proclaimed.
  • [8:00–8:54] Course analogy:
    • Old unity: Organization moving in one direction (old basis).
    • New policy: Veers 5–10 degrees off course (new basis).
    • If you argue to \“stay the course,\” you’re blamed for causing the split because you woke people from a \“sleepwalking\” drift into the new course.
  • [9:00–9:11] Conclusion: Calling out radical/intolerant policies per U–C–U yields you being criticized specifically as \“divisive.\“

The Dialectical-Conflict Dynamic and Outcomes

  • [9:14–9:26] Social pressure: The tactic tries to get the mass—even sympathizers—to turn on you due to desire to avoid conflict.
  • [9:26–9:37] Theory: Marxism/dialectic moves history by generating \“productive conflict\” (a conflict theory of history).
  • [9:37–9:56] Move: Introduce a policy that induces conflict; then claim conflict only begins when someone says \“no,\” creating two poles; label the dissenter divisive to pressure adoption or split the organization.
  • [10:01–10:12] Marx quote (paraphrase/recall): Society faces either a \“radical reconstitution of society at large\” or \“the common ruin of the contending classes.\“

DARVO Sequence Applied Here

  • [10:14–10:46] Sequence:
    • They put forth a divisive policy (division occurs at that moment, even if people are confused or going along).
    • You later say \“no.\”
    • DARVO begins: Deny it was divisive; Attack by calling you divisive; Reverse victim/offender roles.
  • [10:59–11:06] Role reversal twist: The organization (actually under attack) is cast as the offender, while the radicals claim victimhood and you as offender.

Contexts and Observations: Businesses and Churches

  • [11:06–11:25] Small businesses: Owners fear employees will deploy a \“woke DARVO\” if leadership says \“stay on mission\“—fear of woke backlash.
  • [11:28–11:50] Churches: Very common pattern—introduce a radical departure (woke or woke right), then accuse critics of \“calling out Christian brothers\” and being divisive.
  • [11:50–12:06] Speaker’s positioning: He’s perceived (and likely) not a Christian; he now withholds declaring his religion publicly. Accusations escalate further against him when advising churches to avoid woke left/right.
  • [12:19–12:37] Accusation pattern: \“The church invited an atheist to divide us\“—labeling him the divider while the true divisive actors advanced radicalism.
  • [12:39–12:58] Key point: Even Christians who call it out get the same treatment; it’s not about faith/brotherhood but a power play to advance a radical policy/activist agenda.

Definition Restated and Purpose of the Tactic

  • [13:05–13:29] Definition restated: The \“you’re divisive\” DARVO calls you divisive when you call out a radical departure from an organization’s mission/goals/purpose—designed to discredit you and boost the accusers (who typically proposed the divisive policy).

What To Do About It: Response Strategy

  • [13:31–13:46] Hard truth: \“This is just a toilet—you’re going to swirl around and go down the drain\”; DARVO = abusive narcissistic/psychopathic behavior; it doesn’t get better.
  • [13:46–13:52] Core remedy: Expose it to as many people as possible; point it out.
  • [13:52–14:12] Critical frame: Emphasize the division began when the divisive policy was introduced or when splinter/fellow travelers joined to radicalize.
  • [14:12–14:29] DEI analogy: In DEI classes, \“the demand to accommodate a new ideology is already divisive\”; granting accommodations means division has already occurred.
  • [14:29–14:42] Aftermath: Once someone says \“no,\” they will be accused as the divider and pushed out—this shields radicals from criticism.
  • [14:49–15:07] Woke right example: \“No enemies to the right\” policy—calling out someone on the right leads to accusations of dividing the right; but the problem is the intolerant radicalism itself, which must be called out.
  • [15:07–15:31] General rule: Any policy that forbids criticism (\“we’re all going this direction and you can’t criticize or else you’re divisive\”) is the \“you’re divisive\” DARVO.
  • [15:34–16:12] Practical approach: Call it out; explain how it works to demystify; let people choose clear-eyed whether to follow radicals or stay the course. Some will choose radicalism—that’s their right—but they should know a split already occurred and who caused it.
  • [16:19–17:00] Preparation: Be ready to lose part of the organization if radicals are already inside; pin divisiveness on those causing it; the longer it festers, the worse the damage. Once called out, the dynamic will play out and be ugly; go in aware, protect members, and fight back.

Important Quotes

  • [0:44–1:10] \“DARVO stands for deny, attack, and reverse the roles of victim and offender.\”
  • [4:49–5:03] \“It is in fact being divisive and then calling out people who point out the divisive tactics and say no, and accusing them of being divisive in return.\”
  • [7:50–8:00] \“After you solve this contradiction… you could then have a new Unity on a new basis.\”
  • [8:49–8:54] \“You caused people to wake up and therefore split a sleepwalking organization.\”
  • [10:01–10:12] \“There will either be a radical reconstitution of the society at large or… the common ruin of the contending classes.\”
  • [10:35–10:46] \“The division occurred there the second that happened… even if people were mystified or confused or going along.\”
  • [13:31–13:46] \“This is just a toilet—you’re going to swirl around and go down the drain.\“

Diagrams / Visuals

  • None shown in the audio transcript. To recreate logic flow, model as a sequence: Introduce radical policy → Apparent unity → Objection → DARVO (Deny → Attack → Reverse roles) → Pressure to accept new unity or split.

Extra Resources Mentioned

  • New Discourses Bullets episode on DARVO (prior episode).
  • New Discourses Bullets episode on \“Unity–Criticism–Unity.\”
  • Long podcast reading Mao Zedong’s 1957 speech on the importance of Unity–Criticism–Unity.
  • His Twitter posts where he flags DARVO patterns.

Summary (1 paragraph)

James Lindsay explains a DARVO variant he calls the \“you’re divisive\” DARVO, often used in early phases of radical infiltration (notably in churches and cohesive groups) by both woke left and a \“woke right.\” The pattern: introduce a radical, transformational policy (the true point of division), then when someone objects, deny the policy’s divisiveness, attack the dissenter as divisive, and reverse victim/offender roles to portray the dissenter as the problem. He ties this to Mao’s Unity–Criticism–Unity: declare unity toward a new course, label dissent as divisive, subject critics to struggle, and reconstitute \“new unity\” on a new basis. Since the dialectic advances via productive conflict, the dissenter is targeted to force compliance or split. His advice: it won’t get better—expose the tactic, emphasize where division truly began, demystify it so people can choose clear-eyed whether to follow radicals or stay the course, and be prepared for losses while protecting the organization.

Key Takeaways (10–15)

  • The \“you’re divisive\” DARVO = introduce a divisive radical policy, then accuse objectors of being divisive (Deny → Attack → Reverse roles).
  • The division starts at policy introduction, not at the objection.
  • This tactic appears in both woke left and a \“woke right\” that uses leftist/dialectical methods.
  • Common in churches and cohesive contexts seeking unity; also in workplaces and civic settings.
  • It operationalizes Mao’s Unity–Criticism–Unity: declare unity toward a new policy, label dissenters divisive, struggle/\“correct\” them, then announce a new unity.
  • The dialectic advances by generating \“productive conflict\”; dissenters are framed as creators of conflict.
  • Real-world examples include workplace racism accusations and post–George Floyd diversity trainings causing fractures.
  • Owners often fear employees will deploy \“woke DARVO\” if they resist mission drift.
  • In church contexts, critics are told \“don’t call out Christian brothers\“—a power play, not true unity.
  • Policies forbidding criticism (e.g., \“no enemies to the right\”) are markers of this DARVO variant.
  • Intolerant radicalism is the underlying problem; it must be called out despite accusations of division.
  • Expect ugliness and potential splits once the tactic is exposed; better to act early than let it fester.
  • Strategy: expose, explain, and reframe the true point of division to de-mystify the manipulation.
  • Aim for informed, clear-eyed choice within the group about staying the course vs. following radicals.
  • Protect members and the organization while pinning responsibility for division on those causing it.

Glossary

  • DARVO: Abuse tactic—Deny, Attack, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender.
  • Woke: Ideological movement emphasizing social justice frames (race, gender, etc.); here, especially post-2014–2015 mainstream activism.
  • Woke Right / Right Hand of the Left / Faux Right: Actors claiming right-wing goals but employing leftist/dialectical, manipulative methods.
  • Dialectical Methodologies: Approaches using conflict/opposition (thesis–antithesis–synthesis) to drive change; here, manipulative political tactics.
  • Unity–Criticism–Unity (U–C–U): Mao’s formula—declare unity toward a policy, criticize/struggle against dissenters, then proclaim a new unity on a new basis.
  • Criticism and Struggle: Maoist tactics to pressure and \“correct\” dissenters until they conform to the new line.
  • Resolve/Solve the Contradiction: Maoist phrasing for overcoming differences among \“the people\” to re-establish unity on new terms.
  • Fellow Travelers: Sympathetic outsiders who align with a movement’s direction without formal membership; can facilitate infiltration.
  • Splinter Group: A faction pushing a diverging, often radical, direction within or adjacent to an organization.
  • DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion): Organizational programs; here used as an example of ideological accommodation that itself creates division.
  • \“No Enemies to the Right\”: A stance discouraging intra-right criticism; used to label critics as divisive while shielding radicals.
  • Productive Conflict: In dialectical/Marxist theory, conflict that drives historical/political change.
  • Radical Reconstitution / Common Ruin: Marx’s framing of outcomes—either radical systemic change or mutual destruction of opposing classes.
  • Gaslighting: Manipulation tactic causing targets to doubt their perceptions; often co-occurs with DARVO.
  • Mission Drift: Gradual deviation from an organization’s original purpose, often via embedded radical policies.

Content

New Discourses Bullets, Ep. 101

DARVO is an acronym that refers to a particular abusive behavior that applies when the abuser is caught or called out. It stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender: DARVO. DARVO takes many forms, but in wedge operations it very frequently takes the form of being divisive and then accusing the people who call it out of being divisive. It fits the mold: Deny: “I’m not divisive!” Attack: “You’re divisive!” in such a way that it Reverses the roles of Victim and Offender. In this episode of New Discourses Bullets, host James Lindsay explains this simple, common, Machiavellian trick used to steal power by divisive elements.

New book! The Queering of the American Child: https://queeringbook.com/

Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support

Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe

Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames

© 2024 New Discourses. All rights reserved. newdiscourses jameslindsay darvo