Psychopathology as Strategy
If politics is a playground for sociopaths, it's no wonder their psychopathology gets weaponized.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
—Friedrich Nietzsche
Politics is cutthroat. One tactic is insidious and effective: DARVO—Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. Though often described in the context of Cluster B personality types, DARVO is more than just a psychopathology. It’s a strategic weapon wielded by those who seek to seize control of the narrative, silence their opponents, and dominate the public discourse.
It’s no wonder. Politics selects for sociopaths.
Those who deploy DARVO don’t just deflect blame—they invert reality. They deny wrongdoing, attack those who challenge them, and claim to be the real victims. But this is no ordinary deflection. It’s an unwholesome maneuver designed to keep adversaries on the defensive while rallying allies through manufactured grievance. Even if their victim status is justified, they will magnify their victimhood and minimize their turpitude.
Rival Factions and Eternal Vigilance
History is littered with factions locked in DARVO-driven combat. Think of the brown and red shirts in early 20th-century Europe—dueling mobs, each of which was convinced they were the true underdogs, the righteous revolutionaries, the oppressed champions of justice. Each side was evil in overlapping ways. Both engaged in ideological warfare while weaponizing victimhood narratives to justify the brutal suppression of their enemies.
The lesson?
Beware of anyone playing DARVO games. And be sure to check yourself to see if you are being DARVO-ed. Today’s purported allies can quickly become tomorrow’s authoritarians. Many movements that start by fighting oppression soon find it quite convenient to become the oppressors.
Even if, like me, you are heartened by the current administration's actions, we have to stay vigilant. My critics are not wrong to worry that today’s effort to eviscerate the administrative state will turn those with the chainsaws into tomorrow’s architects of subjection.
Power corrupts and all that.
We must routinely ask ourselves whether we see a deadly DARVO dance between rival factions, neither of whom have our long-term interests at heart. Then, we must return to the practice of subversive innovation and create peer-to-peer counterpower as disciplined warrior monks who never get pulled into fully taking political sides. Otherwise, you might find yourself defending the indefensible.
So, arm yourself with skepticism, vigilance, and guarded optimism.
I implore you not as one who knows it all but instead as one who has made colossal mistakes, such as supporting both the Iraq War and an accelerated mRNA vaccine rollout.
The Anti-DARVO Imperative
So, what’s the antidote?
Radical self-reflection. Truth-tracking. True liberalism—not in the debased, leftwing sense, but in the fundamental enlightenment commitments to open discourse, individual freedom, and understanding—not manipulating—reality.
Anti-DARVO individuals don’t play the victim card as a power move. They resist the urge to invert reality in their favor. They champion inquiry over dogma, skepticism over loyalty tests, and persuasion over compulsion.
These are champions worth listening to, supporting, and defending.
As DARVO tactics dominate media, institutions, and politics, becoming an anti-DARVO voice is an act of subversion. These are the truth-seekers, the independent thinkers, the ones willing to challenge their tribe when it veers into the ditch of intellectual capture.
This takes discipline.
Anti-DARVO voices are neither easy to find nor always correct—human as they are. But they endeavor to serve neither power nor strategic untruth. Instead, they serve the true, occasionally the beautiful, and, importantly, the good—sometimes at significant personal risk.
Even if you think, as I do, the actions of those serving up short-to-medium-term counterpower are justified, always stay conscious of the DARVO trap. Ally yourself with those who embrace free thinking and reject victimhood, even if you occasionally disagree with them on this issue or that. Because, in the end, our war isn’t about which power faction wins today—it’s about whether we can find a way to make power factions obsolete.
> I implore you not as one who knows it all but instead as one who has made colossal mistakes, such as supporting both the Iraq War and an accelerated mRNA vaccine rollout.
I used to be a statist, too, so I was on the pro-war side back then (Iraq). Admitting it was cathartic, especially admitting it in writing.
Your “Politics selects for sociopaths” comment reminds me of an experience I had four decades ago when I was a politically naive newly registered Libertarian. A Libertarian candidate recruiter asked me to run for a state assembly office. I resisted. He finally convinced me by saying I was the only Libertarian in my assembly district so that if I refused to run, my district would offer no alternative to the Republican and Democratic candidates who were both corrupt. After I filed for the office, the major local newspaper effectively endorsed me by attacking both of my opponents as corrupt. At one point I was ahead of the Republican in the race, but the Democrat won by a landslide. During the race I received a lot of mail which I was able to classify into three groups: (1) letters from people offering to help with my campaign as by providing consulting services, campaign fliers, yard signs, and bumper stickers; (2) letters from “good government” types inviting me to attend such events as candidate nights; (3) letters from special interest groups. The latter group of letters was much larger than the other two combined. All but one special interest group, in effect, asked me essentially this question: If we support you, what will you do for us at the expense of everyone else? (The only exception was a group merely asking to be left alone.) Candidates who answer “Nothing!” (e.g., Libertarians) can expect to be disadvantaged by having to face better-financed opponents having more endorsements. It seemed to me that the candidates who had the best chance of winning were those willing to do whatever it took to get elected provided they could hide that information from the voters--and that winning candidates tend to be the least ethical of those selected from a pool of otherwise qualified people. One big problem with government is that politicians have the power to grant favors to special interest groups in exchange for endorsements and campaign contributions.