The Revision of History

 

THE-REVISION-OF-HISTORY

You are no doubt familiar with the quotation

“History is written by the victors”

to explain that those who triumph then re-write what has happen to accord with their new-found supremacy. We bastardise that quotation. We re-write history in order to ensure that we are the victors. We love to win. We hate to lose. It goes further than that. It is not just about wanting to win, loving the fact that we are winners but we need to win. It is imperative. This need to win manifests in numerous ways, which include:-

Always being in receipt of fuel;

Being the centre of attention;

Having our say first and for longest;

Making sure we are heard above all others;

Getting the latest gadget or piece of technology ahead of our friends, family and neighbours;

Having the most attractive spouse, girlfriend/boyfriend, partner amongst our social groups;

Having the best suit and tie;

Being the most senior at a meeting;

Earning the most out of our peers;

Having secured the best career out of those we went to school with;

Being the best at running, football, archery, chess;

Knowing the most about a particular subject;

Offering the best wine at a dinner party;

Securing the best seats at a theatre or a restaurant;

Being acknowledged first in a group;

Bench pressing the heaviest weight in the gym;

Having the best sound system;

Knowing more famous people than our friends;

Securing tickets to a sold-out performance;

Winning the argument with anybody who tries to challenge us;

Ensuring our partner puts our needs ahead of theirs;

Getting served before anybody else;

Being able to drink the most at a party;

Ensuring everybody respects our “quiet time” when we are watching a film;

Having the most exuberant birthday bashes.

There are of course so many more. Not all of these are always applicable as for instance a Cerebral Narcissist will have little interest in ensuring that he can bench press the most weight at the gym and the Somatic Narcissist is not at all bothered about being the local expert on the history of the town in which he lives, but each and everyone one of our kind will want to and need to, secure the win.

This need manifests in the lengths we will go to so that we achieve the win. We will boast, brag, manipulate, blackmail, coerce, cajole, sabotage, nobble and bribe our way to the win. Nothing is off limits. If I can emotionally blackmail a friend into ensuring I sit in the lead funeral car with the family ahead of any other friend of the family, then I will do it. If I need to delete the files from a competitor’s computer at work, so be it. If I need to ensure that I have control over you in our relationship, so I win repeatedly, then I will unleash all manner of manipulations form my Devil’s Toolkit in order to make sure I win, win and win again.

The revision of history is one such tool that our kind deploys on a regular basis to bring about the win. Let’s look at some examples of how that appears.

Imagine I am at the bar with some of my inner circle friends. One of my friends, someone who has served a purpose from school, brings up the occasion of the 100 metre sprint from the school athletics championships.

“Hey HG, you ran a great time that day and you were only just pipped to the gold medal by that dude from LRG weren’t you?”

“I think, Michael, you will find that I pipped him to the title.”

“Really? Are you sure? I thought he beat you.”

“No, I beat him.”

“Are you sure?”

“Absolutely, I was actually looking back through my results at the weekend when I was clearing some boxes from the loft and I was remembering how close the race had been but how I had overtaken that dude and beat him, narrowly true, but I beat him all the same.”

“I could have sworn it was the other way around.”

“No, you are wrong. I checked the times. I beat him by 0.2 of a second.”

“Oh I see.”

“Yes, he was gracious in defeat but I suppose you have to be when you don’t win, eh Michael?”

Michael nods and accepts my point since it was said with authority and the backing of a recent review of the result.

I actually did come second but I am not going to allow Michael to point that out in front of these inner circle friends. I rewrote history to ensure that I proved a point to him and ensured that I was held in the proper regard by those listening which in turn provided me with fuel.

2. Now consider a conversation between a primary source and me.

“Where have you been?” asks the primary source.

“What do you mean, where have I been? You know where I have been.”

“No I don’t.”

“Yes you do, I told you last week.”

“No you did not. I have been wondering where you have been, I was getting worried.”

“Well that is your own fault, I told you last week that I was going out this evening.”

“No you did not.”

“I did, I remember specifically. I was searching for my shirt that I wanted to wear, you know the blue one which I bought recently, but you wouldn’t help me look as you were watching some television programme. You asked why I wanted the shirt and I said I wanted to make sure it was clean and ironed because I was going out with Nathan and Paul.”

“I dont remember that.”

“Well I do.”

“I really do not remember you telling me you were going out.”

“You probably didn’t take it in, after all you were pretty engrossed in your programme.”

“Hmmm.”

“Anyway, what’s to eat, I am famished.”

I never said anything about going out but I will re-write history to make it appear that I did so because this frustrates you, avoids your attempt to blame me and allows me to maintain superiority by being right.

3. I am sat with a primary source in a restaurant.

“Isn’t that that woman who was obsessed with you?”

“Where?” I answer.

“There, coming through the doors, what is her name again, beings with an A I am sure.”

“Who? The lady with the short brown bob?”

“No, next to her, the one with long blonde hair.”

“Never seen her before.”

“Are you sure, she looks like that woman you pointed out to me.”

“No, I don’t know her.”

“It is a damn good likeness if it is not her. It is her, she is coming over.”

The blonde woman comes to our table.

“Hello,” she smiles at me ignoring the primary source, “fancy seeing you here.”

“Sorry are you talking to me?”

“Yes, hi HG, how are you?”

“I am sorry do I know you?”

“Yes we worked together.”

“No I am sorry, I don’t remember you.”

Her downcast expression provides me with fuel.

“I was in the team that worked alongside yours. We went to Singapore, do you not remember?”

“You might have worked where I worked but I don’t know you, sorry, but if you wouldn’t mind, we are about to order. Waiter!?”

Puzzled and upset she slowly walks away and I savour her fuel.

“She definitely knew you,” presses the primary source.

“Seems that way, but then I am well known aren’t I?” I answer with a self-congratulatory grin. I am pleased to have rebuffed Samantha who I know full well but it suited my purpose to rebuff her. I know she will try and contact me again to prove she knows me and then I just may re-write history again to confirm that I do. Of course, when I do, I may re-write that I had forgotten who she was.

We engage in this manipulation in order to exert control. It allows us to confuse, bewilder, upset, brag and thus maintain fuel. We will re-write history so that we avoid blame, gain kudos, claim achievements that are not our own, make us sound better at what we have accomplished, to evade liability and ensure you are confused and puzzled. It comes within gas-lighting as you start to find your memory is fallible. We have no hesitation in confirming something happened when it did not, we will change events, add things and take them away so long as it suits our purposes. If you present us with some independent evidence that contradicts us we will not shift our position in terms of maintaining history is how we decree it. Instead, we will unleash an alternative manipulation in order to deflect and deny your attempt to challenge our version.

Even the most obvious of events will be erased, amended and added to. Nothing is safe from our treatment of how things were. If it serves a purpose for us to alter history one way or another then we shall do so.

How do you deal with this?

As ever, state you position the once so you know you have stated it and then move on. The re-writing of history is designed to draw you in to an argument, make you try to convince us that you are right and we are wrong (although you will fail), to make you erupt in frustration or anger or tears, to bewilder you so that you keep accepting we are correct, so little by little you eventually always accept what we say and submit to this particular mind game.

Conversations will be recalled in a different manner. People who did not attend will have attended whilst others vanish. Events play out in a different manner once they have been subjected  to this treatment.

It is all part of securing the win.

We change history. That’s how powerful we consider ourselves to be.

13 thoughts on “The Revision of History

  1. MGM says:

    I’ve always found this to be one of the most endearing traits of the narcissist sociopath psychopath people. The fantasy world of make believe, where reality doesn’t exist even if proof can be shown that it does. It’s sad, in reality, but witnessing it is quite a spectacle to see.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      But it does exist because of the different perceptions. The narcissist is not making it up, it seems that way to you because of your different perspective, but to the narcissist in that instance, you’re the one making things up and not them.

      1. KD says:

        My ex told me some story about how he’d wanted to break up with me but I’d locked myself in the bedroom and threatened to kill myself. I said ‘but that never happened’. The bewilderment on his face, like he really did believe it.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          That is because he did, KD.

  2. Asp Emp says:

    In response to this post – I am trying to keep the ET door shut – I reckon HG’s ‘The Empath’s Riposte Grenades’ would be very useful to have to hand when Narc is back-tracking / changing history etc.

    Just occurred to me – maybe I’ll have the ‘The Empath’s Riposte Grenades’ tattooed on me somewhere…… nah, I’ll just have to be smart & remember them. Should any of the Narcs and I cross paths again.

    HG, while on the subject of History – I did wonder if your name had any bearing to Henry the 8th? Since very young, I had been fascinated by the Tudors. Is it possible that Henry VIII was a narc himself? The way history records him as a person and others around him ie Thomas Cromwell, the way they treated Thomas Moore etc makes me think so. What about any of his wives?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Yes he was.

      1. lickemtomorrow says:

        I think where he went wrong was in marrying his IPPSs!

        It must have been bothersome chopping off so many heads!

  3. Duchessbea says:

    A favourite of my Narc. Well written HG. Powerful stuff all done just for the argument and fuel. Wow. Say your piece and walk away. Always just walk away.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Thank you.

  4. Anm says:

    HG, could you briefly answer a question of mine to solve a predicament? short answer is fine. I will donate to angel fund. Instead of a consultation, I figured there may be someone out there who may be experiencing a similar situation.

    My ex has not yet been served with his new OOP. I am waiting for next weekend for numerous reasons regarding my daughters safety. I have been keeping up with very good no contact, except what is required by the courts. This evening, before i was about to head out for the night, one of the higher ranked law enforcement officers in my area knocked on the door to my house. I answered, and he looked completely annoyed. He said that my ex had called 911 because there was an “emergency” requiring law enforcement to retrieve an item of clothing that belongs to my daughter, and my ex was claiming I was intentionally withholding it. I believe the reason he took the call, and not have the rookie or someone beneath him take the call, is because he was highly insulted that his team of officers would have to take a call like this, and he wanted to also scope out the situation for underlying issues (possibly child abuse). Most officers would be quick to write a report that a situation like this is a civil issue, and write it off. The officers in my jurisdiction, unfortunately, I believe has flagged my home and situation as a high conflict home. Every time law enforcement comes out, they get a general idea of the issue reported, they evaluate who the primary aggressor is, and evaluate the level of distress and fear with all parties involved. I believe this officer who has come out today, is an upper midrange narcissist. I do not believe he is as calculated as a greater, but he is very calculated, and may even go outside of normal police protocol if he believes it is needed, I have met this specific officer maybe 6 times in the past few years. Anyways, today, he mentioned that my ex was acting emotionally erratic and “playing a victim”, which he “didn’t buy”. I can tell by what he claims he has noticed about my ex, that he specifically knows that my ex is a narcissist. He may even have training in Psychology for Criminal Justice. However, one thing I think he is doing, and why he came out, I think he is trying to see if I am also an abuser/narcissist. I also have a gut feeling when dealing with him, that he finds my over the top calmness a concern, when the other party is emotionally decompensating. In most situations, the calm person is usually seen as the more credible party, because they are not acting crazy. This is the type of officer who is more aware, and would actually determine that the victim of an abusive person maybe lashing out, violent, or emotionally volatile because of abuse. When I answer the door, I think I come off a bit like a psychopath, apathetic, not fearful, and not surprised. But the reason is, I know these situations are just hoovers by proxy, and so I also try to be emotionless and only give the information that is expected of me.

    So my question is, how can I make sure that an Upper Midrange Narcissist, primarily with law enforcement, doesn’t mistake me for a cluster b personality? This is important for numerous reasons.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      1. He may not be a narcissist and I cannot confirm one way or the other on the information provided, you would need to put him through the NDC for the formal assessment.
      2. There are three issues at work here
      a. If he is a narcissist, his viewing of the situation is through his worldview of the need for The Prime Aims which will of course impact on how he deals with you , and
      b. Any understanding he may have about narcissism (even though he will not see it in himself, he may observe it in others) and how that first within (a)
      c. The effect of your own Emotional Thinking which may be causing you to misread the situation as you make numerous (understandable) assumptions about the mindset, intention and views of the high ranking police officer. Please read through what you have written and note how often you refer to “I believe” “I think”. Then look at actual evidence, for instance what he said about your ex and how he did not buy his behaviour.

      3. This is really a matter which I would need to discuss from you, since I need more information from you and I need to convey more information to you, to the extent I am able to within the confines of a comment on the blog, you should have regard to

      a. What I have explained at 2 above and you are more than likely worrying about how you look, more than you should. It is understandable, but misleading you.
      b. Show the officer the evidence. Always go to the evidence and that is what he will make his evaluation on.
      c. You can remain calm and at the same time provide the evidence, you probably will not appear as calm as you think, since you will be conveying certain emotional cues notwithstanding (see Why Grey Rock Does Not Work).

      Thank you in advance for your donation to the AAF, that is fair and considerate of you.

  5. truthseeker6157 says:

    This was a favourite with my narc. Stepping back from it I can’t believe I was drawn in or even re examined my recollection of events. When you are straight yourself, and you feel that you know someone, the tendency is to believe that as a minimum they are at least relaying how they remember the events that took place. It is said in such a convincing way, they seem convinced of their ‘truth’. I can’t even hazard a guess as to the number of times I said, “But that isn’t what happened.” “That isn’t what you said.” “That isn’t what I said.” “ You aren’t being logical.” “ Why are you saying that?” I see it now, but at the time I was always fire fighting. Trying to stop the inevitable spiralling out of control of the conversation. He never succeeded in convincing me of what he was saying was true exactly. He just convinced me that he believed it was true. All that was needed really.
    I can see the point of just stating the truth once then leaving it. Even now, knowing what the behaviour is / was, I think I’d find it very hard to do that and not try to get him to see what he was saying simply didn’t happen. Not to win, just to defend myself. I’m just honest. Suggesting to me that I’m not is almost guaranteed to get a reaction.
    I still find it hard to comprehend how a man who has to be so careful, so logical in his working life, can be so different in his private life. I know it’s for control and for fuel but it’s still difficult for me to accept that in one situation he is one thing, and in another he is unrecognisable. I’m always the same, I don’t deviate!
    The more articles I read, or even re read, the more narcissistic behaviours I see. Many of them I didn’t even mention in the Narc Detector. There were still enough behaviours there to assuredly make the correct call though. Amazes me really.

  6. lickemtomorrow says:

    “History is written by the victors”

    I don’t know how many times my narc managed to ‘word salad’ me out of an argument. Definitely couldn’t win.

    So, I’m guessing word salad is a part of gaslighting which is a part of manipulation to exasperate the empath and secure the win for the narcissist. It’s exhausting, and I gave in time and time again. Deflection was also part of the ‘win’, as was projection and blame shifting. So many ways to secure the win. The narc had it all over me!

Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.