Everett | Ian — Book in progress by Marcus Björnesson

This is a book in progress.

It is being written publicly, chapter by chapter, as a way of examining patterns that are often sensed long before they are understood.

The writing is not intended to persuade or accuse. It is an attempt to describe how certain dynamics form, how they escalate, and why they are so difficult to recognize while they are happening.

New chapters will be added over time. What you are reading here is not a preview, but the work itself.

This work is written by Marcus Björnesson.

It is based on personal experience, long observation, and a commitment to describing patterns as clearly as possible, without simplification or spectacle.

My life changed direction completely.

Both professionally and privately, what once felt like an ending revealed itself, over time, as the beginning of something far more solid than what came before.

The most important lesson was quiet: you rarely recognize how toxic an environment is while you are still inside it. Being used, reshaped, or eventually betrayed is not always visible when you’re close to the center of things.

Distance changed everything. Stepping away brought clarity. Standing my ground brought something else entirely: ownership of what I had built, and responsibility for what I would build next.

I’m grateful to the people who spoke honestly when it mattered — those who were not afraid to say what they saw, even when it was uncomfortable. I’m also grateful for the challenges themselves: for the pressure that forced growth, and for the separation that made understanding possible.

Clarity changes everything.

This work explores patterns of toxic behaviour and relational dynamics as they appear across personal, professional, and institutional contexts. It is not intended as a diagnosis of any individual, nor as an accusation toward any specific person.

The examples described throughout the text are illustrative. They are drawn from lived experience, observation, and reflection, and have been anonymised, adapted, and combined where necessary to protect privacy and avoid attribution.

The purpose of this work is understanding, not judgement. It aims to help readers recognise patterns, make sense of confusion, and regain clarity in situations where healthy communication has failed.

If readers recognise similarities to their own experiences, that recognition arises from shared dynamics — not from the identification of any individual described here.

Toxic Behaviour Is Often Misunderstood

The word "toxic" is used casually — "he's toxic," "she's toxic" — as if it simply meant someone unpleasant. But real toxicity is something else entirely.

It rarely starts loud. It rarely arrives as chaos. More often, it begins as confusion, disguised as intensity, charisma, urgency, or "high standards."

In the beginning, nothing feels clearly wrong. You simply feel slightly unsettled — as if you are missing something. That is exactly the point. Toxicity gains power when it makes you doubt your own perception before it ever needs to attack you directly.

The earliest signs are subtle, and therefore easy to excuse:

• A demand that feels disproportionate to the situation.
• A sudden crisis that makes no logical sense.
• A broken agreement later denied as if it never happened.
• Unpredictable mood shifts that keep you guessing.
• A strange comment that feels like a warning.

For example, a routine discussion may suddenly be framed as "time-critical," with pressure to agree immediately — even though nothing has objectively changed.

You don't feel afraid — just uneasy. You don't feel attacked — just off-balance. You don't feel controlled — only unsure what is safe to say.

That is precisely how toxic power begins: not through force, but through subtle destabilisation.

The Cycle of Toxic Control

Healthy people can argue, apologise, reflect, and move on. Toxic dynamics are different. They tend to follow a predictable cycle that repeats and tightens over time.

1. Charm — Intensity, attention, and exaggerated reassurance draw you in.
2. Testing — Small boundary pushes to see how much you will accept.
3. Control — Pressure, emotional leverage, and rewritten reality.
4. Chaos — Crises, threats, and emotional explosions.
5. Submission — You absorb blame to restore peace.
6. Calm — Warmth returns, tension drops — until the cycle begins again.

To understand how this plays out in practice, consider a collaboration that begins with encouragement and shared ambition.

When concerns are raised — such as questioning whether the collaboration is workable — the discussion is shut down with a warning: that raising doubts will "open Pandora's box."

Over time, it becomes clear that the warning was not symbolic. If the collaboration does not proceed as expected, the situation is reframed — motives questioned, intentions reinterpreted, and narratives reshaped in ways that create fear rather than dialogue.

As the cycle repeats, it tightens. Each round carries more pressure and less clarity. Eventually, you begin managing your words, tone, and timing — not to communicate honestly, but to prevent a reaction.

How Toxicity Progresses

Toxic behaviour rarely escalates all at once. It expands gradually, normalising each new level before moving to the next. This pattern of escalation is what distinguishes toxic dynamics from ordinary conflict.

• Operational sabotage — Plans are disrupted and processes undermined.
• Emotional punishment — Warmth is withdrawn and silence is used as control.
• Public humiliation — Credibility is subtly attacked in front of others.
• Isolation — Trust between you and others is quietly eroded.
• Manipulation involving children — Loyalty or guilt is used as leverage.
• Legal or institutional threats — Procedures are invoked to intimidate.
• Dramatic accusations without evidence — Severity increases as facts disappear.

What matters is not which of these tactics appear, but that they form a pattern of escalation. Each step reduces your options and shifts power away from dialogue.

This is not ordinary conflict. This is control.

Why Good People Miss the Early Signs

Good people miss early signs not because they are careless, but because they operate through healthy assumptions about how relationships work.

• They think rationally and expect others to do the same.
• They communicate honestly and assume good faith in return.
• They believe misunderstandings can be resolved through conversation.
• They feel empathy and extend the benefit of the doubt.
• They expect boundaries to be respected once stated.

When problems arise, you naturally try to explain more clearly and slow the conversation down. But a toxic person may interpret this patience as permission to push further.

This mismatch exists because the same actions are processed through completely different frameworks. What feels cooperative to you may feel like weakness to them. What feels like healthy boundary-setting to you may feel like a challenge to them.

Your empathy becomes their shield. Your loyalty becomes their leverage. Your kindness becomes the opening they use to dominate.

The Mask Always Cracks

No matter how skilled the performance, toxic behaviour eventually reveals itself. The mask cracks through patterns that become impossible to ignore:

• Explosive reactions that seem disproportionate to the situation.
• Manufactured crises that serve no purpose but to destabilise.
• Manipulation of facts to rewrite shared history.
• Escalating threats when boundaries are enforced.
• Control through fear rather than respect.
• Blaming you for problems they created.

A meeting may be clearly agreed upon and prepared for. Then, shortly before it happens, the other person insists it was never scheduled at all.

The agreement is denied with certainty. The absence is never acknowledged. Instead, you are left questioning your own memory.

When someone consistently denies reality that you both experienced, this is not a misunderstanding. This is a warning sign.

And when someone refuses to question themselves — when certainty replaces understanding and belief alone becomes sufficient — dialogue becomes impossible.

At that point, distance is no longer dramatic. It becomes rational.

Different Internal Logic

Toxic behaviour is often misunderstood as a failure of communication. In reality, communication is usually functioning — it is simply being processed through a fundamentally different internal logic.

Healthy interaction is guided by shared assumptions: that clarity leads to resolution, that honesty invites reciprocity, and that disagreement can exist without threatening the relationship.

In toxic dynamics, these assumptions do not apply. The same questions, explanations, or boundaries are interpreted not as attempts to understand, but as challenges to authority or control.

This is why logic so often fails. You are not being misunderstood — you are being processed through a different framework altogether.

Control as Emotional Regulation

A central psychological difference lies in how emotional regulation occurs. Healthy individuals regulate themselves internally. They pause, reflect, tolerate discomfort, and adjust.

In toxic dynamics, regulation is frequently externalised. Inner tension is reduced not through reflection, but by creating pressure in the environment.

Conflict, urgency, fear, or instability serve a function. When others feel unsettled, inner discomfort temporarily decreases. This is why calm often returns only after dominance is restored.

Identity, Narrative Control, and Emotional Detachment

In some toxic personality structures, later behaviour is influenced by early experiences in which identity, belonging, or truth were unstable or carefully managed. These experiences are not simple causes, but conditions that can shape how certainty and control become psychologically important.

When a core truth about identity is hidden, minimised, or delayed, stability may come to depend on preserving a specific narrative. Questions feel disruptive. Contradictions feel unsafe. What matters is not accuracy, but coherence.

Over time, identity can become something to defend rather than explore. Admitting uncertainty becomes emotionally threatening. Control of the narrative becomes synonymous with safety.

Later encounters meant to resolve early absence do not always bring connection or repair. Instead, they may reinforce emotional distance and prioritise validation, status, or conquest over intimacy.

Avoidance of Responsibility

Another recurring feature in toxic dynamics is the avoidance of sustained responsibility. Tasks, execution, and follow-through are frequently shifted onto others, while authority and decision-making power are retained.

This often appears as confidence without execution. Ideas are announced and expectations are set, but the work required to realise them is assumed to be someone else’s responsibility.

Over time, this creates an unequal dynamic. One side carries the labour, while the other maintains influence without accountability. Exhaustion replaces collaboration.

Denial of Responsibility

Closely related is the denial of responsibility for outcomes. Decisions may be initiated and pressure applied, yet ownership rarely remains with the person who set events in motion.

When consequences appear, responsibility is redirected. Circumstances are blamed. Other people are blamed. Reactions are blamed — but the original action is rarely examined.

Without responsibility, there can be no correction. Without correction, behaviour repeats, often with increasing certainty and intensity.

Why Clarity Feels Like a Threat

To a healthy mind, clarity is stabilising. It reduces uncertainty and allows problems to be addressed.

In toxic dynamics, clarity introduces limits. It exposes contradictions, restricts narrative flexibility, and invites accountability.

As a result, clear questions often provoke disproportionate reactions. Requests for consistency or confirmation are treated not as neutral, but as threats.

Certainty Without Verification

Another defining feature is certainty detached from evidence. Confidence is expressed not as perspective, but as unquestionable truth.

Belief replaces verification. Complex issues are reduced to declarations. Expertise is asserted rather than demonstrated.

Contradiction is reframed as ignorance or defiance. Being right becomes more important than being accurate.

Why Accountability Triggers Escalation

Accountability introduces limits. It implies responsibility, correction, and restraint.

In toxic dynamics, accountability threatens internal balance. It removes the ability to shift blame, rewrite events, or maintain absolute authority.

As a result, accountability often triggers escalation. The focus shifts away from resolution and toward emotional dominance — anger, urgency, moral framing, or withdrawal.

Why Effort Makes Things Worse

One of the most confusing aspects of toxic dynamics is that increased effort often accelerates deterioration.

More explanation invites more resistance. More patience signals tolerance. More clarity increases perceived threat.

The very qualities that make someone cooperative and fair become the mechanisms through which pressure is applied.

Why Understanding This Changes Everything

Once this psychological mismatch is understood, confusion begins to dissolve. The failure was not effort. It was not communication. It was not goodwill.

You were applying healthy logic in a system that did not operate by those rules.

This understanding does not excuse harmful behaviour. But it explains why reason alone cannot resolve it — and why continued engagement leads not to clarity, but to escalation.

This chapter shifts the focus away from the toxic dynamic itself and toward the person who becomes caught inside it.

It explores how intelligent, capable, and well-intentioned people can slowly find themselves trapped in situations that no longer make sense — and yet feel increasingly difficult to leave.

What follows is not a story of weakness, but of gradual adaptation, misplaced responsibility, and hope used against itself.

This chapter is currently in progress.