Connect with us

Opinion

Could You Be Abusing Someone on Behalf of a Narcissist?

Published

9 minute read

Today is World Narcissistic Abuse Awareness Day. Yes, believe it or not, it is a real thing. And it hurts.

We are all good people, right? At least, deep down, I hope we believe that; I mean, what person would intentionally, consciously, go out of their way to hurt and destroy another human being?

We probably have all been in contact with a narcissist at some point in our life. Maybe a boss. A friend. A neighbor. Or like me, even a member of your own immediate family.

Narcissists are very smart and calculating. They have had to be; they have been doing this for a very long time. They are self-absorbed, controlling, intolerant to others and their needs, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen, even though their front is a façade. “Victimized narcissists” can say hurtful things, but if you dare say something back to defend yourself, you are the enemy and considered abusive. There is no sense in debating with a narcissist; they will shift the blame at all costs. They will never see things through your eyes; they are incapable of reflection or feeling empathy. For this reason, sadly, they don’t have the conscious insight that we do to know that they exhibit this behavior.

Narcissists will suck the life out of you and leave you struggling to breathe. Narcissists don’t care that they pit one family member against another, even sibling against sibling if the narcissist happens to be a parent. Yes, the most excruciating pain is the reality that moms and dads can also be narcissists, leaving their children sometimes hating each other. And the one that dares to speak out to this abuse is left feeling defeated, battered, and bruised by the people they love most in this world even though the wounds are invisible to the naked eye (which is another reason why innocent people get caught in the trap of defending the narc).

And if the relationship becomes so intolerable with a narc that you are forced to make a painful decision of quitting your job, moving, ending a friendship, getting a divorce, or even going low or no contact with one or both of the people who brought you into this world, you become public enemy number one; the narc will attempt to destroy you and your reputation at all costs.

“Narcissist’s will DESTROY your life and erode your self-esteem. They do it with such PERSUASION that you are left feeling like YOU are the one letting them down.”

A narcissist’s public persona is very important to them, which is why they don’t publicly attack you—that would make them look bad. Instead, they carefully choose people in their circle to be their puppets. The narc delivers believable-sounding lies to sympathetic ears, ones that can be easily manipulated. Of course, very decent, loving, caring individuals can be caught in the trap of the narcissist and innocently become what is called “flying monkeys.”

A Flying Monkey? Up until a few months ago, I had never even heard the term. But I felt attacked from all directions and so on my quest to understand and survive this abuse I found this in Wikipedia and finally it all made perfect sense. The complicated pieces all came together in my mind: “Flying monkeys is a phrase used in popular psychology mainly in the context of narcissistic abuse. They are people who act on behalf of a narcissist to a third party, usually for an abusive purpose. Flying monkeys are distinct from enablers…. Enablers just allow or cover for the narcissist’s (abuser’s) own bad behavior.”

This is a phrase made popular by the movie The Wizard of Oz—the Wicked Witch sent her flying monkeys after Dorothy and her friends. In most cases, it is a humorous way of saying “Don’t make me come after you.” But there is nothing humorous about being hated and harassed by a flying monkey on its mission to destroy an innocent person. It is unfair, cruel and causes more pain to someone that is already struggling.

So, beware.

You may be a flying monkey if:

You find yourself believing gossip, even though the facts don’t add up.

You are an adult, yet you take sides, instead of staying impartial.

You are mad, stop speaking to someone and possibly hate someone else who has done nothing to you at all.

You accept someone’s version of the truth although you have no first-hand knowledge of the story.

You believe that the one you are defending is the only one deserving of sympathy.

You are overly involved, feeling the need to defend at all costs.

You are attacking someone else over something that quite frankly is none of your business.

And what should you do if you are on the receiving end of this hatred and smear campaign either from a narcissist or their flying monkey?

It is easier said than done sometimes, but keep calm and do not engage. DON’T ENGAGE. The narc is looking for you to react. It gives them fuel. Strength. Power. And they hate nothing more than the silent treatment, as they are then not getting their narcissistic supply.

Breathe. Ignore it. Read books and articles on narcissism. See a therapist. Write. Cry (it does make you feel better). Cry some more if you have to. Heal. Keep breathing.

Live a beautiful, healthy, productive, and happy life and don’t look back. Narcissists hate that and it does make them angrier. But don’t do it out of spite; do it because you are entitled to that. You are. And never let anyone make you feel guilty or beaten down or ashamed that you choose to do what is best for your life.

We are all responsible for our choices and behaviors and the consequences. Knowledge is a gift and you can always change. Say sorry. Forgive. So, if you believe that you have unintentionally been used by a narcissist as their flying monkey, what you do with that knowledge is up to you.

But know that, moving forward, what you do now IS intentional and conscious.

Jodee Prouse is a Sister. Wife. Mom. Friend. And outspoken advocate to help empower ACOA’s through their journey of life; trauma, truth, addiction & breaking free from family chaos to live YOUR best life. She is the author of the powerful memoir, The Sun is Gone: A Sister Lost in Secrets, Shame, and Addiction and How I Broke Free. To learn more visit www.jodeeprouse.com

Author of the powerful memoir The Sun is Gone: A Sister Lost in Secrets, Shame and Addiction and How I Broke Free. Outspoken advocate to help eliminate the shame + stigma surrounding Addiction + Mental Health. Visit www.jodeeprouse.ca or follow on instagram @jodeeprouse

Follow Author

Bruce Dowbiggin

From The Border To Kevin O’Leary, Canada Is Freaking Out Americans

Published on

Tequesta, Fla.: Those Canadians who spend time in DeSantisLand  know that our American hosts are blissfully unaware of what happens in Canada. Outside blaming the True North for brisk weather like this week’s near-freezing temps in the South.

Then, out of nowhere, Canada and Canadians are suddenly blasting down the pike like an Alberta Clipper. Example: While everyone is talking the bum rush at the southern U.S. border, former GOP presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy was frothing about the steady tide of illegals crossing southward from Canada into the U.S.

He told X ,“The Northern Border is the next frontier for illegals. Career politicians including Republicans derided me for saying it last year. Now we’re starting to see the consequences.” One of the consequences is the PM not talking about our leaky border. But since the Liberals removed visa requirements for Mexicans the flood gates have opened. Canada’s fastest growing industry is human smuggling.

Vermont residents are very engaged with Canada’s dirty little secret. Swanton, Vt. resident Chris Feeley told reporters that “he has been hunting in the area since he was a teen and rarely ran into anyone. Now he sees illegals frequently. ‘The border patrol actually told us, ‘You guys might want to put a pistol in your backpack’ because nine out of 10 of them are just here for a better life, but there’s that one guy that’s got a rap sheet,” he said.

Will Trump build a northern wall as well as a southern barrier? Inquiring minds in Canada want to know. Then came the bimbo eruption from New York’s governor Kathy Hochul. Hochul’s state has the highest percentage of Jews in America (seven percent). One and a half to two million Jews live in the New York City area alone. She has a vested interest in their issues.

So when the heinous Oct. 7 attacks murdered hundreds of innocent Israelis in their homes and communities Hochul (whose ancestry is Irish-American) sought to show her solidarity with her constituents. “If Canada someday ever attacked Buffalo, I’m sorry, my friends, there would be no Canada the next day,” Hochul said at an event for the United Jewish Appeal-Federation of New York.

“That is a natural reaction. You have a right to defend yourself and to make sure that it never happens again. And that is Israel’s right.” Hey, she likes us enough to massacre us in retaliation. Now that’s a caring neighbour. Not surprisingly, when Canada’s media grandees heard the news they plotzed. And Hochul scrambled to clarify her remarks. But for a few days, Canada was a something. Americas would obliterate us for destroying Buffalo. The mind boggles.

Next, the liberals in overheated #TDS legacy media had one of their periodic fits over former president #OrangeManBad . They were left aghast that another Donald Trump presidency might decline to protect NATO partners from the boogey man. Trump even suggested he’d give Putin the A-OK to do his worst on Luxembourg or Montenegro. Shocked and appalled, they declared the end of NATO and McDonald’s McRib sandwich.

What the Jake Tapper Brigade neglected to mention in all this fainting and pearl clutching was that this would happen ONLY IF rogue nations refused to pay their obligations under the NATO charter. (Why ruin a good hysteria over running the full quote? See: Charlottesville, Jan. 6, drinking bleach.)

Now, which American neighbour to the North of Biden’s Bedroom is delinquent in its obligations to NATO? Might it be Trudeaupia where it’s more important than agriculture minister Lawrence McAuley be seen casually gorging on lobster in Asia than paying up for deterrents against the Chinese?

So to all his other self-inflicted miseries Prince Justin of Rideau Cottage was confronted with the pitiful funding of Canada’s military (his government just cut military spending by a billion) and its reliance on the support of strangers when it comes to protecting the Arctic, among other tracts of lands. Trudeau has lobbied NATO to include other spending under its requirements. But so far, NATO is not accepting maple syrup, Melanie Joly desk calendars and Bollywood costumes as applicable contributions to defence spending.

According to reports reaching us in the Land of Farenheit, Trudeau responded to all this scrutiny by flying west in a carbon-belching jet to promote climate something-something. But how would an incoming Trump administration deal with Trudeau (and his paid media) who has made POTUS 45 a convenient whipping boy? Has Canada’s PM said too much already? Might Trump tighten the pressure on paying up— just in spite? Trump? Spiteful? Never!

Next on the screens of Americans was the ubiquitous Mr. Wonderful, Kevin O’Leary, Canada’s gift to Shark Tank/ Dragons Den. The recent civil trial of Trump in NYC has vexed him. So everywhere one looks O’Leary is schooling dim liberal hosts on CNN about the idiocy of the decision to fine Trump $354M for cheating no one out of nothing.

“It’s appalling. It’s unjust. I would go as far to say it’s un-American.” Here he is with some place setting named Laura Coates explaining how you do real estate in NYC. “That fact that he was found guilty, you might as well find guilty every real estate developer on Earth,” O’Leary says. “I don’t understand where someone got hurt … What developer doesn’t ask for the highest-price value for any building they built?… If this judgment sticks, every developer must be jailed. They must be found guilty. They must be put out of business. You can’t do this to one but not another. It’s not about Trump.”

O’Leary followed up by saying he wouldn’t be doing business in NYC until the decision was reversed. Others, including Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams followed suit, “100% of people who don’t understand banking, business, negotiating, or the world in general are sure Trump committed fraud. 100% of people who understand banking, business, negotiating, and the world in general saw ‘business as usual’ and no fraud.” Like O’Leary, Adams vowed not to visit nor do business in New York State, setting off an X wave of hysteria among former CDN sports writers and liberal arts graduates.

But Mr. Wonderful discouraging business is different. Hearing O’Leary’s warning to businesses to steer clear of NYC, Governor Hochul sought to reassure real-estate developers that the government will not go after them like they have gone after Donald Trump. Prompting Texas senator Ted Cruz to observe, “In other words, if you don’t make Democrats angry, you won’t get sued. But if you do, you’ll get the Donald Trump treatment.”

It’s almost too much Canada in the news. Luckily, Trudeaupia will slip beneath the waves of American attention again shortly, ignored and dismissed. To think we were that close.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his new book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.

Continue Reading

Fraser Institute

Yes, B.C.’s Land Act changes give First Nations veto over use of Crown Land

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Bruce Pardy

Nathan Cullen says there’s no veto. Cullen, British Columbia’s Minister of Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship, plans to give First Nations joint decision-making authority over Crown land. His NDP government recently opened consultations on its proposal to amend the B.C. Land Act, under which the minister grants leases, licences, permits, rights-of-way and land sales. The amendments will give legal effect to agreements with Indigenous governing bodies. Those agreements will share decision-making power “through joint or consent models” with some or all of B.C.’s more than 200 First Nations.

Yes, First Nations will have a veto.

Cullen denies it. “There is no veto in these amendments,” he told the Nanaimo News Bulletin last week. He accused critics of fearmongering and misinformation. “My worry is that for some of the political actors here on the right, this is an element of dog-whistle politics.”

But Cullen has a problem. Any activity that requires your consent is an activity over which you have a veto. If a contract requires approval of both parties before something can happen, “no” by one means “no” for both. The same is true in other areas of law such as sexual conduct, which requires consent. If you withhold your consent, you have vetoed the activity. “Joint decision-making,” “consent,” and “veto” come out to the same thing.

Land use decisions are subject to the same logic. The B.C. government will give First Nations joint decision-making power, when and where agreements are entered into. Its own consultation materials say so. This issue has blown up in the media, and the government has hastily amended its consultation webpage to soothe discontent (“The proposed amendments to the Land Act will not lead to broad, sweeping, or automatic changes (or) provide a ‘veto.’”) Nothing to see here folks. But its documentation continues to describe “shared decision-making through joint or consent models.”

These proposals should not surprise anyone. In 2019, the B.C. legislature passed Bill 41, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). It requires the government to take “all measures necessary” to make the laws of British Columbia consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP).

UNDRIP is a declaration of the U.N. General Assembly passed in 2007. It says that Indigenous people have “the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired… to own, use, develop and control.”

On its own, UNDRIP is non-binding and unenforceable. But DRIPA seeks to incorporate UNDRIP into B.C. law, obligating the government to achieve its aspirations. Mere consultation with First Nations, which Section 35 of the Constitution requires, won’t cut it under UNDRIP. Under Section 7 of DRIPA, agreements to be made with indigenous groups are to establish joint decision-making or to require consent of the Indigenous group. Either Cullen creates a First Nations veto or falls short of the goalposts in DRIPA. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Some commentators warned against these dangers long ago. For example, shortly after DRIPA was passed in 2019, Vancouver lawyer Robin Junger wrote in the Vancouver Sun, “It will likely be impossible for government to live up to the expectations that Indigenous groups will now reasonably hold, without fundamentally affecting the rights and interests of third parties.” Unfortunately, few wanted to tackle that thorny question head on at the time. All three political parties in B.C. voted in favour of DRIPA, which passed unanimously.

For a taste of how Land Act changes could work, ask some B.C. residents who have private docks. In Pender Harbour, for instance, the shishalh Nation and the province have jointly developed a “Dock Management Plan” to try and impose various new and onerous rules on private property owners (including red “no go” zones and rules that will make many existing docks and boat houses non-compliant). Property owners with long-standing docks in full legal compliance will have no right to negotiate, to be consulted, or to be grandfathered. Land Act amendments may hardwire this plan into B.C. law.

Yet Cullen insists that no veto will exist since aggrieved parties can apply to a court for judicial review. “[An agreement] holds both parties—B.C. and whichever nation we enter into an agreement (with)—to the same standard of judicial review, administrative fairness, all the things that courts protect when someone is going through an application or a tendering process,” he told Business in Vancouver.

This is nonsense on stilts. By that standard, no government official has final authority under any statute. All statutory decisions are potentially subject to judicial review, including decisions of Cullen himself as the minister responsible for the Land Act. He doesn’t have a veto? Of course he does. Moreover, courts on judicial review generally defer to statutory decision-makers. And they don’t change decisions but merely send them back to be made again. The argument that First Nations won’t have a veto because their decisions can be challenged on judicial review is legal jibber jabber.

When the U.N. passed UNDRIP in 2007, people said they can’t be serious. When the B.C. legislature passed DRIPA in 2019, people said they can’t be serious. The B.C. government now proposes to give First Nations a veto over the use of Crown land. Don’t worry, they can’t be serious.

Continue Reading

Trending

X