Flying Monkeys v2 ±
Enter more text here
I decided to take a break from work over the last few weeks in order to recharge fuel cells, refocus and define an entirely new strategy. Previously I was merely focussing on Rhodium matters and not wasting time addressing the lies of the fools around me. My personality type is that of a person who does not need to impress others or require validation from third parties.
But my inaction seems to provide gravitas to the same, appearing guilty by silence. So having remembered my Medical Student days at University College London I have an entirely new strategy…
Flying monkeys is a phrase used in popular psychology mainly in the context of narcissistic abuse. They are people who act on behalf of the narcissist [Margaret Cunniffe / Edward de Saram] usually for an abusive purpose.The phrase has also been used to refer to people who act on behalf of a psychopath for a similar purpose. Abuse by proxy (or proxy abuse) is a closely related concept.
Who are they
Flying monkeys can be anyone who believes the narcissist’s fake persona including the narcissist’s spouse, associates and third parties.
According to Angela Atkinson flying monkeys are ‘usually unwittingly manipulated people‘ although rarely they may be another narcissist working in tandem. Such people are usually of limited conceptual abilities and/or exposure, and therefore this does explain why so many Australians and Sri Lankans are involved 🙂
According to Dr Sam Vaknin PhD, proxy abusers can be:
- the abuser’s associates – [DISCIPLES / BATCHMATES]
- the victim’s associates – manipulated to side with the abuser – [JOE’S FRIENDS / JOE’S WORKERS / JOE’S ATTORNEYS / JOE’S ACCOUNTANTS]
- authority and institutional figures – manipulated to side with the abuser – [LAW ENFORCEMENT / MILITARY INTELLIGENCE / THE JUDICIARY]
The flying monkey does the narcissist’s bidding to inflict additional torment to the target. It may consist of spying, spreading gossip, threatening, painting the narcissist as the victim (victim playing) and the target as the perpetrator (victim blaming). Despite this, the narcissist does not hesitate to make flying monkeys their scapegoats when and if needed.
The flying monkeys may make it seem like the narcissist is not really involved. They are likely to have no idea that they are being used.
Multiple flying monkeys are likely to act as a mobbing force against a victim.
The motives behind the narcissist’s support group can be multiple. Service providers may be seduced by the narcissist’s charm into taking a one-sided perspective. Family members may in good faith attempt to sort out the ‘problematic one’. The co-dependent may seek to participate in the narcissist’s omnipotence, or use them as sanction for their own aggressive instincts. Alternatively, others may simply be swept up by force of personality to define the situation along the narcissist’s own lines.
Redefining and Reframing
Joe’s Tactical Response
In relation to (2) above, I was stunned to find that my own professional advisers were actually following the instructions of third parties (such as Law Enforcement who had been manipulated).
My lawyers actually using the existence of the cases against Margaret Cunniffe / David Brown to elucidate my strategies and pass them to LE who could then assess the position with a view to providing them with a defence!
Furthermore, I was shocked to note that my lawyers were acting in the capacity of agents of law enforcement and it was a [pseudo-clever] way of interviewing me without caution!!
The lawyers in particular had absolutely no interest in providing any type of legal counsel, and they deliberately denied me natural justice and procedural fairness. This behaviour primarily started around August 2015 and became progressively worse from December 2015 onwards.
Accordingly, a few new websites with their actual voice recordings will put an end to their lies – we have around 131,000 recordings and we can see how things pan out after the various liars are exposed 🙂
Should their licences to practise be affected then they only have themselves to blame – duty of care has been removed entirely and the defined causes of action of negligence and breach of trust mean that I can get them into a court to be cross-examined! And their ‘real instructors’ will ‘cop’ it.
Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)