A reader sent me this article and I am sharing it here as part of the overall educational series I have been doing on sociopathy/narcissism…
What the Term ‘Flying Monkeys’ Means When We Talk About Narcissism
By Adam England
When people discuss narcissists, they sometimes use the phrase ‘flying monkeys.’ Flying monkeys refer to people who carry out the work of a narcissist or an abusive person, and it comes from The Wizard of Oz, in which the Wicked Witch of the West puts flying monkeys under her spell.
They did the bidding for the Wicked Witch in much the same way as people might ‘work’ for a narcissist—hence the term being used to describe these people. A narcissist might use their friends or family—or even yours—as spies, or to spread rumors, making them act as substitutes for themselves.1
Here’s how to tell if someone is a flying monkey and how to deal with them, as well as why people might submit to narcissists.
How Can You Tell If Someone Is a Flying Monkey?
“It’s often difficult to recognize a flying monkey,” explains Lauren Kerwin, PhD, licensed clinical psychologist, “as they may seem like normal people who are simply taking sides in a disagreement or conflict.”
Signs Someone Is a Flying Monkey
However, Dr. Kerwin outlines a few key tell-tale signs to look out for:
- They side with the narcissist no matter the situation or evidence presented to them
- They spread gossip or rumors about you
- They gaslight or manipulate you
- They dismiss or trivialize your feelings
- They pass on information about you to help the narcissist harass you
Flying monkeys could be friends or associates of the narcissist, friends or associates of you, or people you think of as authority figures.
Why Do People Submit to Narcissists?
There’s no easy answer here as there could be any number of reasons. Often, narcissists will begin ‘grooming’ their flying monkeys from the beginning, testing the relationship between you and them.
They can flip things, making people believe that they’re the ones being abused, rather than it being the other way around.
Flying Monkeys May Be People-Pleasers
Often, flying monkeys are people-pleasers. They want to be helpful and don’t want to disappoint the narcissist, particularly if they’re a friend or relative. And it’s likely that they’ve been manipulated or coerced by the narcissist themselves, or fear them and submit to them so they don’t become a target themselves.
They could be in denial, or “simply lack the emotional intelligence or empathy to understand the harm they’re participating in,” says Dr. Kerwin. Often, flying monkeys fulfill their role without actually realizing it, or genuinely believing that the narcissist is in the right because they’re taken in by them and their perspective.1
Sometimes, flying monkeys will have conditions or disorders that make them more susceptible. However, this certainly doesn’t mean that everybody with a certain condition will be a flying monkey.
For example, somebody with narcissistic personality disorder might be a flying monkey. In this case, a narcissist might submit to another one if there’s something in it for them, be it money, power, or the hope of overtaking them in the future.
People with anxiety might be drawn to the power and confidence the narcissist projects, while co-dependent people may like to serve a narcissist as a way of feeling purpose and satisfaction with their life.
How to Deal With Flying Monkeys
Dealing with flying monkeys isn’t always going to be easy. In many cases, they’ll be friends or family members of you, the narcissist, or both. However, Dr. Kerwin suggests some strategies that you can try.
- Be firm with boundaries
- Avoid confrontation as it can create drama, says Dr. Kerwin
- Get support from trusted loved ones or a mental health professional
- Document any incidents of abuse/harassment, as this could be useful if you involve the authorities
- Limit contact as much as you can
It might be difficult to follow these steps, particularly if you’re leaving a relationship with a narcissist or cutting them out of your life. They may send flying monkeys after you, and limiting contact entirely may not be possible. However, it’s important to be as firm as you can when you set boundaries and avoid confrontation where possible.
Before you cut a narcissist out of your life or end your relationship, make a plan and a list of reasons why you’re leaving the relationship. This is a good idea because the narcissist and their flying monkeys can distort reality, causing you to question yourself too.
If you’re having to deal with flying monkeys, whether the narcissist is still in your life or not, you may benefit from speaking to a mental health professional. They can offer you help and advice tailored to your circumstances and situation and can help you manage in the aftermath if you decide to end the relationship as narcissistic abuse can have long-term mental health effects.
Regarding the work of Adam Grant, I wrote a blog post called The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
Here’s an excerpt.
Scientology has lots of numbers Ron Hubbard presented that depict various percentages of people as suppressive or low-toned or antisocial or degraded brings and as you get deeper and deeper into Scientology you progress through these various numbers in references that start with two and a half percent as suppressive with seventeen and a half percent PTS, to his statement that the ratio of big beings to degraded brings is eighteen to one. The Sea Org even has internal promotional materials that state for every Sea Org member making it go right there are a million people who don’t even know what right is.
In leaving Scientology there seems to be no lack of ideas on who is what kind of person, be it narcissist or sociopath or psychopath. There are also the categories of people who cooperate with authority and even categories based on how we work with each other at jobs or in personal relationships.
I wanted to share some ideas from outside Scientology to show a lot of people have done a lot of work to figure this stuff out.
“10 percent of any population is cruel, no matter what, and 10 percent is merciful, no matter what, and the remaining 80 percent can be moved in either direction.”
― Susan Sontag
Werner Twertzog ( a parody of Werner Herzog) said: “Dear America: You are waking up as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches.”
“A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.”
― Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door
“Asked about our sense that we are not safe in our own world, Albert Einstein once said, “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”
― Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door
From the website Lemonade by Team Lemonade
According to Adam Grant, author of Give and Take, there are three different types of reciprocity types: givers, takers, and matchers.
Givers, takers, and matchers
What’s the difference between these types?
Takers are self-focused and put their own interests ahead of others’ needs. They try to gain as much as possible from their interactions while contributing as little as they can in return.
Matchers like to preserve an equal balance of giving and taking. Their mindset is: “If you take from me, I’ll take from you. If you give to me, I’ll give to you.”
Givers are others-focused, and tend to provide support to others with no strings attached. They ask themselves, “How can I add value for this person? What can I contribute?”
Types of Reciprocity – Lemonade Blog
So what type are you? Turns out most people hover in the middle, and behave as matchers, answering option B above (I’ll introduce you to my college friend, but I need help from you).
Humans have an innate tendency to be reciprocal, and givers and takers represent two extremes.
But while givers are the most generous in our society, matchers play an important role. They make sure what goes around, comes around. They reward givers for their generous behavior, and seek revenge when they, or others, are being mistreated. End excerpt from Lemonade
Adam Grant in his book Give and Take described the three reciprocity styles in detail. He described the breakdown of percentages from thousands of people studied as Givers 25% Matchers 56%, Takers 19%.
I usually cheat and think of Givers 20%, Takers 60% and Matchers 60%. That is pretty close and I can picture five people and say if his descriptions and hypothesis are accurate one of these five on average is a taker, one on average is a giver and three out of five on average are matchers.
That is easy to remember, one is out for themselves (only), one is looking out for others first and three out of five are looking to be fair but not taken advantage of, three out of five want an even exchange of favors, compensation, and so on.
From
https://mbnest.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-good-bad-and-ugly.html?m=0
This is an important topic. Lots of people act to help human predators and they often don’t even know it.
There’s a wealth of information on the topic and I can recommend a lot of good books.
In fact I have written blog posts on several and can tell you a bit about them.
The Empathy Trap Book is a very good reference that uses a model that has empaths, highly empathic people, and apaths most people who are not especially empathic or especially lacking in empathy, and sociopaths who are human predators in this context.
It describes the various roles and their interactions in n depth.
https://mbnest.blogspot.com/2020/06/examining-empathy-trap-1.html
We also have Give and Take by Adam Grant.
He describes a model that has givers (empaths) who say what can I do to help others? each day, takers (sociopaths) who say what can I take? each day and matchers (apaths) who are willing to work but do not want to work more or harder than others and are particularly sensitive to getting cheated or getting less than others.
Grant describes this as roughly one in five are takers, looking out exclusively or almost exclusively for themselves, givers, putting others first quite often as one in five, and matchers, who go along to get along and go with the flow, unless they are getting a bad deal or someone else is getting a better deal as three in five people.
As an interesting note in the Milgram obedience to authority experiments that had people believe they were electrocuting an innocent stranger (possibly to death) sixty percent or three in five people carried out the electrocution to the highest level.
So, there may be some truth to the idea that about sixty percent of people never make up their minds to be particularly good or bad and they are molded in the moment quite often by impulse and social pressures.
We may have the other twenty percent or one in five who are empathic and strive to do the right thing most if the time instictively and the final twenty percent or one in five who are human predators who lack compassion and empathy and are at best indifferent to others and at worst monstrously evil.
flying monkeys! hmmm. it’s easy to make flying monkeys out if teenagers! that’s why cults look for the young impressionable well meaning people to gaslight. with huge promises of spiritual freedom. ugh. 😑
Narcissists (LRH) don’t know how stupid they look.
One hundred percent, Hubbard was the “Source” narcissist role model to every follower’s detriment.
The problem with Adam English’s advice to “talk with a mental health professional” is that so many of them are themselves sociopaths, narcisists and/or flying monkeys, i.e., many of them are not really professional.
Would it not be better advice to simply suggest that people:
1) Always look in your own heart continually to make sure that you’re intentions are motivated by kindness, and
2) Don”t hang out with mean people, and
3) Simply be nice to people! 😊
……rather, realize life is long and keep hunting for one’s professional advisor match. Even if only through others’ books, that is an easy approach to replace past indoctrination. It might take years. In any case, keep inputting, keep self educating oneself. Definitely start and continue to replace the Hubbardisms in your head.
Excellent insight! I have felt like a flying monkey in the past, but it left a bitter taste in my mouth and I couldn’t continue to enable the harm. It’s so hard to recognize right off the bat as you feel you’re doing something important. Thank you for putting this out.
Flying monkeys slinging feces, SPs and Illegal PCs.
“Source” reigns over his myriad institutionalized “flying monkey” organization!
I means Hubbard’s myriad jobs, all permenently listed out on the “Org Board” all are just flying monkeys to “Source” Hubbard the chief narcissist/megalomaniac.
“Little Megalomaniacs” all, to “Source”
I mean the Hubbard actual imprinted rules bound setup are just themselves this very “flying monkeys” for Hubbard/”Source”
One very very prominent ex, felt like a Hubbard “slave.”
A really “top” of the line narcissist, Hubbard, has “Loyal Officers”, has “Commodore’s Messengers”, and if you come to dissect the “source” rules and regulations for the “beingningss” of all of the positions which Hubbard outlined in all of Hubbard’s administrative guidelines writings, Hubbard laid out truly a megalomaniac’s dream world.
“Keeping Scientology Working” could also be seen as “keeping a megalomaniac’s dream/horror-world “working””. (“Working” for the narcissist megalomaniac!)
Start teaching your children when young about “users” & “standing your ground”. If you teach in a gentle age-appropriate way how to not follow those that are “self-centered” you will help them be aware. Being observant & looking at what those people do vs what they say is a good skill to have. Cult proof them as much as possible…
I’m Self Centered. But I have limits.
Limit contact as much as you can. Best advice. Stay far away from Flying Monkeys, you cannot reason with them. They are in a cult of sorts.
They’re all guided on a flight path set by Top Ape David Miscavige to perpetuate their monkey business.
All this wrintings go back to BT and Cluster… in the ideas and words of LRH… which means, there is a senior being and something or somebody adheres to it or him… which itself is in basic the source of conflicts… first to it – not every human being must have a thetan (it is only an idea that it would be) … it goes also with a GE (Genectic Entity)… and there are probably up to 7,298 billions in such a stateor more… and this being is sorteted by Senior impulses und folowing Clusters to him… and this being can things do to which the thetan is incapable… doesn’t matter what LRH has said… he dreamed something else up which he could than never solve for himself… he dropped his body… Jesus could do once something more… but beside… a narcist can be a very pretty boy or girl – but is were from the body, it is also nice to see something like that – but a narcist in his mind ist only an idiot… and folows only the rules of BT and Cluster… in the words of LRH… … but, and or… whatever… it is all not so complicated as it looks like… a being is a being… but it is difficult… difficult when you evaluate with wrong masters…
Aldeboni,
I am not sure what you just said.
(This is not because I am either stupid or uneducated in the subject.)
Would you do me a favor? For my benefit and the benefit of other readers, ould you simplify and summarize what you just said above?
Karl,
I can answer that with an “SP koan”:
“What is the olfactory intensity and resonant frequency peak(audio) of a permanently undulating and self-replacating Intergalactic Hubbardian Fart?”
Easy peasey!
Yours in Utterly Serious Cult-Think Disassembly,
Marko😎
so true. Hubbard’s “big beings” writing(s) make it clear Hubbard agrees with what you said.
“Master” class.
“Simon Bolivar” policy pretty much lists out the Hubbard narcissism, it’s the Hubbard writing called, “The Responsibilities of Leaders.” Hubbard’s advice for the movement leaders.
Then in the ultimate Hubbard narcism writing, “Keeping Scientology Working” that’s the writing worth reading to hear Hubbard’s ultimate ultimate putting himself on the never to be vacated pedestal at the “Founder” of Scientology level. The “Source” biggest being.
Hubbard’s megalomania is a theme easily proven laying out and letting the public read his most extreme self placement in the role Hubbard thought of himself above everyone.
————————-
For me, reading Kima Douglas’ thoughts on Hubbard were critical to cutting the great Hubbard down to normal human asshole size!
Aldeboni: time for an intense, thorough regimen of enemas…
Or: a culty turd is a turd.
Free your mind of Hubbardian shit!
ML,
A Being