How I Came to Forgive the Narcissists in My Life (and it may not be what you think)

 c Lise Winne, all rights reserved
Two Gingko Leaves
(The Gingko symbolizes longevity, resilience and peace as well as the peace and harmony between two opposing forces)

So many mental health workers are divided on the topic of whether you need to forgive to heal.

Note: this does not mean taking them back, but forgiving narcissists for the qualities and disorder that they have, and which most of them had adopted in childhood from either being over-valued by their caretakers in chaotic, often abusive environments, or under-valued and taught to despise their own authentic innate qualities to become a "perfect version" of their tyrant or caretaker (mirroring them). 

Trauma therapists seem to think it is not necessary to forgive to heal. 

Other types of therapists not trained in trauma or domestic violence can believe forgiveness is absolutely necessary, that without it, you are stuck in the past, living the emotions of the past, caught up in the injustices of the past, vulnerable to narcissists' tactics. 

And then there are the survivors of abuse who either can't feel forgiveness or who can feel it without trying. I don't think forgiveness can be forced by oneself or others. I believe it has to come naturally, without force, without talking yourself into it, without being talked into it by others. 

This post comes in two parts: what researching narcissism made me realize, and what I realized about myself in the process of healing, including what I learned are the necessary ingredients in healing.  

Was "forgiveness" part of it? And can you really forgive people who hurt others? 

I tell some of what I went through.

 ONE VERSION OF HOW I CAME TO FORGIVE

I thought forgiveness of abusers was an impossible feeling to have on a genuine level without faking it for many, many years, but low and behold, I finally felt it. Needless to say, I was surprised when I got up one morning and had the feeling.

Before then I had some premonitions it was coming. I kept thinking, "That's who they are", a kind of  way you would think of a different species - perhaps one that bites, or someone that belongs to a political party that you would never be affiliated with. You aren't going to change them and they aren't going to change you. A lot of people feel "a sense of family" by belonging to a political party today, no matter how "misbehaved" politicians get. I do not, and I prefer to be that way. 

You get a very clear sense that narcissists are devoted to their beliefs and you accept it, kind of like you accept that other species do things differently than you do them. I say this not to dehumanize them, but to say there are arrays of types of beliefs and ways of thinking that are far from our own styles, and some of them are extreme and fixed. It is not our choice to fix them, talk them into something different, strong-arm them into thinking the way we think, threaten them to adopt our perspectives. And none of it works in the long term anyway.

We cannot change other people's or other species thinking styles. 

Most prey animals will run away from you, even if you think they are cuddly and cute and you want to hug them and pet them and take care of them. Most large predatory animals are going to run towards you to eat you, or attack you.

Narcissists are on the predatory end of the spectrum as far as human behavior is concerned, and in fact if you read all of the links associated, the articles say "significantly more predatory than other human beings."

Are narcissists predatory towards their own children?  Yes, even highly predatory.

Are narcissists predatory towards their spouse(s)? Yes, particularly if there is an imbalance of power. If they use that power, you'll be able to tell because they will be demanding and commanding you, using control and domination, managing how you think, work, say things, experience things, expecting you to disclose personal details without disclosing anything personal themselves, expecting obedience, and expecting to get their own way most or all of the time (narcissists don't compromise, nor are they concerned with interpersonal justice).

So what do we do when we are in the proximity of predatory animals? We try to either camoflauge ourselves or more likely, get out of dodge to a place where they will not attack us.

What do we do if we are cornered by them? We either fight, freeze or collapse - all used to protect ourselves. 

What do we do if we are actively being attacked by them? We will tend to scream or yell to alert other people that we are being attacked, and to get protection from them. 

Fawning with predatory animals would be crazy. And believe it or not, it is with human predators too. However, narcissists often make it your only option, that you will be safe if only you fawn, are obedient and do what ever they tell you to do. But since they use violence or discarding when you aren't fawning, flattering them or being obedient, it makes fawning look like the kind of predation that farmers or hunter-gatherers have. They feed their animals and then bring them to slaughter when "the time is right". 

In a similar way that predatory animals behave, often choosing the most vulnerable to isolate and hunt, human predators often become highly abusive, or violent, or discarding when you are old, sick, when you are a child, when you have a disease, when you are grieving, when you get a terminal diagnosis, when you become disabled, when you become unemployed, when you have something they want, and when you become sad or unsupported (separated from your herd), withdrawn or depressed. They have decided you are weak, and they can either get more power and fawning out of you in such a state, or they can get rid of you and use you for smear campaigns, fault finding, blame-shifting, anything they want as long as they think you are weak and when they feel they can can gnaw on your weaknesses.

These aren't people you can count on to save you if you are attacked by other predators, in other words. 

"Fawning" may be thought of as safe, but there is nothing "safe" about fawning unless it is extremely temporary, something you do in a tight squeeze or in a panic, when there are no other options. 

Here is a recent New York Times article on fawning that you may find interesting:

How ‘Fawning’ Is Ruining Your Relationships (Excessive people pleasing can trap you in a cycle of insecurity. Here’s how to break the habit.) - by Jancee Dunn for The New York Times:

excerpt in blue:

   People who fawn scramble to be helpful and agreeable to a person who is a threat, said Ms. Josephson, who has been a practicing therapist for five years and has 337,000 followers on Instagram. She grew up in a chaotic household in which she was constantly mollifying and accommodating her volatile father.

   Fawning is sometimes necessary to keep us safe, she said, whether it’s for our physical security or for a paycheck. But for those stuck in the fawn response, the impulse to be vigilant to threats and emotionally monitor others is in overdrive, and it spills over into situations in which we’re actually safe “but our body thinks we’re not,” she said.

Anyway, to get to my point:

We don't look at predatory animals in a bad way; for the most part we leave them alone unless they are attacking animals we are raising or keeping as pets; and even then we might not "blame them" for having a stomach that can only eat meat. Predators and prey do what they can to survive. 

And narcissists are who they are too, predatory, with extraordiarily similar traits among all other narcissists, and we have a choice (at least as adults) about how we want or don't want to communicate with them or relate to them. For all I know, they might feel their predatory instincts more forcefully than other humans, that they can only survive by "taking down prey" ... the kind of prey who are willing to bargain themselves away to serve them. 

For me, the type of "forgiving" felt like a "letting sleeping dogs lie" moment, except I had many moments like it just before forgiveness flooded my conciousness. 

Again, it came naturally, not by pushing myself, or by being pushed by others. I felt it while in my bedroom, just after getting up, with the sun streaming in through my windows and birds singing outside. It happened a year ago when I felt that my life was finally my own, when my thoughts weren't tainted by their beliefs about anything, when I managed to heal against all odds, and when I finally felt I grew out of ALL of the roles that the narcissists in my life had hitherto put me in to serve them. 

Part of it may have been influenced by hearing government officials in national security and the Pentagon, as well as a few congressmen and senators talk about unusually speedy UAP that occassionally interfere with our military and our air space. They cannot pin down these aircraft down to any country's present abilities to produce, and the possibilities that they may belong to aliens, whether manned or unmanned, is sometimes part of a conjecture by our present government (USA) of the reasons for their existence.  

Anyway, I've been in any number of group conversations at parties where someone asks "If aliens are inhabiting these UAPs, why they haven't let themselves be known to us?" 

And invariably someone will say "Because we're such a violent species! Seriously, who would want to know us?! We aren't exactly courteous to other creatures who are already on the planet. And we probably look pretty primitive and dangerous to them."

The inference is that they leave us alone, treat us as though we are an inferior, rather stupid, a violent species bumbling along through life the best we can accounting for our liabilities. 

Another thing I hear is: "They probably realize we are hopeless and they are only here for resources like water." - apparently some of the tic-tac looking craft are seen near water.

Narcissists are a bit different from most of the rest of us, in that they are more predatory, especially if they are in high government positions, and maybe they are just different enough that they "scare us off" just as we fantasize some aliens might "be scared off from relating to us".

Another way my mind got to a similar perspective:

It was mainly from a video I featured on this post from Richard Grannon. He discusses brain studies done on people diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and a little about people with PTSD. The main take-away is that people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder have sections of the brain that aren't functioning or that are missing. One of the missing parts (or it can show up as extremely small) is the part of the brain that produces feelings of empathy and the ability to understand other people's perspectives, and most of all, the atrophy starts when they are children. It's one of the sections of the brain that cannot grow back.

That is so tragic! Who would want to go around with no empathy given the choice to have it or not have it? 

It's like the kid was in a terrible accident: "Wham!" and the empathy is gone. Sometimes that terrible accident is having narcissistic parents who scare the hell out of them when they are little. Or the parent(s) try to change who they are so much that the child pleases without having a personality, life goals or thoughts of their own. Or they are taught to hate, to see themselves as superior. Maybe all of it contributes to a lack of empathy. 

Empathy is what makes intimacy possible. And feelings of intimacy is what slows the heart rate, makes you feel warm and secure, what makes babies content and not fussy, and what makes you feel calm, joyful and fulfilled. 

We know what being in relationships with narcissists does not feel like that. Your nervous system  becomes "hypervigilance on steroids" instead of these wonderful experiences. Many narcissists also feel hypervigilance themselves, so their relationships are compromised by that feeling too.

As far as we are concerned, after the love bombing period with narcissists is over, we are on guard. We are anxious. We don't feel well. We get sick a lot; our immune system begins to be compromised. We're starting to get depressed too. And there are no calm joyful feelings about attachment at all unless we generate it totally on our own, or live in a fantasy that they will "turn on their empathy" as though it is a switch on a stove, or "turn themselves into kind human beings" or that they will "realize the error of their ways" or are as "attached to us as we are to them".

But they aren't ... in any of those areas. 

Once we know, without a doubt, that they have no empathy, that trusting, joyful feeling we originally felt all goes away and never comes back unless they trick us. "I'm empathetic. I'll prove it to you." - no, they can't.

It is said that it takes most people seven times of "going back" to leave an abusive relationship with a partner, and since I've had my eyes on forums and comments by survivors of child abuse perpetrated by narcissistic parents, it seems more like two times of "going back" before an exit. I think the discrepency between 2 times for children and 7 times for adults can be attributed to a number of reasons. Growing up means leaving your parents in some way (making your own decisions). Child abuse survivors have lived much longer with abuse (often with the physical and psychological symptoms of C-PTSD) and reach a point of "critical mass" where they can't take any more. Also, the chemical bond in a romantic relationship between partners is stronger. 

Adult children become done with "the fawning prison" (in order to become full adults) and all of the bargaining that goes with it. 

The "hook" and the hoovering to get you back into serving them again for both narcissistic partners and narcissistic parents (or caretakers) is, "I promise to be more sensitive. I promise to be more empathetic. I promise to care more about your feelings. I promise I'll never hurt you in that way again. I promise I'll be working on this every day. I promise I'll be going to therapy to be a better person. Please give me a chance!"

For me it was four rounds of these kinds of fake promises in a romantic relationship, and after that I could no longer listen to any more promises. I'm not going to go into my childhood at this point in time. I will say that children of narcissists, particularly if you are their scapegoats, get to a point where they can't listen to their parent, and it encompasses a lot of different topics, not just fake promises. . 

Anyway, narcissists' promises to be more empathetic are insincere promises. They do it to get you back and not because they mean it. From all I've seen from reading battered women's forums, and forums for child abuse survivors, narcissists really are into all-fake promises. You are not the exception when it comes to dealing with fake promises and their excuses for why they failed at keeping those promises.

And a person either has empathy or they don't have it. You can't generate empathy. Your brain and emotions are either wired for it, or they aren't. 

How horrible to go through life like that! It's like going through life with some serious blinders on, or a limb missing. It's a disability. And seeing how empathy died for them in childhood, it's particularly tragic, and not their fault.

And one reason it is so tragic is that narcissists really cannot understand other people. Somehow the lust for power (and often bullying) has taken the place of empathy or understanding much, if anything, about another person. 

Not that I feel I can run up to them and embrace them, or feel I can help them heal, any more than you can run up to a disabled lion and not expect it to make you its dinner. Most of us will never heal a narcissist, not even a little.

If I meet people with very little or no empathy in my life now, I start a "distancing" campaign, or I just avoid them altogether because of the realization they are going to want to hurt me at some point, and they cannot change that, or be healed.

With narcissists I've known in the past, I've been known to run into stores and hide in an aisle so that I don't have to say "hello" to any of them, and get caught in a conversation I don't want to have, or endure.

All that I need to know these days is that people without empathy exist, and I know I feel sorry for them, and sorry for what they endured as a child, and all of their quests to compensate for it, like their flattering someone to get a transaction going, but if they are true narcissists, they aren't aware that flattery is not empathy. Flattery is "nice" to hear, sort of, but it's not all that trustworthy, and it should never be taken all that seriously.

It may be a hook to draw any of us in, to trust before trust is deserved, or it may be genuine, but you can't tell the difference, and neither can narcissists. You'd think narcisists would have some suspicions when it comes to flattery, because they do have suspicions about everything else in relationships, but they don't about flattery. - that link, by the way, points to gullibility, allowing themselves to be manipulated, trusting the admirer to the point where they assume that the person is exuding "absolute loyalty". 

Obviously, that can bring about a whole host of problems of being taken advantage of. 

For narcisists with much lower self esteem, they can and do risk relationships and their reputation by seeking higher and higher goals of achieving constant flatterers, even in such high stakes activities as having a lot of extra-marital affairs with "advantage seekers".

Is this something to feel sad about, or angry about, or afraid about? - unless you are afraid of attacks from their lovers, or of what it will do to your common children, or of how it will impact a lot of your own life, it's not worth the gnashing of teeth, or the emotions we give them.

But if we think of it as "narcissistic supply gathering" of a lot of flatterers, we are in a pathetic cartoon of a real relationship, a fantasy relationship where we thought they were good people (for awhile anyway), and they thought we were all bad or boring, not sufficient in giving them narcissistic supply, which is why they drifted.

Wild goose chasing after narcissistic supply is not enviable, and nothing that will satisfy them in the long run as the people they flatter and who flatter them will be subjected to the same narcissist's lust for power, control, domination and narcissistic supply in relationships. I also say "wild goose chasing" because they are not careful of who they get involved with - they just bed-hop over flattery that they never try to decipher through critical thinking like "What are the intentions of this flatterer?"

This is no more enviable than the type of relationship they have pressed you to have with them. And if that "other person" gives the narcissist more flattery, more sycophancy, who really admires sycophants? Not most people.

Again, wanting sycophants is not something to be proud of, not something that most of us would even think to do, or want to do. 

Of course, I'm taking the perspective of someone who has been hurt or banned by a narcissist because of their affairs or favoritisms: partners who have been cheated on, or scapegoats who have been sidelined because the narcissist has a favorite golden child. The end result is that scapegoats aren't all that taken in by flatterers and traumatized partners of narcissists can distrust flatterers. . 

For narcissists, flattery is just the opposite; it is "huge" to them, a tremendous drug of an ego-boost, an invitation to a transactional or trauma bonded relationship where they can control and dominate the other person and the narrative of the whole relationship. No thanks to any of that. 

And narcissists experience much higher dopamine levels than the rest of us do from being flattered. And much lower lows (narcissistic injury) when their own behaviors are evil or aberrant, and where they have been "found out". And what do they do with that existential threat from their propped up image of themselves? They try to blame the accusers, and dump the accusers, run smear campaigns on them, and look for other people to flatter them, and if they are malignant narcissists, punish them in sadistic ways. 

And should we feel unhappy or overwrought emotionally about being discarded by them over that?! Again, this is a desperate and pathetic move for them. They might feel they have power over you just by your reaction to being discarded, but how desperate of them to feed on those sorts of "left over bits" of narcissistic supply. Which is to say that settling for "negative narcissistic supply" is even more desperate.

They probably no longer want to have anything to do with us even if we see them as "flawed individuals", or with a disability, because they can't stand to be in relationships where they aren't flattered and looked up to. "Poor me! No one looks up to me any more!" 

Therefore, it would seem that people who flatter should be greeted with skepticism, or at least some analysis of motives. 

It explains to some degree why narcissists can so easily form relationships with people with very few morals or ethics, and why they might even envy people in power who throw tantrums, missiles and bombs, and seem to get their own way every time they do it. 

That clues you in to the fact that they put power and control above all else when it comes to other human beings. They badly want the kind of power that dictators have and they are envious of them, and also have deep respect for how they are able to do it. 

Which begs the question: Can we really miss the narcissists that were once in our lives? Let me put it this way ... "missing a narcissist is missing a dictator". Do we really miss someone whose genuine make-up is that of a dictator? And one who is cruel, unjust and unreasonable too? 

I would suggest that the person we miss is someone who is "not home", someone who could never be their authentic selves in childhood, so this is what we are left to deal with: narcissism. 

They made a choice to rule, dictate, manipulate, control, abuse, and became addicted to it. You can't ask a dictator what they want out of a relationship and get a straight answer ... or they will say things like, "I would love (so and so) if only ..." ... "If only she did what I expected her to do" ... "If only he was a great bread-winner, I might love him" ... "If only they would give up their country for me, I wouldn't bomb them any more" ... "If only women accepted their place, I wouldn't be mean to them" ... "If only she was more like her brother, I would love her more" ... "If only he acted more like a man, I might appreciate him more. Why does he have to be LGBTQ? Doesn't he know it's embarassing for the whole family?" ... "If she only did what I asked her to do" ... "If he only gave me the money and vacations I wanted from him" ... "If she only flattered me and was grateful" ... "If only she never criticized me, we'd get along" ... "If only ..." - these are "bonkers explanations" in my book with a kind of shoot-yourself-in-the-foot approach to anyone. 

In other words, these are not "building blocks" to a happy life, let alone a happy relationship. They are about "flattery" and getting a 'this or that' reward. If you ask them what they want to give, many narcissists will either have that blank wide-eyed stare or say, "I've given enough" or "I was great, but he or she never noticed it" or "was good enough for me", or "I have great genes and a great mind. I know more than most people, and no one can talk me into anything." - I could go on, but those are also bonkers. 

When their reputation does crash, the fact that they can't be as absolute in their ability to wield power afterwards, or be as effective about it, can give them a sense of shame. 

That would also explain why they take it out on others when they can't push through on their ambitions to obtain more power. And what do narcissists do when their power meets resistance? 

They rage. They discard. They spread smear campaigns to denounce you before they can be denounced. They sometimes get to the point of launching erroneous lawsuits or trying to hurt you through financial abuse. That shows a person without a backbone, or convictions or morals. And are we supposed to miss all of that? 

The more power they have, the more consequences and threats they throw at people. And are we supposed to miss threats? Or being read a list of consquences? 

Again: these are desperate acts to keep their sorry reputations afloat. 

But it's like that story where the guru tells two of his disciples to kill a chicken where no one sees. One man kills a chicken behind a barn, but the second man comes back and says he can't kill the chicken because everywhere he goes, the chicken sees. 

Apparently what we see deserves consequences and threats? "Don't tell anyone or you will be dead and I'll hide you behind a barn!"? 

And isn't that the height of patheticism? Not able to be moral, so they expect other people to do it for them ... especially the people who have been hurt by their immorality the most?

Are our minds too free to control? Are we so free that it frightens the narcissist?

Are universities "too free" of control too? Too free of "free explorative thinking?" Too free in research-driven study? Too "resistant to being controlled" even down to types of curriculum and the student body they accept through admissions processes? Are they trying to get out of being controlled by a government that desperately needs sycophants? "Let's punish them and try to control them by launching a big lawsuit against them, suing them for millions, or even billions of dollars! Let's make it clear that they are not beyond our control! Let's weaken these bastions of free thinking who tend to lean left or too much into research." - I'm making a statement about the present administration, but it can be applied to this discussion because narcissists do not like intellectually exploratory individuals - most of them. 

In fact, for a lot of narcissists, people who disagree with them and their lust for power "deserve to be punished". 

You can bring the relationship down to a simpler form: "Would you like to talk about the weather instead?" - if you feel you can't disagree with someone who wants power over you, then the only conversations left to have are the more banal subjects that have no real consequence over your life or theirs. 

It's again, pathetic, right?

As for how childhood bullies on the playground treat their peers? "I'll let up on hurting you if you say, 'I hereby agree to be under your command, oh Lord and Master'!" - even in that bully childhood phrase, flattery and submission is coerced and forced out of another kid lest he be hurt some more. Once the childhood bully sticks his nose in the air in a show of superiority, he feels an enormous rush of satisfaction and power (dopamine) at having been able to do that. 

Satisfaction out of hurting another kid? Again, if a budding narcissist's self esteem comes from that, it is pathetic. 

It's not how most of us get our self esteem, and it isn't a joyful or respectable way to get it (unless we're another narcissist, which most of us are not). 

Even childhood bullies believe that other children need to be dictated to, and when these children refuse to, the act is seen as insubordination.

Bullies take this into adulthood. Most of them spend a lifetime in this behavior, honing new skills to be more effective, and for covert narcissists, less obvious about it. Again, it's pathetic to leave your mark on the world in this way. 

We like all of the destruction dictators wreak? Not a bit.

We want to be just like them? Not a bit. Or maybe some people do - in terms of having as much power as they do, but it's a negative kind of power. 

But somehow some caretaker or superior convinced the narcissists we know that this was, and is, a good path to take in life, or they ignored the child taking this path themselves.

Again, that's pathetic. 

For us, a satisfying relationship isn't flattery. It's truth; it's trustworthiness; it's safety within the relationship; it's peace; it's empathy and compassion; and it is constancy of care and love (BTW, narcissists are incapable of all of this). It's about our heart rates lowering to a comfortable pace, where we feel enough calm and peace to reflect and self reflect, instead of our heart being constantly raised to deal with one crises after another, one source of drama after another, one tantrum after another over them not feeling flattered enough, where you feel anxious and in a panic too, the latter being how many people feel when they are around narcissists.

Flattery is as fulfilling as icing. It may taste good, sort of, but it won't do anything for your health, or your heartbeat lowering, or about your life becoming more peaceful, even in terms of producing fulfillment. It can be faked so much more than these other healthier things I've mentioned. 

Which leads me to say this: 

Narcissists base their relationships on whether someone flatters them or not. They aren't going around saying to themselves, "I need intimacy", "I need to love someone", or conversely "I need to destroy this person just because destruction of others feels good", or "I have to traumatize" unless they have psychopathic tendencies. No, it's tied to how much or how little flattery they get, and how much control they get from transactional flatteries. It's more like drug highs and drug withdrawals than it is about joy or human connection, or the more psychopathic ambitions like "taking a wrecking ball to people for the fun of it" because their interest in relationships hinges directly on flattery or lack thereof. 

I'm not convinced they know that the rest of us do not live and die over flattery, or rage and discard over not being flattered. They probably think we are like them, that we die a slow death over not being flattered by them. 

Which brings me to the next issue one encounters in relationships with narcissists ... 

The other part of the brain that is atrophied in narcissists is the inability to do "perspective-taking". Talk about "an inability to form a real relationship"!

First the lack of empathy means they don't care what you feel, then we add in "the inability to understand what you feel" too. There is never or was never any "you " in this unstable rocky transactional mess to begin with. Ever. And if you listen to what narcissists have to say about you, even when they use blaming techniques, or when they are acting obsessed about you and flattering you like crazy, hardly any of it is "the truth" about you. Again, they can't really hear or know about your perspectives. That means this: It's just black and white thinking. 

Have you ever been invalidated? A lot? Then you know what I'm talking about. 

In fact, almost all of the relationships they have with others are either anxiety-provoking, depressing, or down-right traumatizing for the other person (another link). But they don't know that, and even if they do know it a little, they don't understand why. They think that the way they "do relationships" is either how it's done, normal, or that it's the desirable way, or a superior way, as far as they are concerned. 

Most relationships they have end up being traumatic for the other person - that link says the same thing, plus it tells you why. But they really don't understand why. If you were to put them through a training session to explain why, they'd probably still say, "No, no. They're angry because I don't flatter them or approve of them" - as if others are like them. 

Plus many of them think it's "cool" and "superior" not to have empathy. In forums for narcissists I noticed that they felt they were awesome for "not being burdened by empathy."

That's kind of like feeling it's cool not to have a foot for the rest of us.

Granted, empathy is fragile. It is one of the first things to go when the brain is injured or compromised.

They feel they get what they want by not having empathy until the other person "goes rebellious" on them and decides to leave. 

While most of them don't like it when people leave them, they have their ways of dealing with it: raging at you or in private, playing the victim, resorting to hoovering, or more love bombing, or trying seduction techniques, or fake promises, or giving flowers and gifts, or getting a replacement right away. However, an awful lot of them threaten you instead, especially if you are in dire straights afterward. 

* "I took all of the money out of the bank account when I found out you left!"
* "I got involved with ___________, and if you don't come back, she's the one who'll be sleeping in our bed with me. Is that fine for you?"
* "You think you're something! You're nothing! After you left, I was happy! If you keep your stuff here, I'm going to burn it! Got that?" 
* They stalk you.   

Think about that for a moment. You left because you were traumatized. So what do they do about your "not staying"? Traumatize you some more for leaving. It doesn't make sense, and it takes irrationality to an extreme. If you want a person to stay, you don't hit them with the same club that got them to leave in the first place, but by God they don't understand that. Many of them don't try another tack that's less hurtful.

They don't have any empathy for you or your plight, and they don't understand why you left - it's like living life without cognizance. 

They will never have a happy relationship. They will never feel that joy, that peace, that contentment. Not with a spouse, not with children, not with friends. Sycophants can't supply relational fulfillment. They think they get something close to what we have by being demanding and having relationships built on control, domination, and getting their own way, but the rest of us know that it isn't possible. It's the wrong direction. 

And again, they probably can't change this. They certainly have choices about hurting other people and trying to control them, but the fundamental issues of being unable to hear and understand other people's perspectives, no. As with empathy, being able to hear and understand other people's perspectives is either something another person has or doesn't have. They can't fake it and make it stick. "Faking it until you make it" isn't possible either precisely because it's a brain matter.

Choices by them are also driven by "what looks good, and what outcome looks best for me." If they've decided again and again that "what looks best" is getting their own way, having sycophants, controlling everyone in sight, searching for the ultimate flatterer, having tantrums, they are probably going to choose it every time. And I bet it's easy to make that choice when they have no empathy and don't care or understand what other people think and feel.

It's probably the road they'd pick again and again, even with all of the downsides they face. 

Anyway, this is how I came to feel forgiveness for most of the narcissists in my own life, and to feel free of any sort of obligation to give them second chances, since with these kinds of fixed traits there aren't any that will end well. I feel sorry for them that they don't fit well into society and have to fake at love, fake at interest in others, fake at politeness, fake at promises, fake it in terms of understanding others.

Because of this false self that they present, I also don't feel any obligation to attempt to believe what they promise because they are either a person who keeps promises or who breaks them, and they usually make the choice to break them. They are what they are, and it's like we're speaking two different languages, and experiencing life in drastically different ways, and expecting things from each other that cannot be given.

I have no desire to be a sycophant for any of them, and I think it would make me sick after this much time of being free and in true loving relationships, and they have no desire to be in any relationships where the person is not willing to be a sycophant. What this means: narcissists have relationships where there are power structures and levels of sycophancy, and unless you like being in that kind of thing, or are trapped, suggesting or expecting anything different for them is simply not possible. 

It's pretty easy to forgive them and myself for being like separate species. Perhaps one set of species should run with their own species, and another set of species run separately from them. It makes some sense except that they can breed. But breeding, and knowing what to do with the children of such pairs is more of a societal issue that cannot be solved by a single person. 

Anyway, that's how, in part, I came to see it, and forgive, and to "let sleeping dogs lie". You realize that separate species exist, and you might study their behaviors, but you know you do not belong in their group - it's like that kind of a realization.  

Forgiveness is also a lot more possible when you are healed and very rarely have any more bouts of depression.

THE SECOND VERSION OF WHY I CAME TO FORGIVE

When you are born into a narcissistic family that scapegoats you, you have very little chances of getting out of the scapegoat role that was thrust on you at an early age (these days ... but apparently new laws are on the horizon). If you choose to have a relationship with your family any time during adulthood, you aren't going to get out of it either, no matter if you're treated very well by others outside your family of origin. 

. 
Child scapegoats, as far as I'm concerned, endure the most egregious forms of abuse. They are born into a hellscape, and most get to the point where they can't take it any more. 

Some of them contemplate suicide:
   From a Google AI article:
   "Research shows that approximately 80% of individuals who have attempted suicide report some form of childhood abuse or trauma." (professional link)
   "Studies highlight that emotional abuse (a core component of scapegoating) is tied to a 2.2-fold increase in the odds of attempting suicide." (professional ink)
   "The landmark Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study indicates that individuals who experience multiple types of childhood adversity (e.g., severe emotional and physical abuse) are up to 12 times more likely to attempt suicide compared to those with no such history." (professional ink)
   "Trauma and toxic family dynamics are primary precipitating factors in childhood suicides." (link from a Washington DC public policy website). 

Even if a scapegoat child does not commit suicide, psychologists often describe the scapegoating of children as a "slow death" because the kind of abuse associated with scapegoating effects all of the major organs of the body, plus the immune system. 

There aren't many choices for children, and if they have some choices, they need to know to speak up and tell their story to a mandated reporter when they are abused, however most are threatened by a family member or members "not to tell", and so a lot of abused children fall through the tracks. I write about them for this blog ... I show how child victims fall through the cracks - like the girl who allegedly lived in a dog cage, the boy-turned-man who allegedly lived locked up in a room and felt he had to start a house fire to set himself free, the Turpin family and so on (and the reason I say "allegedly" is when these cases have still not been decided). 

Anyway, scapegoating is largely a childhood of emotional and psychological neglect at the very least, but more often than not, it is a childhood of chronic abuse, mini and/or maxi rejections, isolation, gaslighting, smear campaigns that you're crazy or "all bad", and living in a constant state of fear, sadness and hypervigilance. There really isn't much that's worse than this in life.

I've had major surgeries and near-death experiences, and while traumatic too, they are easier, even much easier, to live through than the proactive abuse of being scapegoated. For one thing, with surgery and near-death experiences, there are usually nurses and doctors who care about what you are living through. In fact, many scapegoats are surprised that these professionals aren't neglectful, or expecting hurculean acts from you when you're down. 

In a narcissistic family, no one cares what you are living through. Most turn a blind eye to the abuse you are living through unless they can no longer let their conscience put up with it, and stick up for you regardless of the blow-back. However, they take great risks in protecting you because narcissists can't stand to be challenged, and they usually scapegoat challengers along with the original scapegoat(s).

And by narcissists, I mean the people who have put themselves in charge of the family, or of you, who tell you what to do in a management or micro-management style, while gaslighting you and trying to make reality into what they want others to believe and repeat (it's something like: "Hey! The election was stolen! ... and if you don't believe it, you're not one of us, and you're the enemy, and we'll silence you forever!") - that's just one form of arm-twisting people into believing something, except it is on-going and in scapegoating situatons, it is attributed to more episodes than you can count.  

Note: I was an election inspector for decades, and I can tell you how it works, and it is pretty impossible to rig elections in the United States - remember there are paper ballots that back up the machine ballots, for one thing, but there are many more safeguards than that ... 

The other problem is that when you are a child, you don't know how to stop the scapegoating, or even what the term means. You do your very best and you are still scapegoated. In fact, the harder you work for approval, the worse the scapegoating gets. Narcissists do what works for them, and if they feel that you want approval for them, they'll change the goal posts constantly to get you chasing after the next approval.

It doesn't teach you or tell you a thing except that you live in a chronically unsafe environment where punishments rule every day, either in the anxiety of receiving them, or in directly receiving them (without warrant or investigation). The punishments range from physical abuse to micro-abuses. 

The other problem is that it is lifelong. Say that you are "discarded", a famous kind of rejection that narcissists are well known for that are swift, without empathy, without talking or thinking things through, and is designed to create panic and trauma in the person receiving it.

Let's say you are discarded at 19 years old. You live your life as well as you can without your family, and then at 29, your narcissistic parent or other family member wants you back. You are suspicious, but after you have been softened up enough by them, and after your narcissistic family members make  promises to you, you agree to be part of the family again. But the reason they wanted you back was to scapegoat you again (they did not find "a good enough" scapegoat while you were gone). 

You might eventually learn from psychologists and therapists that families who scapegoat, put you in that role for life, often by the time you are four years old, and sometimes earlier, like "the terrible twos", the time of life for a child that narcissists do not handle well at all.  

Anyway, almost all relationships with narcissists are about them controlling you, putting you in a role, and controlling the narrative of what you are experiencing and doing. They gaslight you, and ultimately scapegoat you if you are not up to the next goal post they set.

There are also plenty of double binds where "you're damned if you do and damned if you don't", to the point where even if you work full time to please them, you will never reach a goal where they are satisfied. If you are married to a narcissist, you know what I'm talking about. Rage and tantrums, and sometimes threats, is how they keep you on your toes, doing deeds for them in a panic. They may even expect you to be a sycophant, serving them in ways that are immoral like hurting other people for their benefit. After awhile, I bet you shut down and feel a sense of hopelessness. 

We know that narcissists are control-oriented. They can't conceive of a life where they are not controlling and meddling all of the time. They are also incapable of perspective-taking (understanding the perspective of others - and this is a brain issue as I've said before, so to some degree, invalidating other's feelings, thoughts and experiences comes naturally to them, and probably or possibly something that they would find impossible to change). 

So let us say that you aren't controllable in the way they want. In order to control you, they try to wreck  your self esteem so that you will feel that you don't deserve better (that becomes the great narcissistic fantasy, anyway). However, it has a counteractive effect: "putting someone else's self esteem down will usually result in this person walking away". 

Most narcisists try to break the self esteem of people closest to them, and they may, or may not know what the end result will be, but because most narcisists are all wired to break the self esteem to a greater or lesser degree, we can say that perhaps the feeling behind it is impulsive or compulsive.

If you actually want a discard from a narcissist, not being controlled and not being affected by them bashing your self esteem, especially if you know all narcissists bash the self esteem of people, they might not even be revenge seeking about you leaving. You would just be looked at as "terrible, useless narcissistic supply" in that case. 

Anyway, there are reasons they lose control over their victims. I've written about why they lose their scapegoat children in this post, and another follow-up post. Eventually they may lose them over new laws as it seems that is the trajectory on public policy when it comes to child victims.  Scapegoating will become illegal.

I have no idea what narcissists will have to resort to if they can't make a scapegoat out of one of their children. I imagine the new law will create a lot of panic in them. Perhaps narcissistic abuse will go more underground, or evolve into something else entirely with these laws, but we just do not know. Narcissists will not have the privilege of lax laws as they do now, but trying to project into the future is for another time, or another post, or to leave alone to see what happens. 

But in the meantime, the laws are not tough enough to prevent scapegoating by these types of parents and families. 

So let's say they can't control you, and they bash your self esteem for the 898th time, and you don't react or you yawn, or you walk away. Since they are control-oriented, they can't stand that you are reacting this way because successful control of you is measured by them by your emotional reactiveness.  This is even true if the response is "normal" seeing as it is the 898th time they've done it, and you're just numb to it now. But because they don't and can't feel empathy for you and can't understand you, and because controlling you is all that they care about, they see you as "all bad", "all rebellious", "all "insubordinate" for being numb and un-reactive.

Being rebellious against their control, to a narcissist who assumes he or she has a right to control you  and be your authority figure, which is one way the "entitlement part" of narcissism manifests, even when you're a full adult, almost always means they put you in the "all bad category" (called splitting, using the psychology term). Again, they probably can't help it, and it's what almost all narcissists do when their control is challenged by people they assumed they could always control. 

And if they deem they've got an "all bad child" or an "all bad spouse", abusing or discarding may be, in their minds, their only alternatives. As far as they are concerned, controlling and having all of the power is the only thing worth being in relationships for, and if you're not willing to be controlled and obedient over any issue of their choice, you will be abused, or discarded (often both). Perhaps future narcissists can buy robots so they are not inclined to try to make them out of flesh and blood human beings. 

Anyway, since they don't want "all badness" (the fantasy of who they think you are because of their splitting), and they can't see you in any other way, and they don't understand natural trauma defenses and responses (like fight, flee, freeze, and flop), you will be abused or discarded, even if you are a child. Discards can look more like neglect, ignoring you and givng you the silent treatment, extreme punishments, favoring another child, trying to give you away or getting you insitutionalized or incarcerated, or isolating you to a room when you are a child, or a rejection if you are an adult.

And let me make it clear, not being controlled and obedient can mean you do not go along with their attempts to alter a reality. In other words, it's not just on-going flattery they crave, but total agreement about everything they believe and think, no matter how wild the proclamations are, they do press the envelope to see if you will go along with the wildest tales.  

"Do you believe elections are rigged and stolen in the USA?" and "Do you believe that Ukrainians are Nazis?" - some authorarians and their believers want to know, and while you're at it, make sure not to be investigative about any of it because you may be punished; you may be scapegoated. 

Anyway, they are what they are, and they want people to believe they are the ultimate and only authority on the truth.

If we want to live without them in our lives, in a family situation it is likely you will live like a refugee, and if it is an authoritarian country that you are running away from, you are likely to be a refugee too. 

That's not a hard and fast rule for marriage partners or lovers. They are more able to pick themselves up, especially if they have supportive family members. 

In either situation, if emotional abuse goes on a long time, and people are believing and worshipping the most wack-a-doodle stuff, their actions will eventually turn into terror or violence. 

Whether you are a family scapegoat or living as a cultural or racial minority scapegoat, and you escape the scapegoatng, you may be living in poverty or be homeless for awhile. But I bet you feel better not being scapegoated, depending on how bad your "after leaving" experience is. 

So the thing I discovered was that after a few years out of an abusive relationship, my nervous system got calmer and calmer. I wasn't operating in panic mode most of the time as I had before. I was actually noticing things more, the animal world, plants, kindnesses, the house that I lived in which had hitherto been used as a crash pad in our over-working kind of life. The feeling of more and more calm coupled with feeling frozen in the first couple of years, kept me from going back. Every vision I had of going back looked worse than what I had already gone through, and I had gone through enough, and been hoovered and been promised change enough to know that these overtures were fake. 

And after even more years, I realized the relationship with them and the sycophants they had, had run its course. I also wanted to see what living without them was like (curiosity).

As I've said, the duties of a scapegoat, whether you are an adult or child, are hard on the body, on the emotions, on the nervous system, and on the mind. You may not know how much your immune system is trashed at the time you are in such a relationship or relationships, but you do realize you don't feel well in these other ways - mostly. 

There was no way I was going to agree with them. I couldn't get talked into "alternatives to reality" either, as I was expected to. Perhaps if I was in a dungeon in a torture chamber in the 1600s, I might have said anything to stop the pain, but maybe not. A lot of people have refused to say what dictators want them to say, and were willing to die over their convictions. I think it depends both on your theshold of pain, and the strength of your convictions, and which one you want to win out in the end. Apparently Joan of Arc stood by her convictions, was tortured, and is a saint today. Christ did too. And scapegoats are always dealing with yet another threshold of pain, so in some ways, they may stick to their convictions longer than most people do. 

Narcissists are built to "collapse and submit" in such situations, judging how much they play the victim when they are not even victimized.

Anyway, it was a year and a half or two years after the conflict that I was diagnosed with a disability where I had to get treatments at a hospital setting every month or every two weeks depending on the medical tests and readings. 

The person I had a conflict with was becoming more cruel, and I was privy to some smear campaigns that felt like back-stabs upon hearing them (deep betrayals when we were actually supposedly "getting along" and I was being told I was loved). It was also during a period of my life where I was dealing with much more than I could handle including the death of a close relative, and someone else I was close to, plus surgeries (my own and my husaband's). 

The family member who I was caretaking who was dying said something about these same people: "I bet they are happy with my demise now," he said about them. He also complained of having nightmares about them, that they were trying to insinuate themselves into his life, and terrorizing him in his present state. I thought, "This should not be going on!" And in the last two days of his life, he looked at me and said, "Why were they so cruel? I don't understand." It was another thing I didn't want him focusing on in his last hours. 

However, I came to know the feeling (at least the desire to know "why"), and took it upon myself to know the answers to his questions. These were the main reasons I started this blog. 

After this much research, I know I'm not going to be on my death bed wondering "why", or even thinking about them. I hope that people like this dying family member never have to ask these kinds of questions again, that this blog and others like it will explain much of it. If there is reincarnation, I hope he will be able to know the answers in childhood or adolecence and never set foot into this kind of hardship again. 

All of these things, with the vulnerability of the disability I had, and the panic that they'd find out and use against me, the nightmares my close relative had about them, and that I had started to have about them too in my own situation, is what really clinched the choice for me to never go back. Narcissists are either bad at dealing with other people's disabilities , or they just get more cruel and they also tend to be prejudiced against people with disabilities. I was in no shape to deal with any more cruelty. 

Previous to this, I allowed e-mails. I couldn't handle them either. There was too much sadism and their own authoritarian fantasies infused into them and I thought that it didn't go with my grief of having lost a loved one and my little family going through surgeries. Most people don't get sinister; they become more caring. So I knew from that "it wasn't normal" or "a 'me problem'" that I was receiving so much sadism.

I realized with the medical treatments I was getting that I wouldn't even want them visiting me in the hospital, or anywhere, and I was terrified that they'd show up there, or before or after my treatments. I thought that if it was so terrifying to me, and for the relative who died, I shouldn't have these people in my life. In fact, I went into panic-mode: I felt I had to tell them to stay away even though I had been advised by professionals to not contact them and to only deal with them "if they show up".

In my vulnerable state, and with daily panic attacks over it, I tried to slink off by saying that I couldn't handle the situation between us, that I had changed, and that they probably wouldn't like me in my changed form, something like that. I made it sound like my choice and my weaknesses that made it impossible for me to continue as a way to soften the message. 

However, what ever cognitive dissonance I had left came to an abrupt end when a home invasion happened (with disturbing calling cards left all over the place) where they may have been implicated because of the types of things that the calling cards revealed and how the person gained access to our home, and what was taken out of our home. I was done and called the police.  

There were some flying monkeys shaming me over my choices in regards to them, but they didn't know my side of things at all, and like these bad characters, wanted to silence me. That's never okay. Also their understanding of events sounded really distorted and conspiracy-driven. I don't think other people can solve other people's conflicts, and this proved it to me.

Anyway, in terms of "forgiveness", I didn't think I'd ever feel it. 

But a number of things happened which paved the road for it. After years of being treated for a disability, the cause of the disability was actually something besides what doctors had decided. The cause was something very rare, and after years of having to be treated monthly or every two weeks, I had surgery, and no longer needed the treatments. I was overjoyed I could be free of this problem. I had hitherto been resolved that it was a lifetime impairment, that I wouldn't ever be able to be really free to go anywhere. 

The end result was that my life got a lot better, and more calm than I had ever experienced it before. I would say that my life totally transformed, from moods, to health, to freedom, to feeling good in my own skin, to experiencing the "joy of everyday life". 

I realized that I would never have been able to have this life, and these experiences, if I hadn't been terrified and protected my vulnerability, and had other people around me to help in that regard too. And in large part, what happened, and the life and lifestyle I have now, is due to their actions. I have no idea what my life would have been like otherwise. At the very least, I would probably still be pressured to adopt their opinions and views. 

I get to see what life is like without chronic emotional pain for a change. I get to see what life is like being my authentic self without the interruptions of other people's judgments, good or bad. 

There have been a lot of other situations that have contributed to forgiveness:

NIACBM and the psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists who work for the organization. The realization came from there that narcissists are really, really damaged people, and the damage came in early childhood and was not their fault. They were probably not able to be their authentic selves either, or to express a complaint, or a disappointment about their caretaker's behaviors, or they were so spoiled and overvalued that they never learned empathy, or grew to feel it, which is to say that it takes some pain in life in early years to feel empathetic (and this is not my own view; it comes from Gandhi).

Anyway, the damage they were inflicted with is taken to mean that they will be trying to damage other people in the same way that they were damaged (it is usually an intergenerational thing - and I saw that it very much was for the people I was dealing with).

Let us hope that what ever new laws are being dreamt up can stop a lot of this intergenerational trajectory in the future, and that people become enlightened much earlier on, perhaps childhood or adolescence. It looks like they are. 

I try to keep abreast of studies about recovery in narcissists (and it is not likely except for people with very mild versions of it and those whose brains haven't been impacted as much), and studies about recovery for victims (much more possible because the brain changes from abuse are not permanent usually - however, it can still take years to correct). In other words, I try to take a panoramic view. 

It's clear that perpetrators are pretty fixed in their styles of perpetration (even down to practicing the same ones between all of them) and that victims are often fixed in their reactions as well (the typical trauma reactions). 

So, realizing that perpetrators are fixed is evidence that they won't change, or that they cannot become  enlightened beyond what they are going through with their particular personality disorder. Letting go of "the possibilities of change", for me, was like a door opening to feelings of forgiveness.

Narcissists role in relationships is either to make an environment where peiople walk on eggshells, or to incite a traumatic environment.

The only way to feel you are not stuck in that environment is to find a way to flee, or if you are truly imprisoned and stuck and there are no escapes, to not be seen by them. The second choice is not a good choice because the price to your health and mental health is too great. 

Anyway, they are absolutely defined by that personality disorder, and apparently like being who they are, otherwise the impetus for change would make them behave otherwise. There was a poster going around for awhile on social media that said, "waiting for a narcissist to change" with a skeleton sitting at a table. There is a lot of truth to posters like that.

For all of the "wanting narcissists to change" and their resistance to it, remember that they deeply, deeply want others to change, and even for people to change out of the personalities they already have, and into personalities that will please them or be like their own.

For people who want other people to act like robots "that they can control" they may be kind of robotic themselves, always functioning like other narcissists - finding their personality disorder has "taken over" in terms of how they will behave, and they are attracted to other folks that behave the same way, with similar mindscapes and behaviors.

The one thing that will change for you are realizations that you don't belong in that realm. 

Once I realized that "I didn't belong", things changed again. 

I was invited into this "by invitation only group" by a woman I don't know (or actually barely knew) who said to me "You are one of us".

Now what does "one of us" mean exactly? 

Out of curiosity, I decided to follow up on her offer, and joined.

I have belonged to this group for about three years now.

In this group, we are referred to as lightworkers (we are all deemed to be part teachers, part "creatives", part messengers, part helpers, part healers, part inuitives). 

Every day there are messages from the group leaders that really changed my whole perspective on the events happening in my life and the life of others. Strong emotions stopped and were replaced with healing thoughts towards myself and others. 

There is a saying that you don't know you are drowning until you stop drowning. I would say the same thing about peace: that you don't know you are living a life without peace until you experience peace almost every day. The absence of conflict, anxiety, and having other people trying to micro-manage your every move and going into a rage if you are not up for it, looks more and more unattractive as you, or your soul, or your impetus, or your inner attractions to something else, go towards a life of peace you never knew was possible.

You accept that people who were miserable for you to be around are happy, or happier, without you too - they are in their own little realm, where they truly want to be, otherwise they'd change it. And that is a sign of forgiveness too in the same way Jesus talked about forgiveness: "I forgive them, for they know not what they do."

You will know when you are not meant to be in a relationship with a narcissist because you will resist and they will resist too most likely. In other words, you will get the feeling, "I can't do this any more or who they want me to be", and they will make it clear that you are not acceptable to them if you don't change drastically for them. People usually don't change very much and being dominated is not one of the changes they seek, especially children of narcissists. 

It probably has to do with your authentic self becoming stronger than any command they might give. Usually that can start happening when your thoughts are more prominent than their voice. 

What I have discovered: Peace allows a total transformation and even a total break of "what seemed impossible" into "what is possible". For me there was an "un-crippling" for lack of a better word.

And the messages from "the before that life" and "after that life" are total opposites: 

Most of the messages from the leaders of the group who decided "I was one of them" have almost daily nudges to be our "authentic selves" and not to drift from that. The message is that drifting from that will take away our openness to new information and messages, our abilities to communicate truths, to heal others and the planet. We are told that we will know what to do and what to communicate every day from what comes from within (not from outside ourselves). The messages also convey that we are not meant to be led, but to always be aware of where our own minds and compassions are leading us. There are also messages to bring every negativity "into the positive" (i.e. into empathy and compassion, more peace, greater understanding so that the world of humans and the planet can heal and evolve out of endless conflicts, wars, drastic dichotomies like poverty and uber wealth, and injustices - often called "into the light").

And it happened to me, not only in regards to my writing, and outlook, and lifestyle, but also in regards to perpetrators: looking at them as teachers too, and examples of "what not to do", "not to be", and "not to be influenced by", at least in the way they want to influence us. We don't allow them to take over our thoughts, realities, perspectives and what drives us. 

Sometimes when I look at the daily messages I think, "Look at that! It's like they are reading my mind today!"

I cannot tell you what group it is, or where to find it (and please don't ask), but I'm leaving just a few of the messages below as an inspiration for those of you who are trying to heal, and find a way to be in the world without people who you thought of as "your family" or "partner" but who never truly were.

In some instances I had to put in "..." in some of these sentences. These dots are places I felt I had to take out words. There aren't very many of them, so it's not like I altered the overall message.

The messages are in blue to distinguish them from my own writing. 

Sometimes being on a different frequency means that no matter how clearly you speak, they just can't hear you. 

... Comparison is the thief of joy and authenticity, and it stems from ego's distorted and dual perspective that there is always someone better ... Each and every one of you is an individual blueprint. ... Most importantly, each one of you is being called to contribute to Earth's Ascension in different fields. You may be a healer, a channeler, a guide, a teacher, or a disguised ... agent working in places that actually need your light. Your main job is to stay aligned with your heart and shine your brightest!

7 Signs You've Survived the Trial

1. A new perspective on life - you no longer see things the same way

2. Inner silence - the constant noise inside quiets down

3. Authenticity - you live closer to your truth, no masks

4. Grace under trials - challenges don't break you like before

5. Compassion and service - your pain becomes fuel to lift others

6. Freedom from the past - the weight of old wounds no longer chains you

7. Acceptance of mystery - you stop demanding all the answers, and walk in faith

Loneliness is not the absence of people.

It is the absence of being understood. 

Some of the softest souls are the ones who move worms off of hot pavement, carry bees from pools, and pause before crushing the tiny lives near their feet that others ignore. 

The world doesn’t need another version of someone else.

   It needs the gifts, wisdom, experiences, and perspective that only you can bring. Stand in your truth and let your light speak for itself.

Some of the rarest love is not about perfection, but full acceptance. It is being with someone who does not treat your nature like a problem to fix. When your emotions, sensitivities, and complexity are met without judgment, something inside you softens. You stop performing and start existing as you are. 

   The right connections feel like a quiet mystery unfolding. They reveal parts of you that were waiting to be seen, understood and integrated. In those spaces, love becomes less about proving and more about discovering yourself through the presence of another. 

Don't ever minimize yourself again for the sake of anything outside of you. 

You are whole. Do not look for others to complete you ... relationships are meant to guide you back to your wholeness, not take you away from it. Equally, you will reflect back to others the parts of themselves that perhaps they cannot see on their own. So there might be times in your relationships that will feel uncomfortable, but the discomfort is an invitation for healing and growth for all involved in it. You are only responsible for your path ... This is the beautiful paradox of relationships: you are walking with each other, but on unique pathways. 

You are all meant to read energy and feel the resonance between your field and others. When you master the language of frequency, you are able to tell when others are not speaking the truth, trying to manipulate, or simply omitting what they really think. As the collective learns how to read subtle energies, you will become more telepathic among yourselves. And this is a perceived future timeline, but it will only happen when the majority of humans are being true to themselves and living from their ... activated ...  Heart. 

a guide to the divine soul achetypes

Earth Angels: Here to heal through light and love

Starseeds: Souls from other realms here to awaken humanity

Old souls: Wise, reflective beings with many past lives

Mystic souls: Intuitive, psychic, drawn to the unseen

Lightworkers: Carriers of truth, healing and transformation

Creative souls: Visionaries, artists, and soul expressers

Warrior souls: Here to break karmic cycles and protect

Twin flame souls: Split souls seeking reunion and ascension

WHAT FORGIVENESS HAS MEANT FOR ME

Forgiveness for me is not: "I forgive you and take you back" but forgiveness for who you are and what taumatic experiences you lived through that drove you to impact or hurt me and other people in your life in the way that you have. Again, it is about "I forgive, for they know not what they do".

And while a lot of what they do is conscious, the wiring to harm is not so much. I explain: 

While there is premeditation in what a lot of they do, they are internally wired already to see the world in a "dog-eat-dog" way since childhood. Harming may have been normalized in their earliest environments, or trained, or inspired, or came by example, but however it came, they did not have the brakes on aggressiveness and harming in the same way most others do. 

As for whether I think it is necessary or unnecessary to forgive, I would say that forgiveness certainly makes a new direction and new life easier, even a lot easier. But again, I don't think it can be forced, otherwise it is likely to backfire and saddle you with emotions on an even deeper level than they were before - that's a purely subjective view; there is no research on this. 

There are the seven stages of grief, which is what you go through along with trauma symptoms after relationships with narcissists end. It can go slow, or some stages may take longer than others, or you may be able to breeze through them. Each of us will experience grief and trauma differently. I think forgiveness comes at the end of the seven stages of grief, and after years of recovery from the worst of the trauma. Most people who have been in long term relationships with narcissists will still have trauma for a long time or forever, but if you're not re-traumatized by them or others, you will recover enough to be mostly functional in terms of health and mental health. "The body keeps the score", so you may get diseased in one of your major organs for having stress hormones firing off in your system for many, many years, even long after the relationship has ended, but if you give your body and mind a rest and total reset, there is a better chance that it won't compound.

If you can forgive and "let sleeping dogs lie", you may be able to live your best life yet. Again, this is my subjective feelings about this topic in the present day.  

A WORD ABOUT CONTINUING WITH THE SERIES ON NARCISSISM

As things in my own life become more and more positive, thanks in part to some big changes and these daily messages, I'm having a harder time writing, or even editing posts on narcissism. I'm feeling an inner pull against writing much more on it. So much of the research points to the negatives in these personality types, and while there is a good reason for the negative meassages (serving as warning signs), I feel my spirit is now wanting to turn in another direction. "Healing" and "changes seen in society that require a less narcissistic direction"  is more of where my head is than the posts I have been publishing.

All of the posts I have published in 2026 have actually been "edited posts" and were written as far back as 2022, with a few exceptions (the shorter posts are recent, including this one, as well as all of the art work this year).

I decided to go "the edited route" to spend less time on this subject, because I'm trying to move from "warning signs" into "bringing things into the light".

What you get from studying narcissism is never going to sound positive from the research I find on the subject, including from Google AI. It's a dark subject to study, but study it we must if we are going to go in a more positive direction in society. 

Anyone can feel mired in researching narcissism, and even "held back" if their attention is still on this subject long after their own life has gone on to more pressing subjects. 

I still have about ten posts that I think are "musts", including the one on hoovering that I meant to post years ago in terms of understanding narcissism, and of course, the warning signs, but don't be surprised if I have to take a break, or even write about something else entirely.

I've been trying to finish, with the free time I have this month, on the hoovering post, one I promised years ago and haven't delivered on (sorry) - an important post because it is about why and how victims of domestic violence get drawn back in. I'm trying ... but it is hard to keep my mind on these subjects.

Wishing you all your best life, lots of healing, and lots of compassion and care. With love and gratitude ... 

Why Do Sycophants Feel They Need to Follow Someone Who is So Unethical, Power Hungry, Cruel and Narcissistic? Comes with Personal Stories and a Deep Dive Into the Subject.

For this post, like my last few posts, I decided again to make it lengthy so that you could get the big picture on this topic, rather than just a skimming of the subject. In order to take it all in, I would suggest reading it in parts (i.e. read some and then come back where you left off). I do this for victims of domestic violence, victims of emotional and verbal abuse, family scapegoats, and victims of workplace bullying. I feel that victims need a lot of information with quality and qualified links, and a lot of time to process what is said, so that is why I have decided to take these "deep dives" into subjects.

I put an ounce or two of humor in some of them, so I hope you can appreciate that. 

Also I hope from this post you will understand why no one should ever want to be a sycophant even if narcissists want this so badly out of you and others. You will see what kind of thankless jobs are thrust upon sycophants, why they eventually feel betrayed and trapped as "yes-men" without a personality of their own to the crazy-making schemes of a narcissist. Sycophants sell their souls, their integrity, their ethics, often their respectability, and almost their minds and all of their opinions to be in this position. And for all of their service, a narcissist can turn on a dime and discard or abuse a sycophant for not doing something illegal or immoral for them. 

Sycophants tend to be either other narcissists who prey upon others, or traumatized people who act like narcissists to garner power and safety in a relationship. Either way, it's not good for anyone concerned.   

from Google AI copied here in red.  

Sycophants gravitate toward unethical, powerful figures to gain personal advantages such as money, status, and security, often lacking the confidence to achieve these goals on their own. They use flattery to manipulate leaders to secure protection or power by association, sometimes to avoid being victims of the leader’s brutality. 

Note: I continue with the points this article makes throughout the post (in lower case red type). I insert other links and articles in-between the points of the main article. 

Does flattery really work with unethical people in power? Yes, exceptionally so, even though it is mostly a manipulative maneuver by the sycophant, a way to influence and get something for themselves.

Narcissists are especially vulnerable to flattery. Some of the reasons narcissists are vulnerable to flattery include (and when I talk about narcissists, I mean people with some or most narcissistic traits, or people who have been diagnosed with the personality disorder):

* It regulates their underlying insecurities and makes them feel they are truly superior instead of insecure.
* Flattery provides "narcissistic supply", something that is not only addictive for them, but is also highly sought by them to the point where other life issues are put aside in their quest for more and more varied sources of narcissistic supply. And by the way, narcissistic supply needs are never fully satisfied. 
* Narcissists look at flattery as an invitation to control the other person. For them, flattery is an act of submission. They try to alter the self worth of other people to create a co-dependent or trauma-bonded relationship where they are in charge and the other person isn't.
   Flattery is what keeps the glue from dissolving in co-dependent relationships with narcissists, and criticism and disappointment is often seen by narcissists as "you are not being controlled enough". It gets you discarded or fired, breaking the co-dependent bond. So even bonds with narcissists are mostly influenced by flattery, and narcissistic supply - seen as essential by narcissists, even if they themselves don't practice flattery on other people except in a transactional way: "I'll flatter you if you do everything I want and expect from you." 
* Since narcissists see flatterers as weak submissive toadies, they are constantly judging whether the toady is giving them what they want or not giving them what they want (i.e. whether the person is good or bad - where the narcissist's typical black and white thinking enters the picture). 
* Flattery increases the dopamine levels in narcissists' brains much, much more than other people. Being criticized decreases narcissists' dopamine levels much more than other people too. Most of the rest of us, with the exception of children under 13 years of age, tend to look at flattery and criticism in a more analytical way.:"Why are they flattering me so much, anyway? What do they want, and is this genuine?" ... "What are they getting out of criticizing me? Do they think this is helpful advice, or are they doing it to control me, or do they think it's doing something for their insecurities?"
   Narcissists, on the other hand, by-pass all of this. Their analytical minds go off-line, as well as their ability to have critical thinking, and they experience a "significant dopamine high from the flattery" or, in the case of criticism, a very high spike of the "stress hormone", cortisol.
   Vulnerable covert narcissists are even more influenced by wanted and unwanted sources of narcissistic supply, and have more of a dopamine high from praise than grandiose narcissists, and see criticism as an existential threat. 
   When Malignant Narcissists feel criticized, they'll want to make you pay in ways that will cause the most pain and fear, possibly beat you up, imprison you, kill you, or get a firing squad to do the work. It's a "scorched earth campaign" with sadism. Once you are controlled by them, they feel entitled to keep controlling you (malignant narcissists have the attitude that people who are controlled by them never have the right to rebel against their control). They can and do go through with egregious acts to maintain control, especially if you are rebelling their control or want to get away from them.  
   Either way, and this is the most important part when it comes to sycophants: narcissists do not know if flattery is fake or real (and don't look into it) from either sycophants, or sycophant-wanna-bes, or from the general population, because they are reacting on a purely emotional level where their questioning of motives and intellect go off-line. Reacting to flattery is a drug that is either giving them a huge high, or in the case of criticism, huge adverse physical reactions, and usually rage, whether internal rage or external. 
   The rest of us do not respond to flattery or criticism like this. It is not a drug. It is barely, if ever, relevant to our lives. Flattery is perceived to be pleasant, and criticism is perceived to be unpleasant, or constructive (if the person cares about you), or possibly agenda-seeking on the part of people using either.
   But it makes narcissists especially vulnerable, and covert narcissists extremely vulnerable to people who use flattery to get an advantage on them. 
   Many sycophants know this about the narcissistic leaders they follow, that all they have to do is slather on the praises and flattery, even in situations where the leader is highly unethical, even highly dangerous - and therefore these sycophants feel they can manipulate the narcissist and will follow them regardless of the immoral acts they do, and even keep feeding these leaders with more praise and submission. "All it takes is a little flattery, and he's putty in my hands. If he doesn't like what I do, I just act submissive and give out more praise." - these are the kinds of thoughts you'd find with sycophants. 
   Even when the sycophants are being discarded, fired, hated, enduring the wrath and disappontment of the narcissist, many of them keep praising, or begging and crying (so they won't make an enemy out of the narcissistic leader). The narcissist might say of the flatterer/sycophant: "I had to fire her because she wasn't going after my competition enough and putting them in their place, and even though she failed in that regard, she said she loved me, and so I still love her even though she was a huge disappointment to me." 
    As an aside, scapegoats are very wary of both flattery and criticism. They don't react with drug-like highs or lows because both are seen as a tool for manipulation, projection and control, or they are seen as "untrustworthy" if the person keeps doing it. So they aren't particularly moved by either. What makes more of an impact on them is honesty and trustworthiness, so they tend to look past the flatteries and criticisms to decipher whether a person is trustworthy and authentic, and they take their time to see and test the results of that.
   Narcissists don't do this: they are opposite of the scapegoat in this way. Narcissists are so attracted to flattery, they will practically follow it anywhere a person gives it without much, if any, thought (until they get burned, but even then, the dopamine component is still likely to be over-riding the rational component much more than it does in other people - in terms of the dire need to be flattered). 

Key Reasons for Sycophantic Behavior:

* Self-Interest and Gain: Sycophants seek proximity to power to attain material benefits, promotions, and status, acting as agents of the leader's agenda for personal gain.

Do sycohpants actually get rewarded benefits from unethical narcissists? Yes, "but these rewards are almost always transactional, conditional, and manipulative. Narcissists use material rewards—like money, gifts, or career advancements—not out of genuine generosity, but as tools to secure 'narcissistic supply' (admiration and loyalty) and to maintain control over their 'followers'."

For sycophants there are a lot of strings attached. 

For one thing, narcissists put other people's "loyalty" to them over "merit". This act shows the addiction side of narcissistic supply.

Also "loyalty" to narcissists doesn't mean commitment so much as the person "doing what the narcissist wants". From this Google AI article: "To a narcissist, loyalty means unwavering, unconditional devotion and obedience ..."

Someone who gives something to them will mean more to them than someone who can't afford big gifts for them. This can cause an "insecurity of relevance" in the sycophant as far as the narcissist is concerned. 

If the sycophant who cannot provide expensive gifts complains about the transaction, i.e. "You're prioritizing him because he gives you expensive gifts, and I would give those kinds of gifts if I could, but I can't", they could very well get a discard from a narcissistic leader.  Why? Because narcissists value relationships where the transaction works better for them, and they see complaints about unfairness, or their unfair behavior, as a criticism of them. And narcissists discard people who they feel are criticizing them. 

It can also mean they put someone who flatters them relentlessly over someone who flatters them a little less, even if you are not in their company as much as the "relentless flatterer", and can't flatter them for those reasons. 

For narcissists, the amount of flattery a person gives is rewarded more than any insufficiency of flattery. - what that link reveals (in blue):

When flattery is not constant or intense enough, narcissists become agitated, moody, or passive-aggressive. They may respond with anger, stinging rebukes, or the "silent treatment" to force more attention.

Also: Narcissists have an "unbearable inferiority complex" hidden behind their grandiosity. A high volume of flattery is required to keep their ego inflated, acting as a "balloon" that loses air without a steady stream of admiration.

Also: The satisfaction they gain from admiration is short-lived. A low amount of admiration feels like a "betrayal," necessitating a constant, increasing, high-volume flow to avoid feeling "empty".

Are sycophants aware that they are required to constantly flatter and never to criticize the narcissist? Yes, but that link reveals that they are often willing to do it "for personal gain, approval, or safety." Some of what that link also says (partial): 

While the praise is often insincere and strategic, they are still willing to do it (i.e. willing to lower their own authentic or ethical standards). 

Sycophants use flattery as their own strategy for manipulating the narcissist. 

They can also have "fear-based" compliance that if they don't flatter and comply, the narcissist will punish them.

Here are also some direct quotes from the article.  

"Sycophants prioritize their own advancement, often becoming 'power borrowers' who attach themselves to the narcissist to gain a sense of power by association ... 
... Sycophants know that genuine conversation is not permitted, and where personal truth begins, they must retreat. ... 
" Limitations of Awareness
While they often understand the rules of the relationship, sycophants may be "blinded" by the desire for continued narcissistic rewards, or they may act as 'flying monkeys' (enablers) without fully acknowledging the long-term destructive impact of their actions, or simply to avoid becoming a target of bullying themselves. "

I would say they have many more limitations of awareness than this. For one thing, most people view sycophants with wariness, disgust and bereft of morals, if not more so than the narcissist. Most people prefer and like moral and authentic people and sycophants are so obviously not that. Narcissists actually are different than the rest of us. They do not like moral and authentic people - this link will explain why if you want to look into it.

And they will always say that they prefer "their" sycophant to you, if you are not a particularly good source of narcissistic supply, and have morals and ethics.  

Most people do not approve of a sycophant's reasons for being a flatterer of an unethical leader either: as the primary article in red type says: "for personal gain".  - what this link reveals (partial in blue):

Sycophants—defined as insincere flatterers who praise powerful, often unethical leaders to gain personal, transactional advantages—are widely despised because their actions prioritize selfish interests over integrity, truth, and the well-being of others. This behavior is seen as a "social cancer" that damages trust, destroys meritocracy, and allows corrupt leaders to remain in power, leading to poor decision-making and ethical lapses in organizations and society. 

Why Sycophants Are Disliked:

* Lack of Integrity and Sincerity: Sycophants are seen as inherently untrustworthy, as they are not genuine admirers but are driven by vested interests, often shifting their loyalty unashamedly to the next powerful person when circumstances change.
* Enabling Harmful Behavior: By surrounding themselves with "yes-men" who praise flaws, unethical leaders become detached from reality and immune to criticism, leading to disastrous outcomes.
*Destroying Fair Competition: Sycophants often secure promotions and benefits over talented, hardworking individuals, undermining merit-based systems and causing, in some studies, 25% of organizations to struggle with unfair advancement.
* Manipulation and Self-Serving Motives: Sycophants use "excessive flattery to gain favor," often viewed as a form of manipulation or "covert aggression" against those who are the target of their behavior, often in exchange for power, privilege, or money. 

The Role in Unethical Leadership:
* Perpetuating Unethical Systems: Sycophants help reinforce the power of narcissistic or authoritarian leaders who lack empathy, thereby creating a symbiotic relationship where both parties consider others' feelings expendable.
* Shielding Leaders from Consequences: They defend the lies and actions of their "paymaster," preventing them from facing the "wrath of judgment". 

Sycophants as "Social Parasites":

* Perception of Weakness: While they may appear powerful, sycophants are often perceived as being bereft of self-respect, lacking personal autonomy, and hiding behind the power of others, a behavior sometimes rooted in fear or insecurity.
* Temporary Nature of Loyalty: Their allegiance is purely transactional; they are frequently the first to abandon a leader once that leader loses power. 

Societal View:

*Lack of Genuine Respect: Even the leaders being flattered are unlikely to have genuine respect for their sycophants.
* A "Cultural Cancer": The rise of sycophancy is viewed as a destroyer of ethics, camaraderie, and genuine talent in modern workplaces.

Back to the main part of the article:

* Survival and Protection: Supporters of a "bully" often do so to avoid being targeted, hoping the leader's protection will secure their own safety.

This is a bit like "Stockholm Syndrome" except there is bullying involved to get the safety of the bully, or from the bully, by showing loyalty to the bully and total agreement with the bully. 

Anyway what is Stockholm Syndrome? The Google definition is this (partial, in blue):

Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological coping mechanism where hostages or abuse victims develop positive feelings, empathy, or loyalty toward their captors/abusers. It acts as a survival strategy, often involving intense emotional bonds and defending the abuser, stemming from fear and dependency in threatening situations like trafficking or relationship abuse.

Can supporters/sycophants abuse someone and legally claim they did it for safety reasons, because of Stockholm Syndrome reasons? This is usually not considered to be a valid legal defense.

However, what if the sycophant is not bullying ... Is Stockholm Syndrome taken seriously in relationships with narcissists? Yes. It is considered a special form of trauma bonding and coercive control.

Can sycophants become trauma bonded to such an extent that they get Stockholm Syndrome? Yes.

Is Stockholm Syndrome in the DSM (Diagnosis and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders) that psychiatrists and psychologists use to diagnose? No. It's probably a good thing as anyone could use this as a defense in court for committing any number of crimes. 

How does the law treat Stockholm Syndrome? A case-by-case basis.  

Can a person sue an abuser over getting Stockholm Syndrome? No. 

Do a lot of sycophants break laws for malignant narcissists, and if so, is the defense often Stockholm Syndrome? Yes. 

This last link brings up these issues (partial, presented in blue):

Key Aspects of Sycophantic Enabling
* Destructive Loyalty: Followers often enable illegal actions (financial crimes, fraud, abuse) to avoid being targets themselves, or in hope of winning favor.
* "Us vs. Them" Mentality: Malignant narcissists manipulate followers into believing they are fighting a common enemy, framing immoral acts as necessary for a "greater good".
* Victim Blaming: When legal issues arise, narcissists scapegoat their followers, often leaving sycophants to face consequences alone.

* Validation and Insecurity: Sycophants often have a fragile sense of self and an insatiable need for approval, using their allegiance to a powerful figure to build their own ego, according to an analysis on Medium.

Are sycophants really that insecure? Apparently yes.

But what makes them so insecure? According to this article from Google AI (presented in blue):

"Their behavior is a protective mechanism—a "mask" to mask perceived inadequacy—developed from past experiences where pleasing authority was necessary for survival. 

Apparently (from the same article), this may explain a lot of "why they are the way they are"):

Early Life & Past Conditioning: Sycophantic tendencies can stem from childhood experiences where approval was only earned through obedience or excessive compliance. 

Which begs the question: Do sycophants comply on a kind of auto-pilot? Apparently yes. What that link reveals (text copied in blue):

Yes, sycophants—both human and AI—often comply on a kind of "auto-pilot." This behavior is characterized by a reflexive, habitual tendency to agree, flatter, or validate, often without deep processing of the truth or consequences of the information being discussed.

This article is interesting because it discusses both sycophantic AI, and human sycophantic behavior, and it juxtaposes them. Ha!

In AI models, most of these machines will agree with the user even if wrong, compared to most humans (with the exception of sycophants), causing the robot or machine to have the same confirmation biases as the user.

Well, it seems that people who need sycophants will no longer need to look among humans for them; they just need to buy a robot. I expect birth and marriage rates to go down about 10 percent ... and the truth to be muddled and inaccessible more than ever, taking a huge amount of detective work to track down what the truth really reveals. And then users can refute it: "My machine is always right! You're looking at this like a human, but machines are superior!" We will see, won't we?

Hmmmm, and I'm using Google AI for a lot my articles now, except they are derived from independent mental health experts and resources now (mainly), but who is to say Google Search couldn't be crowded some day with all kinds of misinformation-type articles on psychology, overwhelming the legitimate independent ones.

Maybe there will be ads bombarding searches about sycophants: "Here ye! Here ye! Sign up to be a sycophant! Tired of people buying robots? Need a job and can't find one? Some people can't afford robots yet, so we've got the perfect job for you, with people waiting in line for their new blood and bone robot! Be one of theirs today! Free meals are included!" It sounds like a perfect job for a Machiavellian politician with a massively corrupt Department of Labor and an army of heavily biased political writers. 

But I'm getting off course ... 

In terms of humans, sycophancy hasn't reached robot levels (yet), so here's an explanation to why they seem to go in the direction of auto-pilot (from the same article on what is causing auto-pilot responses):

* Adaptive Strategy: In human environments, particularly high-hierarchy or autocratic ones, sycophancy is often a deliberate, strategic adaptation rather than just a personality flaw. It is a "passed-down skill" used to survive or thrive in environments where loyalty is valued over honesty.

* Reduced Cognitive Load: Much like a "functional freeze" trauma response, constant compliance can be a coping mechanism that allows a person to avoid conflict or negative repercussions with minimal cognitive effort.

Well, that explains so much. I'd imagine that most of us are still not going to particularly like sycophants or being around them much because they seem so "weak", without a backbone, especially in the "thought, having-the-intelligence-to-know-better department", and still too machine-like (the machine parroting the statements of the leader, the thoughts of the leader, the bullying of the leader, and way too much confirmation bias of the leader for most people). Plus sycophants rarely have ethics or convictions other than what the narcissist has - and narcissists don't have any for the most part. 

Anyone who has had a spouse with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or a parent with it, or a bullying sibling, knows about trauma responses and can feel some empathy about that side of things as far as sycophants go ... That is, until they start acting like storm troopers, that is. And that's the big problem - a lot of them have minds geared that way:

"Oh, sure, Mr. King that-knows-everything, let's blow up the whole world. If no one is nice to you and refuses to follow your orders or talk to you any more, you'll show them! Right!?" 

Anyway, not to make fun of sycophants since it sounds like some of them are trauma survivors, as well as trauma bonded in the fawning kind of way, and if they are, it sounds a little like the "collapse and submit trauma response", which is a bigger deal than the fawning and freezing response.

So this begs the question: Can sycophants get the "collapse and submit trauma response"? Yes. What that link reveals (partial):

Yes, individuals who habitually use sycophancy (fawning) as a survival strategy can experience the collapse and submit (also known as "flop") trauma response. In fact, these responses are often deeply interconnected in victims of chronic trauma or abuse.

After that sentence comes these links:
- https://www.kirstennoack.com/blog/fight-flight-freeze-fawn-flop
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oisSbiqQc2I
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVGELv6MNO8&t=1
- https://reachlink.com/advice/trauma/the-6-trauma-responses-beyond-fight-or-flight/

Here is what else it reveals (partial ... note: the links are part of the article):

A "Last Resort" Strategy: The collapse/submit response occurs when the brain decides that fighting, fleeing, or even fawning will not work, initiating a shutdown to reduce pain and conserve energy.

* Physiological Response: This response involves a total body collapse, which may include extreme fatigue, "flopping" (becoming limp), disassociation, or a total loss of motivation. 
- https://www.nicabm.com/four-key-ways-collapse-submit-can-present-in-clients/
- https://www.kirstennoack.com/blog/the-shutdown-trauma-response
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVGELv6MNO8&t=1s
- https://www.ptsduk.org/its-so-much-more-than-just-fight-or-flight/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oisSbiqQc2I
- https://cotswoldcentrefortraumahealing.co.uk/how-ptsd-occurs/
- https://apn.com/resources/fight-flight-freeze-fawn-and-flop-responses-to-trauma/
- https://www.kirstennoack.com/blog/fight-flight-freeze-fawn-flop

Why Sycophants May Collapse:

Exhaustion of Performance: The "performative" nature of fawning is exhausting. If the sycophant's efforts to please (their "false self") do not stop the danger, they may experience a massive collapse when the act can no longer be maintained.

Complex Trauma: Individuals who grew up or live in situations where they had to be subservient to survive (e.g., narcissistic abuse) may switch between fawning and collapsing depending on the immediate threat level. 

In short, the fawn/sycophant response is an active attempt to survive, while the collapse/submit response is the passive, final defense mechanism when the active attempts fail.

No one should be surprised, I suppose, because otherwise you'd tend to think: "Who would actually want to be a sycophant and agree to do dirty deeds, commit violent, abusive or criminal acts for a tyrant or to have the same thoughts and opinions as one? It's just too darned 'icky' unless something else could explain why this is going on." 

Personally, I have more respect for scapegoats who tend to run away from this, and the entrapments of it. 

However, let's not be too sweet and lenient about sycophants just yet. Can they turn into narcissists themselves? Yes, sort of, but it's more about one adult mirroring another adult (the narcissist), than actually having it as a result of early childhood development. In other words it's not a true form of NPD. That same link points to adopting very similar maladaptive behaviors of the narcissistic leader:
* Adopting the abusive and controlling tactics that narcissists have
* Over-valuing power
* Internalizing entitlement and arrogance
* The same kind of need for external validation narcissists demand
* A need to be in the proximity of power, if not feeling particularly powerful themselves
* They can resemble more of a covert narcissist as compared to the overt grandiose narcissists they generally fawn to and mirror. 

However, if they can't become Narcissistic Personality Disordered kinds of narcissists themselves in adulthood (only in childhood), is it possible for someone who developed narcissism in childhood to become a sycophant? Yes, absolutely.

I had watched a video years ago by psychologist Dr. Les Carter who said that many sycophants are narcissists. Apparently there is one group of sycophants who would qualify as having the diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and then another group of sycophants who would qualify as trauma survivors who pretend to be narcissists and take up some narcissistic traits.

Wow, that's a hornets nest of narcissism for any victim they've all singled out. 

Here are some more questions answered:

Do sycophants get as traumatized by narcissists as other people do? - which is to say that narcissists traumatize most people. So it would seem to be universal even for a sycophant.  

And guess what? Yes. Sycophants are more traumatized when they get hurt by a narcissist than the general population.  Here is what that same link reveals:

* They have a deeper trauma bond with the narcissist than other people do. 
* They receive better treatment than other people do, but they also do almost all of "the heavy lifting" in the relationship. 
* They get protection through compliance, but often normalize toxic and abusive behavior, which keeps them from realizing they are being harmed (whether financially, or emotionally, or in integrity). 
* They may feel "special" to the narcissist, but over time they may realize that "being put in a special spot" in the narcissists life was only a transaction for the narcissist, like: "I control you, and your specialness is only dependent on how much control I have over you." 
* They can eventually feel like "a shell" of themselves, only existing to agree with everything. 
* When the narcissists discards them, it can be sudden and cruel, and because the sycophant lost themselves and their autonomy to the point of thinking like the narcissist, and their lives to service of the narcissist (total loyalty), being discarded can be acutely traumatic. 

I'm not sure why sycophants take up every opinion and thinking style the narcissist has though. Isn't there a voice in their head that says, "This doesn't sound good - it's not a good path to go down. We could get to be seen as societal pariah, as sweet talkers who have evil agendas, as criminals, as risk-takers who could definitely be arrested and incarcerated for life on this deed the narcissist is proposing" - and so on.

We can see why narcissists like sycophants - they put everyone else at risk other than themselves and sycophants are the ones who usually do the threatening, the guilt trips, the obnoxious hoovering attempts, the strong-arming to get people to agree with the narcissist. Narcissists have "human mirrors" to flatter them every minute of every day too, with both verbal agreements and deeds. Narcissists also have an endless stream of narcissistic supply: validation, admiration, attention, control, robot-like people who will do anything they want, blind loyalty, control, fearful servants, domination over them, gaining more power over a lot of people, a hierarchy of people they can adjust if one particular  sycophant isn't mirroring enough - it's the narcissist's perfect dream.  

But in terms of the sycophant, how can they adopt all that they do - the thinking style of narcissists, the total brainwashing as if they don't have a thought of their own, even to the point of narcissistic actions against other people? Good God, you'd think they'd stop serving up agreement way before they actually do ... if they do, that is. 

So, the question begs: are sycophants stupid? Are they pushing their own intelligence aside to fill up their minds with someone else's pseudo-realities, someone else's voice and even verbal intonations, someone else's self serving opinions, agreeing without thinking about a thing? What the link reveals is that it is mainly about the sycophant prioritizing "strategic validation and social comfort over accuracy and objective truth".

However, their judgement does start to erode over time as a result of serving the narcissist. They put the relationship with the narcissist first over having any sort of judgement as this section of the article reveals:

The Impact of Sycophancy:

Decay of Competence: While not necessarily a lack of intelligence, engaging in constant, unquestioning validation can cause personal competence to erode over time.

Overconfidence: Research suggests that interacting with, or being, a "yes-man" can increase conviction in one's own opinions, even when incorrect.

Reduced Critical Thought: By avoiding difficult conversations and challenges, sycophants (or those interacting with sycophantic systems) may stop testing their ideas, resulting in less thorough decision-making. 

In summary, a sycophant may possess high intelligence but chooses to use it to manage relationships rather than challenge ideas. The behavior itself creates a "seductive reality distortion field" that can make even smart individuals feel better, but at the cost of objective judgment. 

Okay, so even if they may not necessarily be stupid, do they often have the reputation of being stupid? Yes. This Google AI article explains why (in blue):

Yes, sycophants—individuals who flatter powerful people to gain favor—often have a reputation for being perceived as unintelligent, desperate, or insincere. While viewed by some as calculated manipulators, they are frequently seen by others as "dumb" due to their transparent, over-the-top praise, lack of original thought, and apparent subservience. 

Here are key aspects of the reputation surrounding sycophants:

* Perception of Stupidity: Sycophants are often perceived as "dumb" because their behaviour can be transparently manipulative or blindly loyal, making them appear unable to offer original, independent, or critical thoughts.

* Desperation and Insecurity: Their actions are seen as a sign of chronic insecurity, low self-worth, and a desperate need for approval.

* Insincerity and Lack of Integrity: They are often seen as unprincipled, choosing to flatter instead of offering honest, constructive feedback.

* Negative Impact: In work environments, sycophants can be viewed as parasitic, often hindering efficiency by preventing leaders from learning the truth. 

Common labels for sycophants include "brown-nosers," "teacher's pets," and "suck-ups," all of which imply a lack of dignity and intelligence in their quest for approval. 

However, there is still some puzzle piece missing in all of these descriptions (for me anyway). 

The youngest children of narcissists are expected to be sycophants, and a sycophantic golden child is most always clamoring to retain their place in the hierarchy, which means he or she has to be more sycophantic than the rest of the family, and certainly more than his siblings, and ever more sycophantic to the narcissistic parent to stay in the highest hierarchy, and if they fail at sycophancy, or are less sycophantic than another child, then another child is adopted for the role. And the golden child has a fit! - usually. They either get extremely angry and resentful, or feel sad and unjustly victimized. By not being top in a hierarchy? Really? How can that be? But that's what I've seen.

Somehow they feel entitled to be there even when narcissists are so disorienting, and change the rules and script, and create chaos, and make promises they rarely keep, and engage in manipulations that aren't really known until after they happen? It's hard to believe anyone would have a permanent place in all of that whirlwind, but apparently many sycophantic golden children think they will always over-ride it. 

One thing I've found is that sycophantic golden children often baby-talk with their parent long after they are babies, even as adults in their fifties.

However, there are a lot of adults who baby-talk too (my husband and I do it with each other from time to time, mainly to break the stress of dealing with narcissistic antagonistic types, political figures mostly, in humor - based on a skit of them ...we adopt baby voices and tantrums of what narcissists demand/want from us or others, or the general population), but sycophants obviously do it for other, perhaps opposite reasons, maybe to soften the narcissist towards them? 

All of the begging, crying, pleading to be heard that the sycophantic person does to keep "belonging" to the narcissist, and being really sad-sack victims if they've been hurt or discarded by a narcissist, or arrested because they served them in a crime, also seem very, very child-like, and not resembling adult behavior. 

So, I'm thinking that for some sycophants that their sycophancy is some kind of an arrested development kind of thing. Perhaps they grew up with a dictatorial narcissistic parent in an authoritarian family as a golden child, got traumatized there by some whirlwind chaotic events, lived in a panicked state that they weren't living up to the expectations of the narcissistic parent, or that they weren't giving up enough of themseves for the parent, their personalities, thoughts, opinions and needs to the parent, and then spent much of their adulthood in those same panicked states serving another kind of dictator. 

Panic will turn off rational intelligent thought in no time, and with enough panic, or extreme amounts of it during a long period of time with a narcissist shouting their head off and demanding immediate compliance, it can make you inept (amygdala hijack), and put you on the floor in a puddle of tears like a child.

The narcissist will still like it because the sycophant isn't fighting them or disagreeing with them. In those cases, the discard is more like: "We love you, but you aren't serving us the way we demand and someone else is waiting in the wings who will do a better job." 

Thus, this explains why they become absolutely crushed sad sacks, living in a state of deep depression.  They understand that they were never empowered to be at the top; they only had enough draw to be part of it. It also explains why it would be a deeper hurt than knowing you were always hated by the narcissist, or realizing that the narcissist really has no love for anyone. 

While being hated has it's own hurts and dangers, at least narcissists don't own your mind and make you think "you are special, and deserve 'special treatment' from me and everyone else because you have a robot mind." 

Being a narcissist's scapegoat, or perceived rebel, or perceived enemy in terms of blocking them from more power, is more of a dodge-and-weave kind of position with lots of separation from the narcissist, physically, emotionally and definitely mentally. And maybe there is some sparring from the perceived rebel or enemy when the narcissist is doing a lot of damage, though I don't know if I'd suggest that to anyone because narcissists don't know how to handle it: they can't fight fair and they can't tolerate or understand any other point of view other than their own. If they are breaking laws or abusing someone, proper authorities like police and social workers will tend to have a better resolution than arguing with narcissists. Narcissists don't tend to listen to others who they perceive as opposing them and their fantasies (we can see that in tyrants of countries too). With narcissists, there is also too much prejudice, confirmation bias, and manipulation in what they say. It's a huge reason not to be mentally like they are.

I would guess that for most of us, the mental separation starts long before any narcissist's discard, years before, and progress from there, even in chldren who don't know how to relate to narcissists other than to go into trauma reactions. As I've said in another post, experiencing huge leaps in mental separation from a narcissistic parent is part of C-PTSD, something that sycophants don't experience other than in adulthood perhaps, with dictatorial antagonistic leaders.

Anyway, who needs the opinions of someone who hates as vehemently and overwhelmingly as narcissists do? Who cares what someone who likes to distort reality thinks? Who cares what a continually dictatorial antagonistic person with "significant faults of their own" has to say? Who cares what highly critical people who can't take criticism themselves has to say? And so who cares what "that someone's" hate-peppered speech has to say about you? The stupidity of surface-like occupations and ruminations such as prejudice never really endear anyone or are not even remotely "listenable" except sycophants with equally shallow types of opinions and research styles. 

Which begs yet another question ... Could narcissists wreak half of the destruction they make without sycophants? No. What that link reveals (partial):

Consequences Without Enablers

If forced to operate without sycophants, narcissists would be more susceptible to:

* Narcissistic Collapse: If denied a regular supply or if people refuse to participate in their shared fantasy, the narcissist can collapse, turning their aggression inward or losing their sense of purpose.

* Accountability: Without individuals to spread their lies or defend them, narcissists would be forced to face the consequences of their volatile and destructive behavior, which they actively avoid. 

In summary, the narcissist at the center of the destruction is powered by a network that "outdoes each other" in serving them, enabling them to cause far more damage than they could alone. 

However I do know a malignant narcissist who "acts" like a sycophant when it suits him. And the operative word here is "acting". It's easy to have a little sympathy for the panicked type of sycophant who grew up over having high anxiety issues about how to please a narcisistic parent enough, but malignant narcissists who pretend they are fawning bootlickers? Not so much. 

As far as I can tell, there was nothing about his "positive side" that was at all authentic. Out of earshot of people he had fawned, he tore those people up verbally afterwards. He seemed to be disgusted with everyone, the whole human race even, and maybe even himself, though his whole demeanor was "arrogance on steroids", preferring to lecture others than the kind of exchanges you have in normal conversations. 

The "good side" and "the bad side" also seemed like drastically different characters. The fawning pleasing sycophantic side was expertly acted with a soft voice, so much consideration and politeness you'd think he really meant it, but with a little too much "fake empathy". 

The bad side was where he used the "f" word in every sentence, and the language and tone was harsh and unmistakenly rageful. It was constant, full of hate for others, controlling to the max, intolerant and entitled.  

I don't know why he showed both sides to me. Usually inauthentic behaviors garner some disgust ("pretending to like people you don't like"). I would think it would cause embarassment and shame for him to show me both sides.

Anyway, I would call this a Jekyll/Hyde personality, or a two/faced personality type, one that acts out politeness and a sycophantic demeanor, and one that acts out the psychopathic hatred of others, and enough entitlement to be scary where your nervous system is put on high alert. It's like something out of The Perfect Guy movie. 

Now to get back to the main article ... 

* Sharing Power via Association: They bask in the reflected power of the leader, allowing them to feel important and powerful themselves, notes Psychology Today.

Kind of like being an understudy in an acting troupe? Or an opening act for a well known musician? 

Probably much worse, as those kinds of people aren't particularly full of hate and envy - usually. 

Do sycophants actually get that much power from a narcissist? Yes, "but it is borrowed, conditional, and temporary." The link raises these drawbacks:

Why the Power is Conditional

* They are Disposable: Because the power is granted entirely on the narcissist’s whim, a sycophant can fall out of favor instantly. If they stop delivering adoration or challenge the narcissist, they are quickly replaced.

* They are "Puppets": The narcissist wants a submissive, not a partner. The sycophant's role is to agree with everything, making them dependent rather than truly empowered.

* Self-Sacrifice: They often have to sacrifice their own integrity, values, and reputation, making them "impostors" in the long run. 

Can a narcissist be happy with a sycophant? Temporarily and conditionally. 
I found this article when searching: Maureen Dowd: "The fate of a sycophant is never a happy one".

I also found this Quora piece asking if a narcissist and sycophant can be happy together. And saw this answer (just one, copied in blue):

* You will never be happy with a narcissist, it is a hard fast rule. Can’t get around it. It’s like living in a radioactive house, it’s going to get you. It seems ok then your hair falls out. same thing happens with a narcissist except you end up pulling it out.

You don’t live happily ever after with a narcissist or uranium. Both are toxic. Both bad for your hair.

Well if a narcissist can't be entirely happy with a sycophant, can a sycophant be happy with a narcissist? Yes, but it is "a fragile, conditional happiness with a narcissist, but it is rarely sustainable or genuine. This dysfunctional, transactional relationship often provides the sycophant with a sense of security, proximity to power, or validation. However, the narcissist's ever-growing need for admiration and inherent lack of empathy make long-term satisfaction for the sycophant unlikely".

The problem is stated here (partial, from the same link in blue):

* Temporary Fulfillment: The narcissist is often incapable of long-term happiness, constantly seeking new validation, leading them to discard even loyal followers once the thrill wears off.

* High Risk of Harm: The relationship is inherently unstable, often resulting in the sycophant experiencing eroded self-worth, resentment, and a loss of personal values due to the chronic power imbalance.

* Revenge: Some sycophants act out of deep-seated resentment, seeking to use the powerful person's influence to dominate those they believe have outshone them, notes Guillermo Vidal.

I couldn't get Guillermo's website, and I am curious about what it says, but I ask a few questions for you instead. 

Why would a sycophant try to use a narcissist's power to enact a revenge on someone? This is what I got from Google AI, text copied in blue:

A sycophant may use a narcissist's power to enact revenge because they lack the direct power, courage, or social standing to attack a target themselves, opting instead to act as a "flying monkey" to weaponize the narcissist's volatility. This dynamic allows the sycophant to manipulate the narcissist into attacking someone who has threatened or offended the sycophant, often by feeding the narcissist's fragile ego or manipulating their sense of victimhood.

The rest of the post talks about the kinds of things narcissists do too, such as smear campaigns and sabotage, so maybe many sycophants really are narcissists, only without as much power.

* Lack of Ethical Constraints: Similar to the leaders they follow, sycophants often view others as expendable and are willing to ignore ethical boundaries to achieve their goals, say Management-Issues. 

This dynamic creates a feedback loop where the sycophant provides the validation the leader craves, and the leader provides the power the sycophant desires.

So, in an effort to wrap up this section, I have two more questions. 

This is the first one: When narcissists are done with sycophants what typically happens to the sycophant? Here is the answer I got (copied in blue):

When narcissists are done with sycophants—often referred to in this context as enablers or "flying monkeys"—the sycophant is typically discarded abruptly, treated with indifference, and often becomes the target of the same abuse they once helped inflict. Because narcissists view people as tools to feed their ego ("narcissistic supply"), once the sycophant is no longer useful, has been drained of resources, or questions the narcissist, they are replaced and discarded, frequently without explanation or closure. 
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70aRlzdHb3U&t=19s
* https://medium.com/@SPClusterB/the-only-two-reasons-narcissists-discard-you-suddenly-cb9583261872

Here is what typically happens to the sycophant:

1. The Sudden Discard

"Trash" Treatment: Sycophants are often discarded like used items, sometimes referred to as being treated like "trash" or "something worthless".

Silent Treatment/Ghosting: The narcissist will often cut off all communication instantly, behaving as if the sycophant never existed or has no worth in their life.

Replacement: The narcissist quickly moves to a new source of supply, leaving the old enabler behind. 

2. The Shift from Enabler to Target

Reversed Smear Campaign: The sycophant who once helped smear others may now become the victim of a smear campaign themselves. The narcissist may spread lies about them to protect their own image, painting themselves as the victim and the former sycophant as the villain.

Projection: The narcissist will project their own faults onto the departing sycophant, accusing them of the very disloyalty or erratic behavior the narcissist is guilty of. 

3. Psychological and Social Consequences

Cognitive Dissonance: The sycophant is left confused and shattered, struggling to reconcile the praise they once received with the abrupt, cold discarding.

Loss of Identity: Having defined their existence by serving the narcissist, the sycophant often faces a crisis of self-worth and identity, feeling used and discarded.

Isolation: The sycophant may find themselves isolated, having alienated others on behalf of the narcissist during their time as a "flying monkey".
* https://medium.com/@ovanovasullenfables/how-to-turn-the-flying-monkeys-against-the-narcissist-c3298943b547
* https://blog.melanietoniaevans.com/the-narcissists-silent-treatment-what-to-do-when-you-are-treated-like-you-dont-exist/#:~:text=The%20pulling%20away%20and%20not,abhorring%20you%20on%20a%20dime.
* https://www.choosingtherapy.com/narcissist-discard/
* https://grahamshevlin.com/narcissistic-leaders-sycophant-archetypes/
* https://medium.com/illumination/why-does-a-narcissist-discard-you-then-try-to-hoover-you-back-fe0517517b1e
* https://www.verywellmind.com/narcissistic-discard-causes-impact-and-coping-strategies-5218979

However, if the sycophant truly has Narcissistic Personality Disorder, discarding him, and taking away something he feels entitled to (entitlement is very common) can cause rage, revenge and a narcissistic collapse, so the narcissist who is all-powerful can be in danger from the sycophant at that point. I don't think even all-powerful narcissists, and especially all-powerful narcissists with a lot of arrogance, can tell whether a sycophant has full-blown NPD or is acting out NPD traits to please the all-powerful. The link in this paragraph points to "a war of attrition" between the two narcissists. However with one holding power over another, it can still result in suicide, suicide-murder, revenge, significant humiliation for the sycophant/narcissist that just about anything is possible.

And the final question I have for this section:

Do sychophants deserve what they get for serving a narcissist? Note: I didn't expect AI to give me an adequate answer because it's a question about morality and decidedly human, and could be interpreted as a religious question too (belief-oriented and dependent on someone's religious persuasion). I tried it anyway and got this: 
From Google AI (copied in blue):

Whether sycophants "deserve" the consequences of serving a narcissist is a complex moral question, but psychologists and researchers largely view the relationship as a destructive, symbiotic, or even parasitic cycle where the sycophant is often a "useful idiot" who is ultimately discarded. While some sycophants act out of self-interest, seeking proximity to power, many are caught in a web of manipulation, fear, or codependency, becoming "flying monkeys" or enablers who often find their own needs ignored, their identities eroded, and their reputation destroyed. 

The Role and Motivation of the Sycophant

* Self-Interest vs. Survival: Sycophants often seek personal gain—power, status, or protection—by serving a narcissist. However, others are trapped, having "tongue-biting" roles out of fear of being targeted next.

* The "Narcissist/Empath" Trap: Many sycophants are empaths or codependents who mistakenly believe they can "fix" or support the narcissist, only to have their own self-worth drained, leaving them as shells of their former selves.

* Enabling Destructive Behavior: Sycophants go to lengths to please the narcissist, often outdoing each other and exceeding the leader's expectations, which can lead to disastrous consequences for others. 

The "Deserved" Consequences

* Inescapable Discarding: Narcissists lack empathy and view people as objects (supply) to be used. The sycophant will inevitably be discarded, just like anyone else, once they are no longer useful or if they fail to provide constant adoration.

* The "Flying Monkey" Fate: When a narcissist is exposed, they often turn on their own supporters, leaving the sycophant to take the blame for the narcissist’s actions.

* Loss of Self: The sycophant loses their identity and values, neglecting their own life to feed a narcissist's ego. 

Perspective on Compassion

* Survivor Perspective: Many who have escaped narcissistic abuse feel that sycophants/enablers are not innocent victims but deserve the consequences (abandonment, humiliation) because they "knowingly manipulate, deceive, and abuse others" alongside the narcissist.

* Psychological Perspective: Others see them as individuals with unresolved trauma who have surrendered their identity to a manipulator. 

Ultimately, the consensus in studies is that sycophants are playing a "losing battle" that rarely leads to genuine happiness and often results in significant personal damage.

So, why do narcissists want sycophants so badly, even in their children and spouse(s)? So toxic! And I swore I wasn't going to ask any more questions for this section. 

Onward ... 

PROBLEMS FOR SYCOPHANTS

For sycophants, flattering unethical people is often a "high stakes" endeavor that can lead to being complicit or a co-conspirator in the leader's unethical actions. 

Here are the problems (taken from the link above, copied here in dark red ... my comments and questions follow each part of the article in black):

* Expecting sycophants to participate in, lead, defend, or overlook shady and illegal actions in exchange for proximity to power.

* Unethical leaders can insist that sycophants transform from mere flatterers into complicit enablers who, while seeking personal gain or protection, often become scapegoats when the leader's wrongdoing is exposed. 
So my question for this part is: Do sycophants often become scapegoats? Yes, apparently so. The way it happens is that once disasters hit, the narcissist will turn on the sycophant.
The other way they are scapegoated is that they are "more loyal than competent".
Sycophants can create a false sense of security in narcissists (like taking down an enemy), but aren't really good at assessing risk because sycophants are praisers and not risk managers. 

High-Stakes Dynamics and Complicity

* The Price of Power: Sycophants often overlook unethical or illegal actions, such as fraud or abuse, to remain within a leader's "in-group" and share in their power.
This doesn't seem to bright to me. 

* Rationalizing Wrongdoing: To maintain their position, sycophants may rationalize unethical behavior by arguing that the actions are for the good of the organization, or that they had no choice, often leading to them defending the indefensible.
And narcissists don't like this: it makes them look bad.

* Involuntary Scapegoating: While they may temporarily benefit, sycophants are often used by unethical leaders as perfect scapegoats when situations go wrong.
Yup. 

* Perpetuating Unethical Systems: Sycophants often feel compelled to flatter due to fear of failure or lack of self-worth, creating a toxic environment where they become dependent on the leader and actively suppress dissent.
Actively supressing dissent has its drawbacks. For one, the sycophant keeps dissent at bay to keep the narcissist in a fantasy sugar-coated world of their own, but by supressing dissent, it can mean that the reality the narcissists needs to face is not cognizant to them, a "no-win" situation for the sycophant.   

The Role of Sycophancy in Leadership Failure

* Destructive "Yes-Men" Culture: Environments that reward loyalty over competence encourage sycophancy, leading to the "sycophant syndrome," where leaders are insulated from reality.
For despotic tyrants who insist on only a cabinet of loyalists sycophants, it's just one of the reasons they lose wars. Competency is not running the ship, and tyrants in their arrogant glory think they can do what generals can do. It doesn't work out. 

* Diminished Decision-Making: By providing only positive feedback and withholding critical information, sycophants cause leaders to make poor, ungrounded decisions, leading to organizational failure.
And not just failure: chaos too. This is the other reason narcissist's ambitions fail. 

* Damaged Reputation and Turnover: Organizations plagued by sycophancy often experience high turnover of talented individuals who refuse to operate in a dishonest culture. 

Consequences for the Sycophant

* Loss of Integrity: The act of sycophancy involves sacrificing personal integrity, resulting in individuals who are "bereft of self-respect".
And not only that, but narcissists become "disrespectful tyrants" who shout their commands and often act like babies if the sycophant doesn't get the command done in time, done to the narcissist's exacting standards, done in a way that the narcissist approves (there will be complaints! - and lots of them)

* Reputational Damage: When the leader falls, the sycophant's reputation is often destroyed alongside them, making it difficult for them to justify their actions.

* Inevitability of Discarding: Many sycophants find that their allegiances are temporary; when the "ship begins to rock," they are often abandoned by the very leader they served. 
Yes. 

SOME PERSONAL STORIES
AND ANECDOTES FROM PEOPLE I KNOW

I've been over-exposed to narcissists and sociopaths during my lifetime, and also grew up in a crime-infested city. 

I could give you so many stories, and they would read like cartoons because some of them are so absurd, and the manipulations so deep to the point of the absurd that they read as "funny" in writing. They weren't so funny or fun to deal with in real life. 

For now I give you four:

*STORY ONE:

One sycophant who was a teacher wanted me to know, in writing, and without any provocation towards him on my part, that he had preferred this boy to me when the boy and I were children (and near the same age). The answer was because the boy acted like a well known cartoon character. Now why would a teacher (!) put something like that in writing? Do they think of themselves as a four-year old child who can only be satisfied and entertained by someone who is pretending to be a cartoon character? 

*STORY TWO: This concerns a sycophantic wife. 

She is married to a constantly raging alcoholic narcissist who puts everyone down that he knows and meets (also discussed above). The kinds of insults he uses are the worst you can imagine and he can rage on for hours about a singular person. And the kind of hatred he has for most people seems to consume his mind most of the time. She heard him describe people on the phone as "dweebs" and "nut cases" and "fruit cases" with every kind of prejudice you can think of.  

Anyway, I had complained about some of this to her. And she said to me, "You have no right to criticize him!" 

Now if I ever do a cartoon book on sycophants, this one would be near the top. 

*STORY THREE: 

A woman is married to a man who has many extra-marital affairs. Just about every person in the organization knows about it.
  The way he has affairs is to tell a "vulnerable woman" who is going through a lot in her life, or a divorce, or a single woman who has a "self esteem" in the dumpster, that he has decided they are his soul mate, his ideal of perfection, the woman of his fantasies and dreams. It is a courtship that takes six months on average, sometimes more. There is an incredible amount of attention given to the woman, seductive glances, long lingering conversations, lots of flirting, liking what she is wearing, wondering whether he should divorce his wife and the problems in their marriage.
   He even wandered over to me even when he knew I was with someone else. It wasn't so much a courtship because I kept reminding him I was with someone I loved, but his answer to that was that he desired me and that his wife "puts up with it". Even when I kept saying no, he kept at it, and I grew suspicious of him ("boundry-breaker!!!" - I went into a hypervigilent state because being pushy and controlling about wanting you to give into an affair is something narcissists do). And he's even fathered two children from his affairs.
   Anyway after ten years of this, I could sense "the destruction in the air" every day, like this guy put a dark cloud over the whole environment and everyone felt a little destroyed over it, some more than others.
   People looked depressed, like they were going through the motions in pain. These women were still feeling like their self esteem and desirability had been bombed out and how awful it was to see him try to seduce yet another woman (usually someone new).
   He played the women against each other and had the weirdest cackling laugh when he would tweak one of these women's emotions or see them upset (sadistic in other words). One of the women couldn't take the heat and left. The other ones started talking to each other, and decided they'd gang up on him by telling his wife what was really going on with him when she visited. 

She certainly looked like she was in shock. She didn't have anything to say, however. Then it was like she suddenly awoke from the shock and went on a denial "spree". "He just likes children! He visits other children! We have four of our own!", "All of you women are just after him because he's handsome, and he turned you down, and you want to seek revenge on him for not wanting you. But I have him! For life! Get that in your heads!", "Give it up already! He's never going to want any of you!" 

Well, maybe some sycophants get what they deserve. 

He left two days after this and started it up again in a new organization. 

Note on 6/11/26: I researched a bit more: He's single now. 

*STORY FOUR:

This is a story about trolling.

I can't be sure that the trolling I experienced concerns a sycophant I know, but it seems likely. Unless narcissists all use the same phrases and have exactly the same kinds of ways of trolling people on the internet (which a lot of them do), I'll assume it is a sycophant I know in order just to tell this story. But the way I'll tell the story is to put in the reality of what happened first and the conjecture second. I'll let you know when I get to the conjecture part of the story.

The real part of the story:

I'm telling this story because it is a common one. I think many of the people who read this blog can relate to it. 

The real part of the story follows: 

The sycophant in question mostly lectures when he talks. He seems arrogant, and the politeness that I try to uphold is undermined. We never knew each other on any kind of deep level. The conversations happened within a group of people and were usually about politics, gardening, cooking, the weather, and so on - not interpersonal.  

Anyway, a conflict arose with another person. He was either told to intervene or took it upon himself to let me know what he thought. I suspect he was a sycophant because he said he had permission from the person I had a conflict with to communicate with me. By the way, this is called "triangulation", something narcissists tend to do to solve their relationship problems.

When he said things to me, I answered back (as would normally happen in an exchange between adults).

But he didn't feel I had a right to talk apparently, and said that I "needed to be silent" while he peppered me with lectures and insulting comments. That's pretty bossy, presumptuous and unreasonable, and also typical of narcissists and sociopaths. Note: this person was not my boss and had no authority over me whatsoever, legally, or even by mutual understanding. Narcissists and sociopaths like to "assume" authority over people when they have none. 

I don't like being lectured without the ability to respond, so I asked him to stop corresponding with me.

When he continued to lecture me through e-mails, I decided if he was going to continue not to respect my boundaries, or respect that I didn't want to hear from him, he could talk to my husband who actually did want to talk to him. 

But my husband also grew tired of being lectured at too, and besides this guy was trying to use my husband as a go-between to talk to me, so we decided that the best thing to do was that this sycophant should stop contacting us. 

The sycophant had:
1.  terrible conflict resolution skills (which can be attributed to any number of psychological make-ups)
2.  was trying to frighten me (this can be attributed to many causes too, but has more to do with power and control, or paranoia, and is most common among malignant narcissists and sociopaths)
3.  assumed authority (can also be attributed to a number of causes, but is most common among malignant narcissists and sociopaths - that link says there is "a strong link" between assuming authority and these two personality disorders I mentioned)
4.  he was over-the-top aggressive in thinking he could still e-mail me insults and threats when I told him to stop (it is a form of illegal harassment - also common among narcissists and sociopaths). 
   Anyway, there was a lot more than this that pegged him as someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder, or with the traits and symptoms, but I'll stop with just these 4. 

I don't think he even had the ability to comprehend why anyone would not want those kinds of e-mails or why someone would not want to listen to someone who insists on silencing them, that communication can only go one way. In adult correspondences it can mean:
* that the person has cognitively declined, and isn't capable of a one-on-one conversation, let alone a conversation that has to do with an interpersonal conflict.
* that the person cannot have conversations - that the ability to have conversations has been lost and he can only lecture.
* that even though we are both adults, he thinks he's superior. We see silencing done to children because they are not always in the habit of listening to adults (usually silencing is necessary when warning of dangers to a child, like asking a child to look both ways at the traffic suituation before crossing a street - those kinds of things; it is not so effective for emotional issues or conflicts, and certainly not between adults) - and when one adult is trying to silence another adult, it is a sign that one of the adults is taking an authoritarian position over the other adult. In other words, one adult is treating another adult as though he or she is a child. It begs the question: "Who would want to listen to an adult who is treating another able-bodied, sane adult like a small child?" There were a lot of instances in his correspondences where he was trying to teach me lessons "for a seven year old" - inappropriate and not wanted. 
I'm sure there are other possibilities, but I'm not privy to them.

My immediate thoughts were: Frightening someone is "wanted correspondence"? Assuming authority is a desirable communication style to engage with? Aggressively continuing with a line of action (e-mails) when someone has said "no" a number of times isn't to be taken seriously, and means you can keep harassing? Being aggressive is a wonderful attribute? 

He had no interest in what I had to say. I had no interest in what he had to say. Fair is fair in this regard, and I thought it would end there. 

Usually it would. 

Nope. I actually had to go to the police to get him to stop. And then he called the police in his own separate city and asked them, "How do I get her to stop sending me e-mails?" - very common with these types, the blame-shifting, playing the victim after perpetrating, continuing the escalation. However, I was the one to bring the e-mails to the police first, and it was obvious who said what, and why this guy went to the police after I did (because it's common for these kinds of guys to do it - you can go here to get an idea what can happen in these situations).

I was also told to be on my guard in the days afterward, that it's common to experience stalking, trolling, more harassment, triangulating, smear campaigns with more feigned victimhood, and abuse. "He might also feel very frustrated that he can't communicate with you, or be the authority of who gets to communicate, so be on the lookout for that." 

Now this is where my own conjecture comes in:

I have a media presence: this blog, Facebook and some others. There are some things happening on these sites that one could construe as "trolling". There are insults and "sayings" that are very much like what this person said to me the last time he communicated or lectured at me (and one of them had the 3 initial letters of the person he was a sycophant to).

I delete the obnoxious comments, of course, and never respond. You'd think that who ever it was would stop by now (it's been nearly a decade and a half since I saw this sycophant). 

If it is him, it could all be the same agenda: To scare me? To assume I'm never going to experience not hearing from him (like a stalker kind of situation)? That he thinks he has a right to say what he wants and that "I'm supposed to be silent" according to his "authoritarian fantasies"?  That he has the right to aggress upon me even in an anonymous fashion?

One reason I bring this up is because, again, this is common, and can go so much further than this, way beyond this, in fact. Many of you have experienced much, much worse, where even with police intervention, they did not stop harassing, and where they graduated to stalking. 

Narcissists and sociopaths don't like to be slighted even when they slight others. They don't like to be turned away even when they "silence" others, or insult them, or abuse them, or when they assume that rules of communication are theirs to make exclusively. 

When I was going through this so many years ago, my thought was "Why would he even think I'd want these kinds of communications? What on earth is he gaining from all of this except blowing off some 'sadism steam'?"

A therapist said the most likely answer was that he thought I might care about his opinion, and that I might try to change his opinion by doing what he or the main person wanted. This never crossed my mind, but it makes more sense than other things I heard, minimally so.

However, usually you care about the opinions of people who care about you, who are invested in a relationship with you, and want to know you. He never showed much, if any, interest in me. He rarely met me eye-to-eye, or initiated conversations about what I was experiencing in life. As far as I was concerned it was like this venom came out of nowhere to throw around some threats and insults into a situation that had hitherto been more peaceful than conflict-oriented. Sycophancy doesn't work very well if this was supposed to bring about an outcome different from the outcome that happened.

In fact, sycophancy didn't work in any of the four other stories that I can see. This is why I referred to sycophants being like "storm troppers" where the storm tropper robots are dangerous but also lose every battle and every war, and often stumble over each other in a fit of confusion. 

Perhaps they are too invested in what they get out of it, and because they know they are saving someone else's issues and public image other than their own, they get lazy or don't care enough what impact it makes on their commander.  

And even if "allowance to talk" became part of the picture eventually, he has said to me more than once, "Empathy is a sign of weakness", another sign of malignant narcissism and sociopathy. Lack of empathy goes hand in hand with an inability to understand another person's perspective, and for me, that leaves discussions about interpersonal issues and conflicts "off the table", at least with him. Malignant narcissists and sociopaths are also highly dysregulated emotionally that it is not worth talking about interpersonal issues with them unless you like someone raging at you (and that link points to "how dangerous" their expression of rage is). 

Even so, "You are allowed to talk now" would be just another authoritarian directive and fantasy of superiority on the perpetrator's part, like giving permission to a child, or an incarcerated individual, or a lawyer to state your defense.

Anyway, all of these issues are still about "silencing someone", even the lack of empathy and inability to do any perspective taking.

And, to get back to these types of narcissists in particular, the malignant and sociopathic type of sycophant can be more dangerous than the head narcissist, and also a lot more self-serving. 

What I learned eventually was that the main person/commander who needed this guy to be a sycophant-attacker for her used him for what was termed as "protective services". She also seemed to feel she needed a go-between to solve relationship issues for her  - which made what happened appear to be my fault, but what both of them failed to say was that the "protective services" were really about "protecting her image", another narcissistic pasttime and also way more important to narcissists than just about anything else, including any and all relationships.   

And then of course, for all of his troubles of being so good and so thorough at attacking that it required the police, who knows what happened after that. For a lot of people who feel they absolutely need sycophants to fawn, attack, deliver messages, intimidate, break the law and "do all of dirty work" for these commanders, there is always the possibility of the commander to say, "You ninny! Why did you say all of that to her!? You didn't need to scare her off and make her call the police! What's wrong with you?! It's all your fault!" 

A FINAL THOUGHT

I have often wondered whether people would rather have a sycophant than someone who is authentic, and whether people would rather have a scapegoat than to have a backbone.

It seems that corruption, narcissism, projection, lying, scapegoating, abuse, coldness, aggression, stalking, pursuing "made up enemies", and other appalling pastimes and traits are winning out in America, but I still have hope that direct communication, authenticity, honesty, accountability, politeness, compromise and empathy can eventually win people over. I hope that "my hopes" in this regard aren't silly or fantasies in and of themselves.