Important: I am not a mental health professional and do not claim to diagnose anyone discussed in this post with a personality disorder. It’s worth noting that some people anonymously referenced have self-diagnosed with ASPD, whether correct or not. This post contains thoughts and observations, after many years of experience with this type of system and extensive research.

The concept of flying monkeys was introduced by Prof. Sam Vaknin, who also coined a multitude of terms used nowadays when discussing narcissistic personality disorder and narcissistic abuse. In short, flying monkeys are people who, for their own reasons, do the bidding of a person engaging/ that has engaged in abusive behaviour (defending them, minimising their actions, stalking or harassing others on their behalf, engaging in smear campaigns, publicly portraying them as a victim etc.)

Delusions regarding criminality and abusiveness

I wanted to start with this point, as the rest stem from the distorted perception of someone being criminally inclined, perhaps even their entire life, and still being the perpetual victim in current predicaments, according to their flying monkeys. It is, of course, possible to be both a perpetrator and a victim, in different scenarios. However, there are patterns of behaviour that should at least make these people think.

When you’re dealing with someone whose criminal record is lengthy, at times starting from adolescence and ranging from petty crimes to serious violence, you should logically know you’re dealing with a compulsive risk taker, fairly selfish individual and above all, a person who convinces themselves that none of these predicaments were their fault, or that the reaction to their actions was disproportionate. This is not someone able to lucidly and objectively assess their own actions, especially in real time. This at least should be clear.

However, if their partner or child seeks help regarding abusive behaviour, flying monkeys in the family system may swiftly label them as liars, even while 100% aware of the person’s propensity for violence, contempt for other people, for laws and society in general. This is done based on the person’s word alone, despite them being known to deny or minimise any wrongdoing.

It doesn’t even matter if someone has done similar things in the past, many times – in the present, those seeking help are clearly liars and motivated by vindictiveness.

Impulse control: paradoxical claims

The proverbial attempt to have one’s cake and eat it applies here.

If the antagonist’s behaviour is determined by other factors than the decision to abuse (genetics, poor upbringing, mental health issues, substance use/ addiction, the inability to handle provocation etc), then they are by default dangerous and their behaviour or its level of escalation is unpredictable, as they are not in control of themselves.

Flying monkeys use other factors, particularly substances, to explain away abusive behaviour, claiming the antagonist is a good person with pure intentions, who just “loses it” on occasion but does not mean to.

At the same time, they claim to know the maximum level of escalation the person is capable of, thus suggesting they are, in fact, in control of themselves to some degree and would never do anything too bad. This would render the abuser sadistic, if not calculating – the exact opposite of a person driven by other factors to loss of control.

Surely both cannot be true about the same person at the same time. Either this is a truly dangerous individual with no self control, or they retain enough awareness of what they’re doing so as to not be truly dangerous, and they’re just being sadistic or cold and goal-oriented (seeking dominance). In both cases, they should be avoided anyway.

Moreover, while admitting the antagonist’s propensity for violence or mistreatment of others, when confronted with a specific accusation, flying monkeys somehow manage to reach the mindset that the person may do just about anything but that of which they were accused, and is therefore the victim of false accusations.

Maintaining the status quo

All is well in many pathological family systems until someone seeks outside help. It doesn’t matter who gets hurt along the way, as long as it all stays quiet.

They have an unwritten policy that is contrary to common sense. In everyday life, misconduct is forgiven up to a point, provided it isn’t very serious. In pathological systems, the more egregious the misconduct, the more it needs swept under the carpet.

Avoiding consequences becomes the only focus, and not the harm caused to innocent people. That becomes an afterthought or disappears from view altogether. There is only one goal, namely to keep the antagonist out of legal trouble.

This is how flying monkeys might tolerate someone accusing the abuser of DA (especially if they don’t see DA as serious), but not of CSA, which carries a much heavier penalty. The more serious the consequences, the more they perceive getting help as a betrayal, even if the person reporting is a minor.

It’s really twisted. It’s like saying the more someone hurts you, the more reasons you have to hide it.

Performative empathy

In a bid to maintain the status quo, flying monkeys may be performatively affable to those they perceive as extensions of the antagonist (such as a current partner or children). Even for years. This can change at the flip of a switch, if the antagonist is somehow seriously threatened, for instance by a serious accusation.

They might even fish for information while pretending to be compassionate and supportive. Let’s take a mother who performatively sympathises with her son’s partner, to merely gage her intentions (of perhaps leaving or reporting him). Or perhaps an adult male who gains the trust of his younger half-siblings, who confide in him about their father’s behaviour, only for him to immediately relay information to the antagonist, including their plans of going to a refuge (which no one should ever disclose).

Being two-faced seems to be a key component of the flying monkey status, not least because antagonists tend to engage in triangulation.

In their own lives, flying monkeys presumably claim to espouse principles and disavow certain behaviours; they would not accept being treated as the antagonist treats other people. They may have genuine reactions when hearing about that behaviour. Ultimately, however, their script of protecting the antagonist and/ or unit prevails.

Presumed invincibility

I can only assume that when someone starts getting into trouble with the law at a young age, parents breathe a sigh of relief when the matter goes away. Fresh start, fresh everything. I’ve noticed, anecdotally of course, that the dynamic is entirely different when an adult has managed to skirt by every time they get in trouble. They gain this aura of a maverick; of a person who manages to extricate themselves every single time.

Give it years and the family appears convinced this person will weasel their way out of any issue on technicalities, intelligence, sheer luck or charisma.

The prospect of this individual facing serious consequences for any reason becomes unthinkable. Unnatural. Like something that couldn’t or shouldn’t happen. That’s precisely why they react with such dismay and vitriol to anyone trying to hold the antagonist to account, or even attempts to be safe from them.

The immediate switch

If the antagonist suddenly paints those people (including minors), formerly close to him, as liars and detestable, flying monkeys may adapt in a jiffy, mirroring the hatred. Prior relationships with those people don’t matter at all, or how many years they had lasted – or what flying monkeys themselves had witnessed overtime.

For instance, I witnessed a grandmother disown her minor grandchildren overnight (as one was the alleged victim of a crime), even bullying them, with the stated intention of making them and their mother feel unsafe. References to their mixed ethnicity were used. It’s difficult to reconcile this with the years-long image of the loving, blanket-knitting granny, whose grandchildren “were her life”.

I’ve also witnessed a once kind and protective older brother engage in egregious witness intimidation against his own sister.

DARVO by proxy: scapegoating former victims

The phrase DARVO by proxy does not exist; it is, however, a valid concept. When someone is accused of abusing another person, they sometimes point the finger at “influences” in the alleged victim’s life, such as a person the antagonist had abused previously.

This is common in couples with a history of incidents, when new allegations surface, especially involving a minor, to be swiftly blamed on the “vindictive partner/ ex-partner” with a history of disclosing abuse or reporting it to the police.

To most people, a flurry of domestic incidents overtime paint a cohesive picture. To rather sick family units, a former victim becomes the perfect scapegoat.

It doesn’t matter what flying monkeys had observed overtime; it will be minimised; at the end of the day, reporting someone is a breach of loyalty to them. They associate it at least partially with malice and vindictiveness, or momentary hatred at a minimum, as opposed simply to wanting the abuse to stop.

The crux being that this person had been capable of reporting the antagonist, and therefore may have convinced others to do so as well. They are, in a sense, tainted.

When false (which is usually the case, as false allegations are statistically rare), this narrative harms both the current victim, portrayed as a mere puppet, and the former victim, whose own experience of harm is used against them. It’s incredibly scummy.

Cowardice/ spinelessness

The odd flying monkey may react like a normal person with moral standards and empathy when a victim discloses serious misconduct. While in normal person mode, they may say and do what is appropriate. However, the script always prevails. The fear of being perceived as disloyal overtakes them and at times makes them act in ways reminiscent of psychopathy.

One adult male received a phone call wherein his teenage half-sister disclosed very sensitive misconduct against her by their father. He engaged in the following, in the span of 48 hours:

  1. He repeatedly pressured his sister to call the police that day (which she and her mother ultimately did), acting as her protector.
  2. Only 24 hours later, he fully supported his father’s narrative (the ex had made it up and had convinced her daughter to lie). To throw gasoline on the fire, he claimed his sister had made more severe allegations, which she had not, to make his father hate her and see himself as a genuine victim of false accusations. He also posed as his father’s only loyal offspring, never mentioning it had been him pushing for the arrest to happen.
  3. The following day, he showed up at his sister’s residence and bullied her egregiously, in public, demanding she retract her report to the police (which would have put her in a serious legal predicament). As he hadn’t managed to get his father to disown her, he tried to turn her against her mother instead. As no method worked and she kept repeating she hadn’t lied, he became so angry he was spitting.

I’m being very economical with details, as his methods of persuasion were disgusting. However, to list a few:

  • You’re being selfish.
  • You’re staining the family name.
  • He kept you for years; you’ll never manage without him.
  • A lawyer will tear you to shreds.
  • You weren’t crying enough when you told me. Don’t turn on the water works now.
  • I’ll break your younger siblings; I’ll get them to admit that you’re lying.
  • You’re a little demon, just like your mother.
  • Your mother is a psychopath; she’s the most manipulative person on this planet.
  • Your mother is crazy; you know she’ll be in a mental institution within 6 months. Remember 15 years ago she believed in past lives?

To summarise, this adult male of almost 30 was bullying a girl half his age into lying to the police, thereby getting herself arrested, by withdrawing a complaint he had pressured her to make, which she sustained was accurate. At the same time, he was calling other people manipulative. Quite something.

His main goal seems to have been avoiding his father finding out who had insisted to get him arrested. His loyalty had to appear unblemished; he was willing to sacrifice his sister for that. Over the following months, he still said nothing, until his father found out through a third party and confronted him with evidence. He had no choice but to admit it. He had been resting quite peacefully in the knowledge that his sister and her mother would be considered “evil plotters” in perpetuity, so he wouldn’t lose face.

“I know for a fact you’re lying”

It sounds bizarre for any person who was not present when an offence was allegedly committed to say they know for a fact the victim is lying. It’s counter-intuitive. Whereas there may not be any evidence apart from the victim’s word of it having occurred, there is no evidence to the contrary either. One may, of course, take a side based on other factors.

Asserting the above-mentioned is a clear indication of their grandiosity or ability to delude themselves.

Amateur detectives, body language and behavioural experts

A flying monkey bent on dismissing a victim may have the hubris of being able to single-handedly determine the veracity of their claims, by “analysing” their body language, tone, texts, tears or lack thereof. They may, without ever having studied psychology in their entire life, give a verdict out of their own behinds.

Nowadays, there are plenty aficionados of body language analysis content (never mind that it’s sensationalist pseudoscience used by content creators to capitalise on topical subjects such as celebrity scandals).

You should’ve been crying , you’re not showing enough emotion are classic victim blaming and dismissal tactics. When someone doesn’t cry, it didn’t happen. When they do, they’re being manipulative, or in Cujo’s words, turning on the water works.

The communal narrative; pack behaviour

Some pathological family systems act as a unit. They have a unified narrative, at times dictated by one person, at times with no evidence of their own at all. They have communal enemies based on it. Consider the following alternative approaches, in the case discussed above:

  • I don’t know what happened and I’m staying out of it;
  • We’ll see what happens in court and take it from there;
  • The behaviour may have occurred when the person was very intoxicated; they may not remember it;
  • The person I am fond of may need help of some kind, not blind defenders;
  • Bullying alleged victims with no proof that they are lying should not occur;
  • It’s illegal to intimidate a witness; I really shouldn’t do that.

In a small group rallied around an antagonistic person, individuals will bring their own grievances, unrelated to the matter at hand, pouring petrol on the fire to further demonise the enemy unjustly. When said enemy is the actual victim, this becomes grotesque.

Members also employ their grey matter collectively, pitching ideas on how to harm, defame or discredit the enemy. They leave any consideration or morals at the door. Consider Cujo, mentioned above, who was frothing at the mouth and assessing how to best manipulate and bully a person he had lied against.

Conclusion

Although hindsight gives clarity one rarely has in real time, it’s worth reflecting on the following issues, if you are in close proximity to an antagonistic and criminally inclined person whose family you appear to get along with. Especially if you are in a relationship or married to them.

  • Is the antagonist always the victim of injustice in their eyes, regardless of his/her actions?
  • Are they reluctant to criticise the antagonist even in minor ways?
  • Do they believe or act as if any method of evading consequences were justified (they see evading consequences as self-defence)?
  • Have they ever minimised or ignored the antagonist’s abusive behaviour towards you or other people, including in the past?
  • Have they ever told you how you should’ve handled an incident of abuse better, as the victim, implying it was your responsibility to manage or fix it?
  • Do they ever discuss breaking the law, especially in ways that would harm specific people, to gain an advantage? Do they get joy out of outsmarting others or the system for their own purposes?
  • Do they plan smear campaigns or retaliation that is immoral and disproportionate?
  • Do they harass or bully for fun? Do they normalise being mentally sadistic?
  • Do they follow the antagonist’s direction at every turn, or depend on that person?
  • Do they dismiss psychological and emotional abuse altogether, claiming that only assaults constitute abuse?
  • Do they think behaviours such as property destruction, sleep deprivation, control, constant disruptive behaviour due to intoxication etc are not forms of abuse, but pesky little occurrences?
  • If a conflict occurs within the unit, do they prioritise the impact it’s having on them, or the unit as a whole, as opposed to the people it is impacting directly?
  • Does the antagonist badmouth them behind their backs, while being very close to them? If so, you are also being badmouthed in their presence and triangulation is occurring.
  • Do they value loyalty above everything else, no matter what a person in their unit does?
  • Are they easily driven to hate other people to the point of blind rage?
  • Do they engage in or discuss engaging in violence, or other destructive behaviour, especially on a regular basis? Do they normalise domestic violence in certain circumstances, or violence as retaliation?
  • Are they misanthropic and generally believe they can outsmart most people? Do they think they should be a law unto themselves?
  • Do they have to “win” at all cost against another person? Do they ever display a lack of empathy which makes you worry they might be dangerous?

These are warning signs they may act in cruel, immoral or criminal ways towards you in the future, if you fail to fall in line or you report abusive behaviour.