OK, returning to topic that plagues me... Collussion

[Hopalong]

I understood what the ideal of unconditional love is that made me the "sucker". That got me hooked into the cycle of abuse. And I was volunteering... because I thought it was the right thing to do. The fact that it got used against me, wasn't returned, and eventually turned into a situation where I became "collateral damage"and had to fight for my own life... really doesn't diminish the value of that ideal for me nor does it somehow cancel out the fact that only I am responsible for making sure that I don't get into one of those situations, again.

No one can do this for me; no one else has any obligation or responsibility to "protect" me from those situations. That's my job.

Am I absolutely safe from falling into that "trap" again? NO, probably not. But I've learned a lot and learned how to listen better to my own inner "radar"; I've learned how to protect myself - as difficult as enforcing a boundary can be at times - without going nuclear at every N-counter I have. (Coz I'm the one who suffers the most from those implosions.)

This is so eloquent and powerful for me, PR-- thank you. For me, too, it was how deeply I took in the lesson of unconditional and sacrificial love as a child. One of the hardest things for me to resolve, ever. Being a victim had a lot to do with losing faith. I know for other people it works the other way around; they are strengthened in faith by having survived suffering. In my case--and it wasn't even directly resulting from my brother's abuse of me as a child, it was more about just getting to a point where I had experienced too much anguish (likely depression, but also wired in very deeply from heartstruck comprehension of the crucifixion as a child). I was like oversaturated soil, could not absorb more pain, which I felt unconditional love would demand of me.

I have a different kind of faith these days; more reality- and community-based. Kind of faith in noble virtues and love experiences and nature. But no dogma.

Rambling again,
Hops

[lighter]

Well, Amber....

thanks for that thoughtful response.  As always, you've planted seeds, and described mature plants, grown from amended soil.

It is our responsibility to live, avoid the same old pitfalls, keep calm and carry on.  Yup yup yup.

That doesn't help me avoid the knee jerk primal response to collusion, and it's affect, on victims of abuse.

I don't know what kind of distance I'll be able to gain...... it feels so close.

Guest..... you're right.  Not everyone shames the victim.  It's interesting to see people, who stand up for the victim, get shamed too.

Not interesting in a hmmmm, this is something I want to watch way.  Interesting in a sick improbable way.

[sKePTiKal]

That doesn't help me avoid the knee jerk primal response to collusion, and it's affect, on victims of abuse.

I don't know what kind of distance I'll be able to gain...... it feels so close.

This is tough, Lighter. But I think it is do-able. I think you can do it. It's not a hard as it looks; but it is hard to find what works.

I'd be fibbing, if I said I'd mastered it; didn't fear my own fight/flight response to my perception of the "nutters" of the world or even just people being people and tiptoeing across boundaries - obliviously involved in their own dramas; or very specific kinds of ways some people "try to help". I did get a little bit of distance - enough that I can remember to breathe and not respond immediately; to just let it "sink in" before I respond. That gives me just enough time to decide if I'm facing something that's an unfortunate, unintentional pushing of my "buttons" - but mostly benign ('coz how could that person KNOW that about me??) - or if it's really the "old ugly face of abuse" raising it's head in someone else, again...

I am able to be "present" enough, more often than not these days, to practice this - but it doesn't take a whole lot to push me back into reactionary nuclear fission...

... or it's sneaky cousin: anticipatory anxiety.

The only thing I've found - so far - that gives me an "edge" on that reflex, is to take very good care of myself. (another work in progress, mind you...) Eating a little better, exercise, tai chi, even just in choosing what I wear... working on a new "look" helps. Enough solitude... enough connection... and rewarding myself for even the smallest accomplishment. Instead of being a one on one "solution" to the "problem"; taking it on in a head to head confrontation, it's more indirect; this is more like preventative maintenance... it provides me a stronger foundation, base, or plateau in the first place - maybe equivalent to a sense of inner-self "security"... or at least acceptance... like an immunity...

so that I can step back from hypervigilance & seige-mentality... and cool off the radioactive rods that fuel the nuclear reflexes.

Hope that gives you some ideas, Lighter!

[Gaining Strength]

That doesn't help me avoid the knee jerk primal response to collusion, and it's affect, on victims of abuse.

I don't know what kind of distance I'll be able to gain...... it feels so close.

Guest..... you're right.  Not everyone shames the victim.  It's interesting to see people, who stand up for the victim, get shamed too.

At times, I feel as though I was born with a pair of lens that force me to see a reality that seems to escape so many, a hideous joke by a creator.  In my youth I was disdainful of people who lived in their own preferred bubble, now I envy them.  But I am still left with the agony of seeing a reality that is quite simply too much to bear and driven mad by others' collusion and their utter lack of interest and even shutting the door on this messenger who tries to direct their attention on the unpleasant truth. 

It is just one more form of voicelessness and exclusion and isolation to heap on the many others in my life.

Lighter - you are on to something of great significance - so easy nor simple "solution" but one so worthy of microscopic examination.  Thanks for picking up this torch - so very thankful to know I am not alone (at least in this regard.)

[mudpuppy]

To the extent I've seen any Tarantino films they seem more to celebrate sociopathy than condemn it.
At best the "good" violent sociopath with a heart of gold (oxymorons-r-us), who we're supposed to root for, defeats the "bad" hyper violent sociopath, who we should condemn, and even then we should subtly admire the perfection of the bad guy's viciousness.
And he can't even make them honest, violent-but-banal sociopaths like Jimmy Cagney in White Heat. They have to go around doing clever, ironic things, we wouldn't expect sociopathic murderers to do and spouting high school philisophical claptrap that Quentin apparently thinks is profound.

There isn't an easy division between the abusers and the outside world. Not everyone will shame the victim. Those that do are screwed up too.

I've come to this conclusion also, with the caveat that for some, what constitutes their screwed-upness is merely weakness. This is usually a family member who sees no easy way out of the relationship and so knuckles under. Normal outsiders can always just walk away.
Non N, collusive family members have at the same time less of an excuse for not knowing the truth but perhaps more of one for being unable to escape the bullying and coercion. But no excuse absolves them of the responsibility to fight this kind of lunacy in their own family.

mud

[Redhead Erin]

My personal favorite word for this kind of thing is "Orwellian"  --as in 1984

[Hopalong]

"good" violent sociopath with a heart of gold (oxymorons-r-us), who we're supposed to root for, defeats the "bad" hyper violent sociopath, who we should condemn, and even then we should subtly admire the perfection of the bad guy's viciousness.

BAM!

I am impressed, Mud.

(And so glad to see you.)

Hops

[lighter]

I honestly don't think there is a strategy for handling PD's.... particularly the NSOCIOPATHs.

We'll always be somewhat at the mercy of those who're willing to lie and cheat in order to get ahead.

Confusion and doubt are their calling cards.

Drama, emotional turmoil and over the top accusations, (that aren't true but how do bystanders know?) swirl around these people.

They always have reasons and excuses for doing what they do, if they admit anything or get caught.

They're always the victim, even when they're doing the victimizing.

They're always manipulating other people into defending them, fighting for them, attacking their victims for them.

That's awful hard to combat, esp if you're a calm, understated person who tends to tell the truth exactly as it is. 

Lighter

[river]

River
did you want to pursue this? I didn't want this to be lost in the thread.
[/quote]

Oh, thanks guest, Ive been away for a while, doing accounts ugh!  I may get back to it.  But what lighter has said has a bearing, I'd say its to do with different degrees.  Im in touch with some poeple at present who are encountering abuse, but I dont think its of the nature that lighter is talking about in the post above.  Although if left to run riot abuse gets worse and worse from what I can see.  ~ until someone puts their foot down.   

may get back to this.... 

[lighter]

River, okay. Someone putting their foot down is the same as saying 'enough is enough' and doing something to stop the abuse? I hope so.

In my experience, putting one's foot down means you're about to be battling a whole bunch of people, not just the one.  Maybe battling the justice system too.  Sociopaths will have supporters in every corner..... approaching you, your family, other board members..... telling stories that make a lot of sense.  They'll lie about what you do, say and feel.  They'll have sabotaged you from the moment you got involved with them, if they're really a sociopath, and you won't even see it coming.  How do you combat that?
 

Lighter
did you mean all you said above, or perhaps feeling jaded and 'to hell with it'? Because I would question some things you've said. (If what you say is always true, how come we send some to jail?)

Always true?  I don't think anything I've said is always true.  We can manage to send some to jail, but.... for the most part, being a sociopath isn't against the law.  Domestic sociopaths don't seem to be committing crimes if they're terrorising their spouse and children.  If they do manage to find themselves prosecuted, it's a very difficult thing to prove. They lie so smoothly, it's second nature for them.  Is it worth it?  To try to send a domestic sociopath to jail for a while?  They're going to get out, and their proxies are always going to support them.  Maybe even some of your friends and family support them too?  If you have children with them, they'll be able to reach out and touch you through them for a very very long time.  I can't imagine what it would be like to put one in prison for a while, then wait for their release.  How uncomfortable would that wait be?  Is that really "winning?"[brown=color]

As for those people who are calm and understated, and who tend to tell the truth exactly as it is - what's the alternative/better?

Well, that question is one I've asked myself.  I'm not a person who can tell a lie without squirming all over the place, but......
let's play WHAT IF.

What if the victim of a domestic sociopath started utilizing the sociopath's toolbox?  Out and out lying, not just exaggerating, the same as the sociopath.  What if, say..... the victim of domestic violence beat their own face on the bedpost, and phoned the police to blame the sociopath?  Would it be OK if.... say.... they'd actually been assaulted but no marks were left, so they provided proof of harm that had taken place?  No marks means the police would do a HE SAID SHE SAID dance, and most victims don't call the police anyway, so maybe that's just crazy talk.  I digress......  Is it ever OK to lie or exaggerate or manipulate or be disrespectful to domestic sociopaths who are terrorising vulnerable victims they should be protecting? Ever?  I honestly don't know, but my gut tells me it would backfire horribly. Chaos.  Destruction.  War of the Roses?

 Does that mean we've taken our skin off for our abusers.... if we don't erect the same kinds of "boundaries" a sociopath would erect?   What would happen if victims dealt with their abusers in the currency of the sociopath?  Would that be appropriate, or effective even? It would certainly be walking on the dark side..... scares me just to think of it if children are involved.  I guess victims with brothers, big friends and fathers might send them over to beat the abuser up, deliver a threat, and is that the same thing as dealing in the abuser's currency?  I guess it is.  I wonder how well it works.  Depends on how big the friend and serious the threat, I suppose.

Does it take a sociopath's tactics to defeat a sociopath?  To break even? I'm guessing the sociopath's much better at the game, and most victims would be twisted into knots trying to sustain that level of dishonesty, then fail.  I don't think we ever win when dealing with domestic sociopaths.  The best we can hope for is that they leave us flat and never come back.  That sure doesn't seem like a win, but you have to put it in perspective.  End rant.   [brown=color],

[sKePTiKal]

You pose a lot of interesting questions, Light-me-dear...

this one in particular seemed to sum it up for me:

Is it ever OK to lie or exaggerate or manipulate or be disrespectful to domestic sociopaths who are terrorising vulnerable victims they should be protecting? Ever? 

As a kid who lived in one of those domestic violence situations, I'd say you've just described a survival skill and that the only alternative is total silence and giving up... just taking the abuse day after day... and never ever standing up for yourself. I don't know - to critique my initial response: that may be too simplistic.

I think that the whole reason I had such weak boundaries is precisely because to even HAVE a boundary would've been perceived as manipulation and disrespect, in my house. It took a lot of convincing for me to understand that having a boundary and defending it, wasn't just as bad as what was done to me. My alternative was to simply not be there (when I could); to hide (withdrawal or physically hiding - closets seemed to work for me) when I had to be there. Dissociation, even... at the worst moments in time.

It also occurs to me, that to continue to "live" - such as that kind of life is - in relationship with a sick-o of any stripe... one has to lie, exaggerate, rationalize away and justify a whole of stuff to oneself. So which is worse: doing those things to oneself - or using this kind of deception, to free oneself from the psychos or sociopaths of the world?

[sKePTiKal]

Hey Lighter... your questions are like a laser beam and seem (to me) to be getting at something extremely important and valuable. That beam is cutting through the confusion, the drama of he said - she said details that usually miss the point; the important bit of conflict at issue... and even through the emotional wishes, hopes, and if only's...

... it feels as if you're staring down all the "ugly", "mean" and "unjust"... and trying to draw some boundary lines in the sand for your own benefit - in new places, based on your core beliefs and values.

So, even if it seemed as though I was "pushing back" at you with my own questions... I'm only trying to show you another side of the same thing and I hope it helps; your comments so far are helping me. I do still struggle with how I participated - cooperated - or for whatever reason let myself be "used" in the kind of situation you're talking about. Even after my T told me that at 12 I couldn't possibly be held responsible for anything except surviving, with some of my self intact.

There are dramatic/traumatic scenes in my story that I profoundly regret; where I acted - as I believed at the time - on my own volition... I played a part in the whole drama - precisely because as far as "parents" there was no one acting in that role, at all. At the time, I didn't fully realize how I was being manipulated, gaslighted, neglected. I was flying by the seat of my pants with only the values, emotional maturity, and experience of a youngster. After the dust settled, of course I was blamed & shamed & gaslighted a lot more about what happened. Both of my parents were (differently) sick-o, wacked out, and so preoccupied with their war with each other that I resorted to desperate means to just to get their damned attention. And so I learned to be "careful for what you wish for" and "no good deed goes unpunished".

I have a tendency to feel that I'm partly responsible for how ugly things got. My T had to point out repeatedly - until I finally heard her through the fog - that at that age, I could hardly be expected to parent my parents... or to make informed, mature, adult-type decisions... and yet, when looking back at the whole horrible episode in it's totality... I really didn't do so badly for my age. She convinced me that there was a way to accept what I did - my actions in the little scripted disaster scene - and yet not beat myself up about the choices that I made at that time. I couldn't reconcile using violence to counter or stop violence; anger & rage to stop the passive-aggressive "cold war" of picking that could erupt into nuclear disaster at any time - and did, finally.

I don't think I'm an aggressive, violent person. But in that situation - to survive - I had to be. And I found out I could be, when pushed that far; who knew? But, just because I can sorta function intelligently and defensively in those kinds of life/death/possibly physically painful situations... still doesn't make me a bad person. And tho' I might have some residual fear about what I might be capable of - I don't fear the control of that "ability" in normal situations.

In my "kid-logic mind"... I had to absolve myself of responsibility in the normal sense of the word; and understand that while I could say, in most life-situations that kind of behavior is "bad"... in the situation I faced ...   I     a.) had no choice if I wanted to live and b.) there was hardly any time to even rationally "decide"... it was flight/fight time and I was just a 12 yr old trying to do the best I could. In those kinds of situations, people simply react - they don't search for the perfect, or ideal solution. What's not fair, is looking back and telling myself "I shoulda - coulda - woulda" or regretting - i.e. beating myself up over what I did actually do.

Maybe this has absolutely nothing to do, with what brought this topic and these questions up for you Light. But it's what I was led to thinking about... and I think what you're getting at with the question... is the difference between an "absolute" and a "situational" value. An absolute value of "bad" for lying... in every situation; always... would require hurting people's feeling sometimes. An absolute value about never - ever - physically hurting another human being...

... would leave one in a position of not defending oneself. I think it was Carolyn - a long while back - who helped me out with the biblical "turn the other cheek" problem... and said it didn't apply in life-threatening situations. I guess in those situations, the rule about "God helps those who help themselves" might come into play.

The thing is defining "life-threatening". Physical danger is easy to see, fits the definition. But the mental, emotional and psychological damage of living with a mentally ill or abusive person can also be "life-threatening". Especially over extended periods of time. It's just not not as visibly apparent.

[sKePTiKal]

Thanks guest...

speaking of theory: my theory about part of the way these "monsters" develop is that something doesn't compute for them about situational relativity. Maybe it shorts out their brain to try to determine when it's OK to tell a white lie to avoid hurting someone... and telling a grand whopper or even understanding what a delusion is. Like a computer the brain "locks up" trying to make a choice...

... so they reduce everything to absolutes and see the world only in binary form: black or white - as to whether it's good or bad - or always or never.... "safe" or a "threat".

There is never any point where the "monster" feels comfortable on the continuum in between black or white, etc. And of course, they see that the rest of the world IS comfortable in between... so there's something wrong with those people... or those people are a threat... etc ad violencium.... depending on how threatened the monster feels.

Here's a mild example of the theory... and know, I'm still studying this! I'm not sure there isn't a bit more than I'm seeing right now.

Part of my dad's estate included a condo in FL, in a retirement community - and the house (it's a separate building with a garage) is right on the golf course. We all know what happened to the real estate market in the fall 2008, the year my dad died. Neither my brother or I have any fondness for Florida - though he plays golf. We've been trying to sell the condo for 2 years, through the estate. Why so long? Well, because it wasn't possible for me or the trustee to convince my brother that the "value" of the property isn't absolute. To him, if it's been taken care of and the area is still nice... it should be worth what it used to be worth. So, my brother has insisted on a list price that is 30-50% higher than other house/condos in the very same community. (They're sort of cookie-cutter layouts; some variations. My brother doesn't understand real estate or finance... within the last 10 years, he asked me to explain to him how people got car loans, because he always paid cash for used cars.)

There is no way - and we've tried all kinds of explanations - to get him to understand that with 50-60 other equal properties for sale for less money that the property will not sell, unless he agrees to accept a lower price/offer. He can't grasp the abstract concept of how a "market" works to adjust the value/price of something. If it's worth X 20 years ago... it should be worth X now, at a minimum.

And yeah... I've tried telling him flat out that this is wrong. But to no avail. In his reality, he's right - and it's the rest of the world that's messed up. He'll admit that this is "the way it is" - but according to his perspective, it's wrong and stupid and doesn't make sense. And he refuses to "participate" in what he feels is mass delusion (never mind he's a minority of 1). This mental "tic" frustrates almost everyone who comes in contact with him, at some point or another. But I finally got him to accept a lower price - by a.) telling him I agreed with his wacko idea and b.) "trading" him something else he wanted. OH - and I'd also suggested another alternative that I think locked up his brain with too many choices: I suggested he buy me out of the real estate, so that we can finally close my Dad's estate. He didn't say it in so many words - but I get the sense that he simply doesn't want to release me from this form of "torture" or control... or maybe he thinks it's "relationship", I don't know.

So, yeah I told a lie to get the result I wanted (after doing the patience thing, explaining over & over and dancing around his ego-delusions for 2 years). I told him I agreed with his deficient understanding or delusion about real estate reality. AND THIS IS COLLUSION, no doubt about it - but like paying the "troll" to cross over the bridge - this is the cost of trying to deal with these kinds of people. As is, making a case to the trustee to become an ally because we share a common goal... and because he quickly caught on to what was frustrating me about my brother.

Situational ethics, I guess. In the same way - if someone is shooting live rounds at me; trying to kill me - I'm not going to have an ethical debate with myself about whether killing someone is always wrong; I'm going to shoot back. I don't think that makes me a morally corrupt person or "better" than someone who couldn't. Just different.

[Hopalong]

Wow, Amber. That's eerily similar to what I went through with my brother:
1) he'd only sign the settlement agreement if the price was unrealistically high, reflecting his childhood's mythological remembered glory. Having the house be priced very high made him feel more important. Facing facts, about how shabby it's gotten over the years it was just Mom and me, diminished that.
2) had to be a lot of "giving him other stuff he wanted" to get him to be even that serious -- after 2.5 years of brutal battle (which a sane person would have realized drained the wind out of the windfall
Part of the agreement, thank god, was to follow the realtor's advice on price (and my brother was okay with this local realtor because he remembered his name--it's the high-status firm about her) and I would guess might've thought there'd be some "good old boy" advantage for him with this guy.

What's ironic is that I kept mum, said whichever realtor he wanted was fine with me. Because I knew my brother would never remember (since for 2 years we were at different schools--and he ignored my school life anyway) that this person was someone whom I was friends with (had a crush on, more to the point) in 6th grade. I even have a photo of us co-starring in the class play. So the realtor's been a complete dear to me and supports the "Chinese wall" that prevents my brother's participation in the sale. If that was "collusion" -- in some way --

Brother can just wait for his check. I am trying to fix small things and improve its chances as fast as I can. We've had 7 or 8 showings since Oct. 1st, and since we just dropped the price a mile, maybe this spring will do it.


The mercy is that that final agreement, outlines settlement for everything. The estate's value is all locked up in the house, but once it does sell then the same document takes care of all the disbursements and account settlings. My and his shares will be factored out after the bank is paid. It's not a pretty picture (we just dropped the price by enough to buy about 4 cars) -- but it is at least a path.

I couldn't "collude" with my brother, had to fight him like I was fighting off demons (and with expensive priests to help) -- but in a way, the only way we finally succeeded was due to accepting his craziness. Once my lawyer read up on NPD and specifically followed a suggestion I'd provided from a "the narcissist in court" article (I think I shared that here a couple years back) and got the exact expected reaction -- I knew I was going to be okay. My lawyer got it. So I'd come out with less of a secure future financially, but I'd never have to defend myself against my brother again.

Sorry for the hijack. I guess it was the word "Brother". But maybe collusion fits in here somewhere....kind of "proactive collusion as self defense."

love,
Hops

[river]

    underlying belief that everyone in the world was trying to rip this person off. Everyone was on the make and would steal and cheat you if they could. I'm sure that was a big part of their worldview.       

put still another way,  ..................

Re: Ns 'the world is their oyster', for some types of Ns its just that its a "negative oyster"

                                         Masterson on the tapes 'The Real Self'