Showing posts with label Self-Preservation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Self-Preservation. Show all posts

Thursday 16 May 2013

Narcissist Sympathizers



Narcissist Sympathizers
By Kathy Krajco


I, for one, am sick of the insult to our intelligence in narcissist sympathizers trying to hand people the line that the poor, poor narcissist doesn't mean to hurt anyone, that they don't know what they are doing, that it just sort of happens, that they think they are behaving normally.
Your brain must be dead if you think that people who abuse ONLY ON THE SLY - behaving like angels when there are witnesses - don't know exactly what they're doing.
To the bullet-headed narcissist sympathizers, I say, "Try real, real hard to understand. Bend a brain cell or two. Repeat to yourself 100 times that "He abuses only in the dark. When other people are watching, he acts like he's full of loving kindness even toward the very one he abuses in the dark."
Maybe if you repeat that simple fact to yourself 100 times, it will sink in. Think. Think real, real hard what it means. Really work at lifting that mental weight. Come on, you can do it. If you try real, real hard you will understand what this simple fact means.
Circumcize your crusty brain, because the average ten-year-old knows that if you hide what you are doing, you know what you are doing and that it's wrong.
Especially when you go to great lengths putting on a phony show of being the exact opposite type of person.
Get a clue: that ain't mental illness; that's just diabolical.
What's more, even the average ten year-old is smart enough to know that if you can control yourself when there are witnesses, you can control yourself when there aren't.
Too complex? Read my lips: that ain't mental illness; that's just sneakiness to get away with wrongdoing.
Sorry, but if you narcissist sympathizers can't see that, no one can enlighten you.
What's more, narcissists are sadistic. The well-known narcissist Sam Vaknin himself often says this. And anyone abused by a narcissist knows it.
Sadism is proof positive of the intent to cause pain.
It is also proof positive of the ability to empathize when the narcissist or psychopath wants to. Unfortunately, the only time they choose to empathize is when calculating what to do to cause maximum pain. You know - the empathy of a professional torturer, used only to feel out what type of treatment will wound most deeply.
The courts know all this too. Psychopaths (who are all narcissists too) and other narcissists flunk with flying colors all the insanity tests. Which is why NPD and psychopathy are no defense and are considered character disorders, not personality disorders.
And the mental health establishment has no credibility on the question, since they call cigarette smoking a mental illness and called homosexuality a mental illness till the day the politically correct wind shifted. How can anyone respect the judgement of a herd like that?
While I won't argue that NPD isn't a mental illness, I see that, if it is, it is far more likely the fruit of thoroughly depraved character, not the cause.
If you must twist your brain into a bowlful of tangled spaghetti to "rationalize" irrational and predatory behavior, you are going to end up with a damaged mind. But it's an EFFECT, not a cause, of vicious behavior.
But, go ahead, narcissist sympathizers. Insult your own intelligence all you want: it's a free country. Just don't expect anything but what you have coming for insulting mine or anyone else's.




Wednesday 31 August 2011

It's Our Right to Protect Our SELF From Narcissists


This is one of the most kick-ass articles I have ever read explaining our most basic HUMAN RIGHT… Our RIGHT to PROTECT our SELF from abuse... Our RIGHT to DEFEND our SELF from abuse.
Self-Preservation Under Narcissistic Abuse     BY KATHY KRAJCO
I don't see how it can be so difficult for many people to see what is so wrong about denying a person (or any sentient creature) the right to use any means necessary to protect and defend themselves from abuse. All it takes is a little thought. And empathy. Just put yourself in the victim's place and then ask yourself how it would feel to have to bend over for it. More important, ask yourself what that would MEAN.

It's the MEANING in things that many people prefer to unsee.

There are many issues over which reasonable people may disagree, but this is not one of them. There is a right and wrong answer here. Those who prefer the wrong one just disregard all reasoning to the contrary with the old "Yes but...." That is invalid. Those people lose the argument hands down, because they don't have valid answers for their opponents' points.

I don't throw my pearls before swine, but here is an effort to explain for those who honestly haven't seen enough of life yet to understand but are willing to understand.

I warn you that this is an unpleasant subject.

Examples speak louder than words.

Why do you suppose that, until not so long ago, a convicted criminal in Europe had to approach his executioner, fall upon his knees before his executioner, and pay the executioner to torture him to death?

What sick mind dreamed up that idea?

If you research the topic, you will find a hundred details of execution rituals that drum on the same theme: in all, the victim (as he was called) was constrained by every means possible to OFFER HIMSELF UP (or to seem to be offering himself) to abuse. Why? Why did one have to kneel down before the executioner and lay his head on the chopping block in even the least cruel form of execution?

In Europe you didn't have the inalienable human right to pursue happiness. It could be taken away from you by the Church or State so you would have to pursue pain instead. That is why you had to give evidence against yourself. That is why you had to offer yourself to torture and execution. Refusal to would be a sin and a crime.

How's that for perverted?

You were declared "out law" (i.e., outside the protection of the law) and condemned to penal servitude. That is a fancy name for enslavement to serve as an object for someone else to punish with abuse. You had to surrender yourself to abuse for that other's "pleasure."

Think what that means. It means that you no longer belong to yourself. Think how it violates the instinct for self-preservation. It's an enforced self-masochism.


This is what our forefathers outlawed with the outlawing of "cruel and unusual punishment." France soon followed suit with the guillotine as a humane form of execution in which the the condemned did not have to offer himself to harm.

This is what rape is all about. It's not about sex: it's about power. Absolute power over another. The rapist demonstrates how powerful he is being on another by forcing the victim to offer herself to abuse. Well, he is deluding himself of course, because these are only copulatory reflexes and not the act of the victim's will. But this is why the victims of rape find it so degrading. It is the ultimate degradation.

Like medieval torturers, serial killers must lay awake nights dreaming up new ways to accomplish the same thing. Always the bottom line is the same though: demonstrate absolute power on the victim by somehow making the victim give themselves up to the abuse.
It's the ultimate narcissistic high.


The black art of torture is all about this skill in making the victim offer himself (or seem to offer himself) to the instruments of torture. This is the aspect of torture that torments the victim so for the rest of his or her life.

When you cannot resist, you at least have the comfort of knowing that there was nothing you could do. But when you have the power to put up some resistance and don't - when you in effect say, "Here, take me and do what you will with me" - you feel like an abject worm.

The SHAME is unbearable. No exaggeration: it drives people to suicide.

For, what does it mean when a person accepts pain for another's pleasure? That goes against the instinct for self-preservation. So what happens to the victim's self? The victim no longer belongs to him- or her-self. The victim is possessed by the abuser. Like an arm or leg of his for him to use or abuse as he pleases.

It is the ultimate degradation. The victim ceases to exist as a person. No human being with the ability to resist and a spine will submit to it. You have to (morally) break a person's back to make them docilely submit to abuse.


So, for the sake of the victim's mental health, you must NEVER deny him or her the right to put up a fight.

Denying a person under any kind of assault this right is what theologians call the sin of "extreme perversity," otherwise known as the Sin of Sodom, which a certain kind of rape - RAPE, not sex - is symbolic.

It violates the laws of nature and the innate instinct for self-preservation. If the victim knuckles under to pseudo-moralistic pressure to not lift hand or voice in self-defense, he or she will hate themselves and become a suicide risk. That is forcing people to commit the worst breach of faith there is - with one's very self. It's self-betrayal, what Joan of Arc called the "most wretched treason."

The victim NEEDS to know that he or she did what they could to resist their abuser! Don't EVER try to stop the victim from doing that!


Never, never, never preach prime-time morality at the victim making it a sin for him or her to yell right back at the abuser. Though yelling back may not be wise in all cases, it IS the victim's right. It at least lets him or her preserve self-respect through showing a backbone.

The same with any use of force. It is not a sin. It may not be wise in some cases, but it IS the victim's right. Only very recently has the word violence been used to describe the use of force in self-defense. It isn't rightly (or legally) "violence" because it doesn't violate anything.

The same with resistance through divorcing the poor, little, sad and lonely narcissist, through abandoning the abuser, insert: through going no contact, or through running away from home or skipping school. The victim has the right to self-preservation and the pursuit of happiness. Always.

If you really want to help, suggest better, more effective ways to resist. But don't ever just sit there and say, "Don't do this" and "Don't do that". Buzz off if that's all you have to say.

In fact, by making it evil for the victim to fight back or escape in any conceivable way, the holier-than-thous clamp the valves shut on a pressure cooker. Sooner or later something's gotta give. The victim WILL eventually snap. Then you have a suicide or homicide as a result. And the holier-than-thou bystanders who had persecuted the victim into docile submission with their immoral moralizing share a large part of the blame.

You can tell that the holier-than-thous are insincere. Pay attention to how much wind they spend on criticizing the victim compared to how much wind they spend on criticizing the abuser. You'll find the ratio is about 99:1.

They preface their remarks with something like, "Well there's is no excuse for what he did but..." and off they go on a faultfinding expedition.

When they're done, add up all the fault found. Who was fault found in? All fault found was in the victim for fighting back. Not one word about what the abuser did.

They should be examining their own consciences, not the victim's, because what they are doing is very wrong and very, very damaging to an already abused victim. And they are serving the abuser, helping him to abuse and get away with it.

Wednesday 15 June 2011

Malignant Narcissist Father: Human Extension, Soul Destroyer, Cause of Mental Illness

I saw Shine when it was released theatrically back in 1996, and to this day, I never forgot the final line of the film.
Standing over his malignant narcissist father’s grave, David is asked by his wife, “What do you feel?”

He answers, “The thing is. I feel nothing.”
When I saw Shine, it had been about six year since I last saw my malignant narcissist mother, and I knew I would never see her again.  Her toxic anger that she had projected into me was slowly dissipating. My body no longer reverberated at the very thought of her.  I knew that time would eventually heal me and release her Demon for good. All I had to do was to stay away from her - forever.  I was starting to “feel nothing.”  I pictured myself standing over her grave and reciting the line from the movie.
I didn’t know what malignant narcissism was when I saw Shine.  All I knew is that I identified with the story. When I saw the film it enraged me.  I wanted to stick my hands in the movie screen and strangled the father.  However, when I watched it recently, I saw it as a very hopeful film; almost triumphant.  As fragile as David was, he made the decision to escape enslavement of his abusive father and ultimately found acceptance, real love and a real family.  Never underestimate the strength of the non-narcissist child’s soul. The poster of a liberated David says it all.
The story of David Helfgott’s relationship with his father is a very good example of a malignant narcissist parent as “human extension,” “soul destroyer,” and “the cause of mental illness.”
The film opens with an adult David’s first intelligible ramblings being, “It’s a lifelong struggle to survive undamaged and not to destroy any living, breathing creature. The point is, if you do something wrong you can be punished for the rest of your life.”
What David is referring to in “doing something wrong” is making the decision to defy his father and go to The Royal College of Music in London. This reminds me of Conrad, who in the film Ordinary People,  says to his psychiatrist, “You just do one wrong thing.” The “one wrong thing” being surviving the boating accident while his brother, “the golden boy” drowned.  here
Conrad is tormented with guilt because he exists. His reaction coincides with the malignant narcissist mother’s mantra: “You have no right to live!”
David is tormented because he salvaged his self. His reaction coincides with the malignant narcissist parent as human extension: denying the child a right to a self.
The film Shine jumps back and forth from young David, to adult David, and teenage David. We see David as a young piano prodigy wowing the crowd while he plays at a music competition. A man remarks, “That boy is great. He’s really good.” David’s father proudly replies, “That’s my son.”    

Early on we find out that David’s father was a victim of his own narcissist father and has carried on the family pathology. When he was young he saved up enough money to buy a violin and his father smashed it, and denied him music lessons. Throughout the story he tries to make up for his childhood deprivation visa vie exploiting and sacrficing David. Sadly, he never transcended his relationship with his own malignant narcissist father; he merely survived it by becoming evil himself.
David’s father is a ruthless tyrant who tells him, “Always win. Always win. You’re a lucky boy. Say it, very lucky. One day you will make me very proud. Next time what are we going to do? We are going to win.”  
When David wins a prestigious music competition, his father shouts, “We won! We won!” The use of the word “we” indicating that his father doesn’t see his son as separate from himself. Also, he always refers to David as my David which indicates ownership.
When David gets an invitation to study at America’s finest music school his Father in enraged. Although he drives his son to succeed, he is spitefully envious at the attention he receives. He wants David to succeed but on his terms: he does not want David to separate from him and lead his own life.
The narcissist father is self-absorbed and his feelings, needs and wants are the most important thing. What’s right for his son, what’s best for his son is insignificant. He continually undermines David's development as a person because it threatens him.
He denies David the opportunity to go to America telling him, “You are lucky to have a family. I won’t let anyone destroy this family. I am your father and I know what’s best.” David’s father says to his wife, “What has he suffered? Never a day in his life. What does he know about families and my mother and father?”
David’s father constantly pulls the “family” guilt card on him. First, by making David pay for the abuse inflicted on him by his narcissist parent, and next by laying claim to David’s soul. “Family” simply means ownership to a narcissist. His father rules the roost and everyone revolves around him. His wife is nothing more than a voiceless slave and his daughters are just pieces of furniture.
David’s father terrorizes him and uses fear to control him and this manifests in David lacking self- confidence and being an incredibly anxious teen that still wets his bed. However, despite David’s fragile state, he is noticeably angry at his father's refusal to let him study piano in America. What follows is a disturbing scene of emotional incest where David’s father cuddles him and says, “David my Boy, it’s a terrible thing to hate your father. You can’t trust anyone, but I will always be here. I will always be with you forever and ever.”
When it comes to the malignant narcissist; a child's healthy reaction of anger to unjust treatment is perceived as hatred toward the offending parent. Naturally, it's always about the poor, hard done by narcissist. The child's assertion of their self-worth makes them feel bad. 

Also, with a narcissist parent there is perverse, engulfing, manipulative “love” to perverse, controlling hatred and abuse. There really is no in between: it goes from one extreme to the other which indicates that their idea of “love” is merely control and manipulation. And, should you fail to follow their script to the letter, apparently you "hate" them. The child's total compliance and absolute obedience means loves; any assertion of will, independence, or self, means hate.  The narcissist parent's emotional level remains in a perpetual state of infancy.
David eventually receives a scholarship to attend the prestigious Royal College of Music in London and this accomplishment incites his father’s jealous rage. He laughs at David and says to him, “So you just think you can do as you please? I am your father who has done everything for you!” He then beats David.
“So you just think you can do as you please?!”

Now this is a very familiar line. I was accepted into a special programme in high school that malignant narcissist mother continually lorded over me.  She constantly threatened to deny me of the opportunity. Some seven years after high school, she screamed over the phone, “You get to do whatever the hell you want!” I asked her what she meant, and she screamed, “You wanted to be in that programme in high school and you got to be in that programme!”

That was the last time I ever spoke to malignant narcissist mother. It was clear that not only was she insane but that she would forever remain bitter, spiteful and envious of my claim to a right to a life.  Needless to say, she abandoned her family - without a trace - during my year in that high school programme.

Behold; the perverse hypocrisy of the malignant narcissist parent: they abandon their parental responsibilities; no one, and I mean no one, takes them to task for the unconscionable act; and in their sick mind, the child "gets to do whatever the hell they want!" Hmm, projection much? The words: "Bat Shit Crazy" come to mind.
Back to David… His father tells him, if he goes to London, “You can never come back to this house again. You will be nobody’s son. The girls will lose a brother. You want to destroy your family?!  My David, if you go, you will be punished for the rest of your life!”
David claims his self and walks out the door. Hurrah!!
Again, I have heard this exact line, “If you leave now, you can never come back!”
Translation: I am a malignant narcissist parent, and you belong to me!  How dare you live a life of your own! My dreams were smashed and now I'm going to smash yours! Don’t you understand what family means?! It means ownership! You belong to me! If you refuse to relinquish your soul to me, you will be cast out into the world with nothing and no one. I will destroy you!

Early in the film an adult David mutters in one of his incoherent ramblings, “Perhaps, I haven’t got a soul? Daddy says, I haven’t got a soul.” Well, Daddy tried to sacrifice his son's soul in an effort to preserve his own narcissistic delusions.
The malignant narcissist parent is perversely willful. They ruthlessly pursue having their own way, all-the-time.  Absolute control is priority number one. Never think for a second that “the chosen one” has it good. For beneath the surface, they are but an empty, soulless puppet hanging by the strings of a controlling narcissist parent. They get what they deserve – psychological enslavement.
The malignant narcissist parent is insanely defensive and if you defy them in any way they will explode in fury, threaten, storm, rage and destroy. Taking ownership of your own life provokes their wrath. They are rendered impotent by a child who exercises their right to self-preservation. further, their bitterness over the child's "perceived" defiance eats away at them like a cancer.
So, David walks out the door and heads to London. The next scene shows his dad “vaporizing” him, a la George Orwell’s 1984. He sets fire to all of David’s scrap books, articles, and keepsakes. This also happened to me. I too was “vaporized” by malignant narcissist mother.
In London, David begins to shown signs of mental illness. He sends his father letters but his father doesn’t respond. During an intense recital he has a mental breakdown and is hospitalized and given shock treatment. He returns to Australia and telephones his father who hangs-up on him.

The malignant narcissist parent is callously indifferent to the child's welfare. They don't care at all if the child is sick, well, alive, or dead. The fact that David is all alone, ill, and homeless is insignificant. His father's only concern is winning the war he has waged on his son's soul.

The child is always better of without the malignant narcissist parent in their life. Had David's father allowed him back into the inner sanctum, he would have destroyed David completely.

We then see David living an adult life in a psychiatric hospital. It is never clear what mental illness he suffers from. He is described as having a complex disorder, and living in his own world. It is clear that all his nonsensical ramblings are all about his father’s destruction of him.  In the hospital, he rambles, “It was a battle ground. A war zone. It just destroys everything. It really does.”
It seems David’s father actually got so far into his head that he took over his thoughts to the point of mental illness. Shock therapy – that was administered to David – is about erasing memories; wiping the slate clean if you will. Obviously, shock did no good in getting David’s father out of his head.
So, David survives in the world, battling the ever present demons of his father’s abuse but eventually through the kindness of strangers finds acceptance for who he is, as well as love, and family.  He befriends a woman who owns a local restaurant, plays the piano for her patrons and eventually marries her good friend. A newspaper article is written about him: “David Shines. Remembering when…” His father reads the article and goes in search of his estranged son.
He arrives at David’s apartment and tells him, “You are a lucky boy David. No one will love you like me, no one. Do you realize what an opportunity you have here? When I was a boy, I bought a beautiful violin, I saved for this violin. Do you know what happened to it?” David is repelled and turns his back to his father. He pauses, realizing that his father has not changed, and he replies, “No. I have no idea what happened to it. What happened to it?” With that, David's father realizes he no longer has control over his son and walks out the door. David watches from his window as his father disappears into the night.
It’s a subtle, yet powerful scene of an adult child of a narcissist taking a stand and not giving in to the repetitive brain washing pattern of the abusive parent. By refusing to acknowledge his father’s violin story, David was letting him know that that chapter is over, and he had moved on. However, David’s narcissist father had not moved on. Indeed, he was forever stuck in the past, as most malignant narcissist parents are. They never change, they never grow as people, and they never get over that moment when a child "defies" them. In some kind of ironic twist of justice, the child’s exertion of independence ends up controlling them for the rest of their lives.
And so, David finds redemption. He embraces his passion for music and creates a loving family for himself.
And as the film draws to a close he says;

“I am here. And life goes on and you just have to keep on going. You can’t give-up.”


Sunday 29 May 2011

Narcissistic Abuse and Anger


I thought I would address the issue of anger and narcissistic abuse by re-posting the best piece of writing that I have come across on the subject. No one said it better than crusader and trail blazer for the victims of narcissistic abuse – Kathy Krajco:
He who angers you controls you.
Baloney.  That popular adage does not pass a basic nonsense check. Look, it says that good boys and girls are so numb that nobody can make them feel any emotion. It is also exactly anti-logical, blaming the victim. It pathologizes you, the victim of the narcissist, instead of the narcissist.
Stuff like that is my pet peeve. Once you start noticing how much political correctness is anti-logic, you can’t help but wonder (with Mark Twain) whether anyone examines an idea before swallowing it whole.
We should be more careful what we let into our minds than what we let into our bodies. Rot adage like that does great added harm to the victims of abuse. First the narcissist outrages you until you want to scream. Then the do-gooders come along and tell you your outrage is a sin. Now, if that ain’t the Sin of Sodom (making someone bend over for it), I don’t know what is.
But don’t take my word for it. Think for yourself.
The reasoning goes like this: So, the narcissist’s abuse is nothing to get angry about? You are to act as though it didn’t happen? In other words, you are to make nothing of it, right?
Wrong. For, if it is nothing, then you are nothing. Why? Because everybody knows that if I bash an object, that’s nothing, but if I bash a human being, that’s something. If I step on a bug, that’s nothing, but if I step on a human being, that’s something.
Yet, no matter what, the do-gooders just don’t get it – until they’re the one that gets bashed. Then they see the degrading value judgement in making nothing of it.
By telling you to make nothing of it, they are telling you that abusing you was nothing. That means you are nothing. Indeed, if your abuser bashed your automobile, they wouldn’t tell you to make nothing of it, would they? An automobile is a thing of value, so harm done to it requires reparation. But, harm done to you is nothing, eh? What a dehumanizing value judgement.
And it lands on top of the one the narcissist dumped on you. Feel better now?
First the narcissist got on your back, and now they pile on too. The holier-than-thous should be criticizing the abuser’s behaviour, not the victim’s. There’s a name for people like that, “Job’s Comforters” or “troublesome comforters.” That’s what I mean when I say people saying stuff like this do more harm than good. Pound, pound, pound, they all pound you down with that club that says Doing that to you was nothing = You are nothing. And it’s a sin for you to not cover up for the narcissist by acting like it didn’t happen.
Just what you needed to hear, right? So, whose side are they really on? Whether they realize it or not? Hard to take, isn’t it? What a heartless thing to do to a person already down.
Why can’t they just break down and say that it causes them sorrow to hear what was done to you and that it really sucked? Then all they have to do is act like you mean something to them. Why is that asking too much? Why do you get all that other crap instead?
Sometimes I think they just don’t want your sad little face to rain on their day. I think it’s for their sake that they want you to take Prozac. They just want to make it go away, to act like it didn’t happen.
If it’s a sin to even be angry about degrading treatment, then what can you do to contradict the humiliating value judgement in it? Nothing. If merely feeling an emotion is stepping off the straight-and-narrow, what could they give you permission to do? Nothing!
Ah, it seems to me that the one whose hands they should tie is your abuser, not you. This way they are accessories to mayhem.
The more you think about it, the more ridiculous the moralizing gets, doesn’t it? Parrots who get their morality from prime-time TV thus deny you the most basic human right – the right to protect yourself. Just what kind of a person would docilely accept abuse? A person who thinks anything of him or her – self? A person with any self-respect? Any dignity? Integrity? A backbone? If you are the victim of a narcissist, you know your anger is your assertion of your self-worth.
Sounders like to sound good by making other sound bad for not taking an affront to their human dignity as though it were nothing. Is that not rubbing the victim’s nose in it? That’s what it feels like. It’s no longer just the narcissist abusing you, the whole world piles on to. This is what breaks the victim’s back. Forcing him to join in a zero valuation of himself. The result of this self-betrayal is self-hatred precisely what drives so many victims of narcissists to needing psychiatric help themselves.
So if specious pontifications like the one at the top have you on a guilt trip, get off.
Feelings are not conduct. No clear-thinking person should confuse feelings with conduct. Conduct is a matter of choice. Feelings are not a matter of choice. So, the notion that feelings can be “right” or “wrong” is absurd. They just ARE, period. Indeed, if you get burnt, you should feel burnt. If you don’t, something is wrong with you.
Others should not judge your feelings. I do not understand why those who believe in God are the most prone to do this, for it out-gods their God (who, according to their scriptures, Judges conduct only). Judging feeling is in itself narcissistic behaviour. In doing so, do-gooders are serving as proxy for your abuser.
You can lie about your feelings. You can go into denial about them. And you can even repress them. But you cannot change them.
Denying or repressing feelings is a lie. Now that is a matter of choice, and lying is bad for you. It’s self-delusion. It’s a kind of self-induced hypnosis to a state of emotional numbness. Not mentally healthy.
Repressed feelings are merely submerged to the level of the subconscious. But the subconscious is just subconscious: it isn’t gone. Things buried are still active. They influence and motivate your behaviour without your knowledge. In other words, repressed feelings rule your conduct like an unseen puppet master. Thus, ironically, it is by getting you to deny your anger that the narcissist controls you.
Accept your feelings. Own them. Know them. Experience the tremendous relief and comfort in that. Then you can temper their influence on your conduct with reason and good judgement. You are responsible for your conduct not your feelings. Just because you are angry does not mean you are out of control of yourself as that stupid saying implies. It is the narcissist who has no self-control, not his or her victim.
Your anger, like any pain, will pass. If someone punches you, he is to blame for your pain, not you. By the same token, the one to blame for your anger is the narcissist, not you.