I am a seething bundle of conflict and vitriol. I have my fury churning away ready to be ignited at a moment’s criticism. The song once asked, “War, what is it good for?” My answer would be. Absolutely everything. War is the tool by which I reign and by which you are kept doing what I want. Providing me with compliance and fuel. I am on a permanent war footing because I am red of tooth and claw. I must always be ready to defend myself against your uncalled for and unwarranted attacks which you are prone to launching my way. I do not know why you do this but you always want to put me down, blame me or go one better than me. I cannot understand why you behave this way, not after I do so much for you. Yet you always do it, managing to ignite my fury with your words and actions. I have no choice of course. I have to exert my superiority over you and if I was to ever fail to respond to your attack then I would be doomed. In fact, so used have I become to these unnecessary and gratuitous assaults which you launch against me that I will often launch my own pre-emptive strike designed to keep you in your place. I am in control. I am god of the world I have created for us and you must always remember this. I would much rather not have to do this. I would prefer not to lash you with my vicious tongue, roll out a silent treatment or in the case of the less sophisticated of our kind, subject you to a battering from fists and feet, but you bring it on yourself. You should know by now what I like and what I dislike, yet you infuriate me still by saying and doing the wrong things. I know you do it on purpose because you are trying to assert some kind of power and authority over me. I have no idea why you feel the need to do this because you cannot ever outgun me. I have batteries of malevolent missiles to launch your way, megatons of vicious exploding insults to rain down on you and so much firepower that I could annihilate you a hundred times over.

Yet, notwithstanding my superior armaments you still insist on trying to do me down and thus I have no choice but to smash through your boundaries, exert my control and blitzkrieg you into defeat. You should know that someone like me who is in a permanent state of war-readiness cannot be defeated. In fact, I know that you do know this but you still exhibit some perverted delight in trying to prove me wrong. You should have learned by now that I am always right and you should accept this. Yet you keep trying to correct me or even worse show me up in front of others. It is little wonder that in the face of such provocation that I erupt behind closed doors and steamroller you into submission. You then have the audacity to call me for my unreasonable behaviour when you started it. This is why I truly do think that there is something wrong with you. Any nation that decided to embark on a full-scale war with the might of a superpower such as the USA would be deemed crazy, it would be a self-destructive and suicidal act. Yet, in the same way you see the might of my firepower, my array of gleaming guns, miles of ammunition and battalion after battalion of trauma tanks and you still provoke me. My fearsome fighter planes which unleash their manipulative missiles against you and the squadrons of bombers which are always ready to carpet bomb you with malice into total submission are obvious to see and yet you still insist on engaging in war with me. I am the lord of war; it is what I have been created for. I am always ready for the fight, I am on high alert and in the moment of a murmured insult I launch into action. I am highly-trained and designed for combat. You are not and still you engage me, trying to outflank me and outwit me. You launch trumped-up accusations at me but they will fall short of their intended target and then you will be subjected to the full might of my armies as I strike back. Anybody who would goad a superpower such as myself is clearly insane and your repeated attempts to do this put you firmly in this category. It is only the truth I therefore tell when my propaganda broadcasts to your family and friends point out that you are clearly unhinged. You are. Your repeated attempts to topple me bear testament to this insanity on your part.

Everything about me is designed to defeat you. I am the anointed one. I am the king of this kingdom and can never be usurped. This is why I have been created as the total war machine. I have been designed in this way to always triumph, my ever-ready condition a necessary pre-requisite to crushing any rebellion on your part. Why not for once finally submit to my hegemonic control? Why not recognise that you can never win and submit to my good governance? After all, I only have your best interests at heart. You cannot defeat a machine which is always primed for war. An outbreak of peace will do you the world of good won’t it?

105 thoughts on “War

  1. Kate says:

    What the world needs is a Global Revolt against the global fascists!!!

    They have taken advantage of us and our empathic natures for far too long!

    Send them back where they came from and belong (HELL).

  2. Kate says:

    Hi HG,

    I want to reference a comment I made in this post earlier because I thought that your take on it would be interesting..

    My comment was something like, “What if everyone around the world just “went back where they came from”. An interesting thought..”

    Anyway, would that mean that everyone on the planet would go back to Africa (or is it Israel??) – we would all have to look around at all of these different-looking people and realize that we are all related – it’s only 1%(I think) of human DNA that sets melanin in a person’s hair, eye and skin color. We all share 99% the same DNA (I think).

    Anyway, I wonder if people would stop fighting? Or something really bad could happen.

    What do you think would happen if we all went “back where we came from” and it was to the same place for everyone?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      We would all be reduced to quarks and gluons, Kate.

      1. Kate says:

        Thanks, HG.

        I had to find the definitions of those words and am laughing at myself and how little I know. It looks like you have studied physics – wow! (Not me, just some chemistry in high school – not that anyone asked.)

        I guess you mean that we would all be reduced to our building blocks? Maybe a nuclear disaster would cause this to happen? Or peace on earth? More questions!!

      2. MB says:

        I’m perfectly fine with being a quark or a gluon. Sounds pretty good actually.

        1. NarcAngel says:

          Haha. They do sound glittery.

          1. MB says:

            They do NA! Ashes to ashes and dust to dust…errr glitter

    2. Sniglet says:

      You are correct that we all share 99% of the DNA (or so the science says) but the Out of Africa theory of evolution has been debunked. It’s a farce. Not that it matters in the scheme of things but it’s interesting to know. Through the years the development of science has proved many things wrong from what used to be ‘concrete’ knowledge.

      1. Kate says:

        Thank you so much for your response, Sniglet!

        So, no agreed-upon and definitive answer to “where did we all came from?”.. Fascinating!

    3. Kate says:

      OMG, HG!

      It seems like President Trump has read this little conversation and now in America, it seems to be all about “Go back where you came from” (which is not a quote from Trump, but his opponents – pointing their fingers constantly). I have a finger or two myself..

      Those “liberals” who speak of people “of color” all ignore the Native American Indians and only speak of themselves.

      Maybe more people should pay attention to the conversations that you start on your blog and less attention to themselves.

      So many people are making me upset these days.

  3. Pamela Dianne says:

    There are multiple accounts. And I don’t care either way so there is no fight here.

    Not trying to be mean either, but come on. Self proclaimed narc telling people in articles what he wants or “what he’ll do”. And then having “fans” idolize him?

    I think the articles are helpful, I really do. But the commenters on here are a wee bit unstable. Just my opinion. Let the hate begin.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      1. There are not. I know because I operate this site. You do not operate it and therefore have no access to information to form the basis of a credible view. You again demonstrate your failings.

      2. Evidence of idolisation? None. Evidence of appreciation? Plenty. Your envy is huge.

      1. Desirée says:

        This marks the third time she was unable to submit her answer in the thread it adresses. Not taking into account all the other comment sections where she couldn’t manage either.
        Once she creates multiple accounts to “defend herself”, as her projections would imply, this will be a reliable sign to recognize her by.
        Now if we’re done with this, I shall continue admiring HG’s immensely attractive body of work.
        Those magnificent shoulders of broad knowledge! That defined chest of precision and insight! It never ceases to impress me.
        And his height! How he towers over the bitter begrudgers, their heads barely reaching his kneecaps, their screams scarcely touching his ears.
        What a sight to behold. What a myth, what a legend.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Hg approves.

    2. Lou says:

      Pamela, I am not HG, but I think you will continue to state that HG has several accounts here no matter what. You want to provoke, that’s clear.
      It’s entertaining.

    3. FYC says:

      PD, Gratitude escapes you because of who you are. Your compulsion to project insults and make false accusations are merely an effort to redirect attention upon yourself for fuel. You remain predictable and redundant. You do not evoke hate or any other emotion.

    4. NarcAngel says:

      There is no hate. You won’t be able to understand or accept this but I’ll tell you anyway. You have demonstrated that you are unable to control these pathetic attempts for the attention you so desperately covet. The attention you envy that is afforded HG due to respect, and that will forever escape you because you lack substance. You have nothing to offer. You are so lacking even in social cues that you cannot tell when you are pitied, failing to impress, or even garner hate. You have no effect over others or even control of yourself. You are ephemera.

      You had to google that didn’t you?

      1. K says:

        I didn’t have to Google it! (toot toot)

      2. Bubbles 🍾 says:

        Dear NarcAngel,
        Exactly, couldn’t agree more ! Like like like
        Do you think Aunt Clara has returned, using a different name? 🤣
        Luv Bubbles xx 😘

        1. Lou says:

          Bubbles, PD actually reminds me of another woman who used to comment here and say she had BPD and use it as an excuse to provoke, manipulate and get a lot of attention. It may be that PD has the same disorder which, as HG has pointed out, it may be misdiagnosed NPD, especially in women.

          1. Bubbles 🍾 says:

            Dear Lou,
            Thank you so much for your comment ….. it may well be
            Again, we will never know …. (as I mentioned to Desiree)
            I do agree with you Lou… it’s definitely entertaining 🏓
            Luv Bubbles xx 😘

        2. Desirée says:

          Bubbles, she did state in a different comment section that there are multiple fake accounts here, created specifically to torment her. So she might either be projecting and already doing so or is planning on doing so herself.

          1. Bubbles 🍾 says:

            Dear Desiree,
            We will never know … will we ?
            From my perspective, I’m indifferent !

    5. Bubbles 🍾 says:

      Pamela Dianne,
      If the “commenters on here are a wee bit unstable” as you say……then, what are YOU doing here ?
      From what you have contributed to this blog so far, the only person who has shown “hate” here is YOU

    6. Kate says:

      Pamela Dianne,

      Your opinion means nothing to no one.

      1. Bubbles 🍾 says:

        Dear Kate,
        I agree with you !
        Luv Bubbles xx 😘

        1. Kate says:


          Thank you!

          By the way, I just love your name! It always makes me smile and giggle a little (hopefully that is not offensive to you). I appreciate the good feeling it gives me.

  4. Pamela Dianne says:


    Oh God, really?

    1. Alexissmith2016 says:

      Pamela, welcome to the site. I hope you convert and learn a lot here.

      I can honestly say that I am more stable than I have ever been since finding HG’s site.

      I don’t idolise HG, I am appreciative of, and recognise the quality of his work. I never forget what he is, and he repeatedly reminds me. I also don’t hate you either, I only hope that you find yourself.

      1. HG Tudor says:

        Thanks AS, but you know what I write about hope…..

        1. Alexissmith2016 says:

          I do HG, thank you for highlighting. I understand what you mean.

        2. Kate says:

          Hi HG,

          I am asking this question more than a month after your comment, better late than never.

          What do you write about hope?

          Thank you.

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Do not trust to it for she is a false mistress.

  5. Katd says:

    “They” made the wrong people mad.

  6. nunya biz says:

    Drama queens.

  7. bostongirl13 says:

    Why not finally submit? Hmmm, because a coup makes things ever so more interesting.

  8. WiserNow says:

    As for commenting directly in relation to this article on ‘War’, sometimes I contemplate whether narcissists are nature’s solution to controlling the population of the ultimate apex predator (i.e. human beings).

    Humans are capable of outwitting every other creature on Earth and this “intelligence” enables our numbers to grow unhampered (in general). So, in order to keep our numbers in some sort of control, war is a mechanism that makes humans turn on each other instead. I’d say that every war was initiated by a narcissist clashing with another narcissist.

    Just a thought…

    1. HG Tudor says:

      And a valid one

      1. WiserNow says:

        Thank you HG 🙂

    2. Desirée says:

      An interesting thought. However I believe that the growth of the human species would be adequately regulated by the natural environment itself, given that wars took place in order to secure resources for your own tribe and without war, we could simply not grow beyond a certain point because there would not be enough resources available to promote further growth, causing our numbers to topple naturally to a more sustainable point.
      I think narcissism is a mechanism designed to fight fire with fire in case of a crisis, which could also be a war, of course. It is notable that there appear to be very few people with personality disorders in indigenous tribes. My assumption would be that this is because their children grow up in an optimal social environment where everyone is both held accountable but also fulfills an important role in society in which they will have responsibility, therefore power and control.
      People who have the genetic disposition therefore might live in such a healthy society that the narcissism is never forced to come to the forefront, which also prevents the vicious cycle of intergenerational narcissism that is often observed in our society.

      1. Kate says:

        Hi Desiree,

        This might come as a surprise, but my ex-boyfriend’s Grandmother was born and raised on an American Indian reservation – and he was beaten severely by his mother. He told me that he believed that this is how some of “his people” (his words) raised some of their children.

        So sorry to debunk your theory that indigenous people always treat their own the correct way. Hopefully, his true story is a rare one..

        1. Desirée says:

          I am so sorry to hear that about your ex-boyfriends grandmother, that sounds truly awful.
          My apologies, I believe I should have specified where my comment regarding this was coming from. When it comes to indigenous tribes, I considered the australian ones that, up to that point, had close to no contact to the modern civilization other than the occasional odd anthropologist, which means they where self-sufficient and their own culture was intact. I was reading Bronisław Malinowskis work (highly recommend, he originated the school of societal anthropology, very relevant esp. in the UK and Commonwealth) on the families of australian aboriginies and the way he described it made me think that there may be a pattern there, which does not mean that narcissism is nonexistent of course, that was not an assertion I have made.
          The native american tribes wouldn’t make for a good comparison since there are none left that live isolated from the modern day civilization and their cultural assimilation has been ongoing since the late 18th century. I should have been more precise, but since I am european I forgot that for american readers, the american indigenous tribes come to mind first, of course. I recommend Franz Boas’ work on this topic, if anyone else is interested to look into that. If find both of these anthropologists’ findings to be highly relevant to the question, but I have not yet reached a conclusion myself.

          1. Kate says:

            Thank you so much for your response, Desiree. No need to apologize and I am sorry if I sounded offended.

            As an American, I find it confusing as to why there are reservations for the original “owners” of this land (I believe that they did not see themselves as “owners”) – and no one talks about it. I believe that the Native Americans (American Indians) are private and do not seek recognition. I hear politicians offering reparations to groups that have larger numbers (votes to buy), but were not “here first” – the true victims here (in my opinion) are the people whose land continues to be trampled by millions. I suppose that myself and my ancestors need to be included in the group of people who ruined their utopia.

            I don’t know what the answer is. Should everyone around the world just “go back where they came from”? An interesting thought..

      2. WiserNow says:


        You raise some interesting and thought-provoking points. It’s a huge topic with a lot of variables to think about. Your views about environmental resources are interesting. Your comment made me think about my own vague views in more detail.

        In thinking about narcissists and war, plus your insights, it made me think about the origins of narcissism as a ‘thought process’ in the human brain.

        For example, imagine that narcissism *first* fired into action in the human brain, say millions of years ago when humans were still living in caves and grunting instead of speaking.

        If we think back to what it may have been like in those cavemen days, picture a family of humans living in a cave and one of them would have to go out in the cold and hunt a wild animal for food using only rough and basic tools. The family member who would end up doing that would probably be the most confident, most willing and most ‘fearless’ one who felt in control and capable. In this instance, confidence would probably lead to success and the family would have enough food. That confidence and fearlessness would equate to narcissistic traits. Those traits would sustain and protect the family and would result in more children. Genetically, those traits would continue and be further improved in generations to come.

        Meanwhile, the family back in the cave, waiting for the hunter to bring back food, needed an empathic person to look after the children. Without the internet, radio, telephones etc, close neighbours or even precise language to communicate with, the empathic person needed to recognise instinctively and meet the needs of the children. Failing to do so adequately could have lead to the children starving, freezing, getting lost, becoming sick, etc. So, perhaps empathic traits were sustained and developed in this way.

        This is just a very rough illustration of what I mean and I don’t pretend to be an expert or to have done any meaningful research.

        This is what I mean by ‘nature’s solution’. It’s an evolutionary thing made necessary for survival and it’s based on humans living in the environment as members of the entire animal kingdom.

        Now, in the present age, the worldwide population of humans is so large and advanced that it’s having a damaging effect on the environment and the earth’s resources. It is becoming the case that the natural environment *isn’t* capable of naturally regulating the human population or it’s growth until it becomes catastrophic and leads to natural disasters.

        ‘Nature’ made humans intelligent, but it seems the instinct and urge to reproduce and prosper in the here and now outweighs the cognitive knowledge or reasoning that ‘artificial’ population control would help to sustain the natural environment.

        Now the earth’s resources are becoming depleted and there are human ‘tribes’ that are very technologically advanced and armed.

        There are still indigenous societies and their beliefs and overall methods of survival (or remnants of it) are different to the overall ‘modern’ world’s beliefs and methods of survival. However, the modern world has come too far down the road to turn back to the ways of indigenous societies.

        I think that what you say about a ‘healthy’ society not having as many narcissists is true. In a healthy society where there was ample resources for all, where different ‘tribes’ or nationalities could live in harmony either together or apart, and where humans could reason that ‘equity’ would provide greater overall returns than greed, selfishness and self-promotion, there would be less narcissism. It would be a kind of nirvana.

        However, that kind of nirvana would still reproduce without any brakes in place (without some kind of law in place etc), and the environment and natural resources would again be threatened if the society didn’t have a way to regulate it’s own numbers.

        I don’t think that war is ‘necessary’, however, we are not yet at the point where we have an ‘optimal social environment’ as you describe. It may take many more generations to get to that point, if ever.

        This discussion reminds me of the ‘tree of life’ concept, i.e. that what is above is also below, or in other words, the duality of things. What I mean is that narcissism may have evolved in order for humans to better survive in their environment. So that’s a positive. At the same time, there is a negative to narcissism, which is that it prevents humans from reaching that so-called nirvana.

        Thank you for your comment Desiree. I find it fascinating to think about this topic. It has so many interesting aspects to it.

      3. WhoCares says:

        Hello Desiree,

        I’m enjoying the discussion between you and WiserNow on narcissism, war and society but Kate has a point. I also agree that indigenous cultures are not isolated from narcissism or abuse. You need only look up the ‘red dress campaign’.

    3. Lou says:

      Interesting point WN.
      I agree with Desirée, I have always regarded war as a fight for resources and the survival of one’s own society. I personally regard the human dynamic in general as narcissistic (one’s own survival comes first). Have all wars been initiated by narcissists? Probably. Since narcs need to have power, most leaders of these societies were probably narcissists indeed.
      Whilst wars have played a role in population growth control, they have also been motors of technological breakthroughs which have given human beings even more power over their environment, both in a negative and potentially positive way. So that could contradict a little bit the argument that narcs and war can be a mechanisms of nature to defend itself from humans.
      I think nature has many mechanisms to defend itself and bring itself back to balance: disease, natural catastrophes, etc.
      I did not think narcs as one of these mechanisms because, so far, I have regarded narcs more as the side of human society which brings said society to thrive (while causing disruption within too).
      Difficult to discuss such subject here, but it’s an interesting point. Will give it more thought.

      1. Desirée says:

        Those are valid points, Lou! Regarding the thought that narcissism brings society to thrive, however all wars have been instigated by narcissist, I have a very academic question, but one that I have been thinking about for a while now.
        Would there be a societal need for narcissists if there weren’t any other narcissists in existence? There are a lot of very high achieving normal people and super empaths in the world

        1. Lou says:

          Desirée, no, I don’t think narcissists are needed for a society to exist and function. As you say, there are high achieving people with no NPD that can lead said society. Of course, that would be in an ideal world where there is no NPD, which has never and will never be the case.

          1. Desirée says:

            Lou, I agree. I have often found that the narcisstic worldview, while certainly valid in their perspective, is not viable given that fact that in order to keep one narcissist functioning, you need several empaths to “uphold” them and keep them fueled and sane. I deem the dependency upon other people to be the biggest weakness of narcissists. But given that this is an entirely academic discussion, I am still somewhat grateful and in awe of what Greater Narcissists can provide to society, eventhough that also means that the remaining 95% of narcissists add nothing to society that could not be provided by pretty much anyone else and better.

        2. Lou says:

          Desirée, I kept thinking about your question and I would like to add that I think societies need people with little empathy and a good amount of ambition, but not necessarily people with NPD.
          This is what I think now. It may change later.

          1. Desirée says:

            Lou, I agree with you. People never give much thought to the normals but honestly, it seems like a pretty good deal to me. They also tend to have more narcissistic traits and comparatively little empathy, which can be useful for certain positions.

          2. Lou says:

            Desirée, I was also thinking of people with high potential and with the genetic predisposition to NPD/sociopathy/psychopathy ( lack of empathy) but did not suffer lack of control during their childhoods and therefore did not develop NPD or antisocial personality disorder.
            In that world, there would also be stronger empaths, that is, people with a lot of empathy but that did not suffer the abuse of narcs (since there are none) and therefore are healthier, stronger empaths.
            That would be the ideal in an ideal world.

          3. Pamela Dianne says:

            Jesus Christ Superstar….

          4. Lou says:

            Desirée, I believe my point is being proven here.

            Which society would need a Pamela Dianne (even after she gets her PhD)?

            But she belongs in the large “very pissed off” category that just disrupts and has nothing to offer. The answer is too easy; no need to ponder much over this one.

          5. Desirée says:

            Lou, she does do an excellent job at repeatedly proving people right without even knowing it.
            But I am certain she would make good use of her doctorate in emotional expressionist dance theory.
            If only she could finish her dissertation.

          6. Pamela Dianne says:

            Oh, someone’s miffed. And multiple accounts to control a narrative.

            *is there a Tony in the house?*.

          7. HG Tudor says:

            No. Wrong. No multiple accounts. You have no evidence but instead jump to projected erroneous conclusions, once more providing evidence of what you are.

          8. Desirée says:

            Interesting she would assume that, since we had a nice conversation going that had nothing to do with her until she inserted herself in search for fuel. Apparently, it only takes one person to get PD miffed. Herself.

        3. cb says:

          “Would there be a societal need for narcissists if there weren’t any other narcissists in existence?”

          Hm. Maybe they were the very skillful hunter of the tribe, the one who quickly sees and seizes opportunities.
          Empathy and compassion takes a LOT of brain-energy, so, sadly, these superduperhunters couldn’t have that feature at all, maybe?

          So the cost of having a supertalented foodhunter in the clan, might be that (s)he is also a parasite, loyal to nobody but himself.

          I sometimes speculate if there is a Hardwired instinct of Hoovering.

          Every 6th week or so, the casanova checks if one of the women he had sex with is in deep deep need (maybe she called for him, sent out smokesignals), so he helps out with some food to the child for a day or two. then he quickly forgets her and moves on to others.

          This way he can have 50 pretty healthy kids or more, growing up, with just minimal occasional contributions to the mothers. Breadcrumbs.

          He also tries to prevent her from moving on.

          I e, I think hoovering is a very very very old ingrained thing in human history.

          If he would simply leave all those women forever, without checking up on them, he would get much fewer healthy surviving offspring.

          1. WiserNow says:


            You raise some excellent points. If you think about the act of “hoovering” in a very logical way, perhaps it arose as a human behaviour for a variety of reasons.

            From the hunter’s perspective, his/her need to keep being a successful hunter has the effect of reducing time and scope to act on the necessary remorse, guilt or compassion to remain with one partner and to stay loyal to them.

            The hunter’s mind has the biological wiring that creates a need to succeed and to triumph in stressful situations. This probably causes an unconscious increase in adrenalin and testosterone, which are naturally produced by humans in situations when confidence and power are needed. This in turn leads to more narcissistic behaviour.

            The need to win makes it feel like a loss if other opportunities/conquests are available, but the hunter needs to stay away from them. In the hunter’s mind, that’s a loss and feels like failure, which is difficult to tolerate and may lead to resentment towards the thing/person that the hunter perceives caused it.

            Meanwhile, everyone admires a winner, even though the long-term benefits of being with a ‘winner’ aren’t so great. So the hunter has the personality traits and resources to attract potential conquests. Empathic conquests are even easier to attract because of the empathic person’s inherent traits and believing in the good of others or hoping for future change.

            Also, humans are social animals. We can’t live alone and we need contact with others. Studies have shown that being alone leads to mental and physical health disorders and even an earlier death.

            Since humans need social contact, but the alpha hunter generally can’t allow for empathic responses and still remain a successful hunter, hoovering is a solution to this dilemma. It provides for successful hunting AND social contact at the same time.

            I think what you say about having many healthy surviving offspring is also true. Following the concept of “survival of the fittest”, a successful hunter who was also successful at hoovering stood a better chance of having a greater number of surviving children, and thus contributing to the ongoing gene pool.

            It takes two to tango in the hoovering dynamic though. When a hunter (i.e. narcissistic person) hoovers, the hoovering is done towards an empathic target. ‘Success’ results when an empathic target is open to being hoovered and provides the hunter with the ‘winning’ feeling (fuel) they seek. To some extent, both are getting what they want from this dynamic. Any children that result from that union will have a mix of both narcissistic and empathic traits.

            Thank you CB, for this very interesting discussion. It really is amazing when you consider all the many reasons why people think the way they do.

          2. cb says:

            Thanks WiserNow
            Yes there are several reasons for hoovering probably.

      2. WiserNow says:

        Thanks for your comment. Like I mentioned to Desiree, it’s a fascinating topic with many variables to think about. I think that each one of us has our own views, and everyone’s views have some truth and validity.

        1. Lou says:

          I agree WN. It is a good subject to reflect and exchange ideas about. And, as you said, there are a lot of aspects to it. I personally get lost a little whenever I reflect on it. But it is a fascinating subject indeed.

          1. Getfit123 says:

            Excellent post—all of this was interesting.

    4. Whitney says:

      Evolution works on the individual level.
      Every single one of our ancestors survived and reproduced. Therefore, we (more precisely our genes), evolved to survive and reproduce as best as possible. Simply, the genes that did not survive and reproduce are no longer here. We are adapted to survival and reproduction. If you theorize the evolutionary basis for a behaviour keep this in mind as the foundation.

      1. cb says:

        Absolutely Whitney

        Ppl with ONLY empathic doormat traits might not survive until their teenages. So to be able to have kids I think ppl need some healthy narcissistic traits. => all non-npders have both kinds of traits.
        I guess.

        But unfortunately, the opposite, ONLY narcissistic traits, will instead correlate with getting heaps of children.

        Features that correlate with big reproduction (he has no problem playing a Hollywood romance movie of faithfulness to several women for months) will prevail, unfortunately.

        They are many because they always got themselves a lot of sex.

        The female ones are caniving plotting MILs, making their sons get divorce after divorce.

        That way they get many many grandkids.

  9. WiserNow says:

    Well, well, well…

    Speaking of ‘war’, I just heard on the news that Harry and Meghan have begun their own charitable foundation after they ‘split’ from a charity partnership they were in with William and Kate.

    The mind boggles…

    After the Tudorscope treatment of Meghan, I am willing to bet either of the following:
    – the two wives can’t stand each other and probably clash when it comes to decision-making; or
    – Meghan has worked to isolate Harry in the context of this venture by pulling him away from his family and having him more accountable to her.

    All I can say is that she is some piece of work.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      And who told you what she was over a year ago?

      1. empath007 says:

        Isn’t Harry a narc too though?

        1. HG Tudor says:


          1. empath007 says:

            Really. That’s surprising he has such shifty eyes. Also I read a comments section once and someone asked you if you were prince harry and I could have sworn your answer was no, but that you had met him and he was charming like your kind normally is… or something along those lines.

            I’m not going to
            Go digging for the comment though. It doesn’t matter.

            Thanks for answering! Super happy to hear Oprah is indeed an empath.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            Harry is an Empath.

          3. Claire says:

            Where does it say Oprah is an empath?

          4. K says:

            Ha ha ha…scroll up or use the shortcut, control/command (mac)+F keyword: Oprah.

          5. Claire says:

            Thank goodness K—I don’t want everyone I adore to have no real altruistic motives!

          6. Chihuahuamum says:

            I dont know harry personally but i always felt he was a narcissist. He behaved ruthless and did crazy things. Also the way he would treat women he was with. Hes smitten with meghan and i just seen this as an infatuation period vs him actually loving her as an empath would.
            Idk i still look at him as a narcissist and honestly i dont think you could be in the royal family if you werent a narc or have high narc traits. Time will tell with that marriage.
            HG i hope you do a profile on prince william. Im shocked whats been in the media about him lately with that neighbor friend of his rose something cant remember her name. Shes married to an older aristocrat. Supposedly they had an affair while kate was pregnant.

          7. HG Tudor says:

            He is not a narcissist.

          8. nunya biz says:

            Harry reminds me of someone I knew who was an empath. I didn’t see him as a normal, but an empath.

            I always think an empath can break my heart far more than a narc ever could, narcs are just abusers, empaths feel and feeling things happening to them kills me.

          9. cb says:

            I think HG has helped us to see narcs as more “tense” and “weak”.
            Robotic machines who cannot act any other pattern for the rest of their lives

            (whereas empaths and normals can choose to change; we can regret, listen to new ideas, contemplate ourselves)

            This new knowledge of ours, can make those exes become less sexy, less powerful in our memories.

          10. HG Tudor says:

            Well stated.

        2. Narc noob says:

          Noooo. I think his dad is though.

          1. HG Tudor says:


          2. Chihuahuamum says:

            I think they all are!

      2. empath007 says:

        And what Oprah? Any opinion on her? I’ve always been curious.

        1. K says:

          Here is your answer empath007!

          HG Tudor
          SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 AT 16:09
          Oprah is in Team Empath.


          1. NarcAngel says:

            Next time spoiler alert! Sometimes you are too efficient lol. I think she may have been slated for the Very series, but it will still make for interesting reading if it comes to fruition.

          2. K says:

            Ha ha ha… She is slated indeed! Ha ha ha… I will post “spoiler alert warnings” from now on.

            1. Oprah Winfrey
            2. Barack Obama
            3. Mother Theresa
            4. Taylor Swift
            5. = Madonna and Queen Elizabeth II

          3. nunya biz says:

            I am definitely curious to read an empath analysis. And I want to know what makes her empath vs normal, etc.

          4. empath007 says:

            That’s awesome! I would be so disappointed if that was not the case !

          5. K says:

            I know, right! I love Oprah! I always got the Warm and Fuzzies from her, Princess Diana and Diana’s two sons, however, no Warm and Fuzzies from Prince Charles.

          6. cb says:

            Wow, thanks, a relief! Heard so many say that O is a narcissist that I began believing it myself.
            Love her.

          7. K says:

            My pleasure cb, I love her, too!

        2. K says:

          When you have the time, check out this article and thread.


          1. empath007 says:

            I’m just happy to see some empaths amongst the category of influential and powerful. I must admit I’ve been a bit depressed lately – the relationship with the narc has made me question my self worth as they often do. It sounds stupid, but reading these powerful people are out there reminds me to stay focused on my own vision and goals and not to allow someone to interfere with who I am, what I believe etc.

          2. K says:

            Damn skippy! When I feel overwhelmed (by all the narcissists and lack of awareness) I come here and read too. It makes me feel better and keeps me focused, as well.

      3. Desirée says:

        Our lord and saviour, our own personal Jesus.
        I am curious as to what school and cadre she might be. She is one of the angels with dirty faces, has engaged in pity plays and blame shifting, silent treatments are a staple. She seems intelligent and educated but certainly has somatic traits as well. Elite Upper Mid-Ranger?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          All in good time.

          1. blackunicorn123 says:


      4. Narc noob says:

        Which brings me back to my original thought and query when I first started reading your articles. What about those like Meagan who are in the limelight, or those with strict religious backgrounds- these narcs can sustain a marriage without sexual intimacy outside – they cheat in other areas that aren’t so easily detected, instead.


        1. HG Tudor says:

          Don’t think that they don’t engage in extra marital sexual behaviour. It nearly always happens, you just don’t tend to hear about it.

          1. Kiki says:

            Prince Charles a narc wow .

            I would never have thought , I know he eventually went with his first love Camilla but I really thought that was just true love ,he simply didn’t love Diana and always loved Camilla.
            Meghan seems a merchinary little B , but Charles wow


      5. WiserNow says:

        It was you HG. You are the man! The ‘Tudorscope’ is an instrument of precision and insight 🔬👌

  10. KellyD says:

    HG, what do you make of this?…the narc has this bible verse as his tag line: “And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:13)”
    This man who cannot love anyone but himself.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      If he is a narcissist, he will be Mid Range.

  11. Pamela Dianne says:

    This one made me laugh. It’s good.

Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Previous article

A Stolen Love