The Bare Necessity

THE BARE NECESSITY

 

I didn’t ask for this you know. I know you did not either but for once let’s not make this about you and let’s talk about me, yes? I never asked to be created so that each and every day I must gather the fuel that is necessary for my existence. Yes, I must eat, I must drink water and I must breathe the air, just as you do, but for me I have another staple requirement of daily living. I must have fuel. Did you choose to always needs food and water? No, you did not. Neither did I. I did not choose to require this fuel either but without it I will cease to exist. What I have created in order to survive in this world will come toppling down and that will be the end of me. How far would you go to eat? At first it is simple enough is it not? You go to the grocery store or you order online from the supermarket and acquire the ingredients to make a meal or receive a pre-cooked one. You chop, you peel, you mash and you stir and you make that meal. A hundred thousand different recipes to choose from. Instead you may remove the packaging, pierce the cling film and pop it in the over or the microwave. Either way you have food, ready to eat and to sustain you. But what if you had no money to acquire this food, how would you quell the rumblings in your stomach? Perhaps you might ask to be given food from neighbours, from food banks or left overs at supermarkets. It is demeaning but you need to eat don’t you, so what does a little pride matter so long as your stomach is filled? However, what if that charity ends? What if the benevolence of friends and neighbours dries up? What would you do then? What if there are no friends and no neighbours? Would you look to survive on berries you find by the roadside, drink the water from a stream? Would that sustain you for long or would you tire of that? Would you scavenge through the bins outside a supermarket for food that has been thrown out but is perfectly edible? Is that stealing? Perhaps not. Would you cope with the stares of pity and disdain from those who saw you surfing a dumpster?

Would you steal from the shops in order to quell the hunger pangs? Snatch a loaf from a bakery, sneak into a house and steal that cooling pie or rifle through the cupboards in order to find something to eat. What if there is no edible food in the dumpster, would you remove the mould and eat what you find, risking illness? What if the supermarkets ran out of food and there was nowhere to steal it from? Would you scavenge from the orchards until that fruit ran out? Would you catch fish or hunt a lamb or grab a chicken in order to cook and eat it over an open fire? What if the usual sources of meat began to vanish, having fallen prey to starving wild animals following the collapse of civilisation, what then? Would you try new sources? Would you, driven by hunger hunt down and eat a sparrow or a robin? How about an owl? Seagull? Would you slaughter a fox in order to eat its meat? Where would you stop? Would you eat another human being in order to survive? When needs must where would you draw the line? How far would you go to feed yourself and your loved ones? Begging, growing you own, stealing, savagery, cannibalism? Do you have a limit or when the chips are down and your stomach is knotted with the agony of starvation would there be no limit? How far would you go? Would you fight another person for a packet of rice? Beat someone up in order to steal their hoard of windfalls? Would you consider their loss of their food source and their injuries an acceptable consequence of your own necessary survival? Would this become collateral damage in the pursuit of survival? Abhorrent as it may sound, I should imagine, when the need really arises, that you would go beyond the unpalatable in order to survive.

Now replace food with the need for fuel and you will understand that I have no choice other than to gather this fuel from different sources and in different ways throughout the course of each day. The consequences which arise may seem regrettable to you but they are purely the result of this need for me to gain fuel. I did not ask to have to do this, but the way I have been created makes it so. In the same way that you would fight to ensure your own survival, rather than curling up and dying in a hole, so must I. Does that make me what would be regarded as a bad person for just doing what I need to in order to exist? I suggest that it does not. I know that what I do has consequences for others. I am not blind nor am I a fool. I understand fully the devastation that I cause as I tear through someone else’s life like a whirlwind, sucking everything in, hurling it about and then discarding it broken and shattered. I have heard the complaints, the stories, the recollections and the accounts. I have heard the cries of dismay, the wails of misery, the screams of terror and the slow sobs of pain. I know what is caused by my actions but what choice do I have? I do not set out to achieve these things but they must always arise as a consequence of what I must do.

I feel no guilt nor remorse. I am devoid of those emotions. Another consequence of the way I have been created. I feel no shame in these actions, no pity for those who suffer from my behaviours and no sense of empathy for those who are remorselessly cut down by my machinations. I am not burdened by such emotions so I do not toss and turn at night, I do not have my sleep peppered by nightmares of torment, I do not sit in anguish and seek absolution for everything I have done and everything that I am to do. Those concepts are not applicable to me. What I do is invite you to understand me. I want you to understand what I am, what I must do and what arises from this and if you were in my shoes then you would do the same. This does not make me a bad person does it? I am a good man who is having to do a bad job. Yes?

359 thoughts on “The Bare Necessity

  1. kel2day says:

    Oh my gosh, I’ve got the Jungle Book song running through my mind, and now I realize why! Bare Necessities!

  2. Angie says:

    Read this entire thread and am impressed by the various insights and different perspectives of each individual commenting here. Being intellectually combative does not create truth. Being argumentative does not create truth. Different Perspectives and differing views does not create truth. Arguing ” there is no objective standards of right and wrong , good and evil does not create truth. Truth creates truth. All I hear is scepticism, misunderstandings , ” it’s your emotional thinking that’s framing your comment, etc…the dilemma was Empathy 007 ” thought she was mistakenly called an idiot because her emotions/feelings are very important to her. Emphatically states that being emotional is not a weakness, having a strong reaction to abuse is not weakness or idiotic. Its called having feelings i.e. being human with the gamut of all feelings. He clearly stated that ” I don’t consider sacrificing my well being for the sake of others as good, I consider it as idiocy ” was stating his position firmly on the matter with regards to how ALL empaths behave ; people with feelings. Clearly I shouldn’t have to elaborate the point he was not specifically calling her an idiot or insinuating/implying she was being an idiot or just the behavior of the empathic perspective. Just as well, HG was not calling all people on this thread, posting their comments idiots either just the behavior. She defended her position, naturally, but kept continuing saying please in the future refrain from calling your readers idiots. HG clearly didn’t” do this. Its disappointing that when he clarified reasonably well, that the debate still persisted . well thought out arguments I can imagine were articulated , it was important , more to the point, to see what he was writing as an instrument for learning, not to misconstrue as being personally attacked because you have feelings. He does not interact on this blog to insult..that’s my opinion, however I could be wrong, Its to see his perspective however distorted and irrational it may be.

  3. Sf says:

    H.G.,

    It is an objective truth that human beings are inherently interdependent, and that our actions impact one another, for good or ill. When narcissists deny or seek to justify their harm to others, they are acting out of denial of this objective truth.

    As an interdependent, social species, empathic emotions have evolved over millennia to ensure our collective survival and reproduction. They certainly are not silly from this perspective.

    The split between “rationality” and empathic emotional drives is a holdover from Cartesian duality that presupposes an observer who is somehow seperate from the rest of reality. Modern science has disproved this worldview, across many different disciplines.

    Human existence is inherently interdependent, not only intrasubjectively, but ecologically and biologically as well. Our species is now testing the limits of our planet’s ability to sustain life in its current form, due to the ways in which our societies are in denial of this basic truth. From a collective standpoint, this is completely irrational. It only benefits a small minority of elites, but what objectively makes their perspective more valid? Nothing.

    Ethics are only arbitrary if one is in denial of human and planetary interdependence. Otherwise they quite clearly point towards achieving the highest possible good. Narcissism may obscure this fact, but it does not change it.

    Respectfully,

    ___

    1. WiserNow says:

      Sf,
      I agree wholeheartedly with you. Thank you for your comment.

      You inspired me to read about ‘Cartesian duality’ which is a subject I wasn’t aware of.

      After reading about it, as well as current evolving beliefs about the human mind, body and ‘soul’, my own earlier thoughts have more clarity. Beliefs and habits absolutely *do* affect human society and morality, as well as individual mental (or emotional) wellbeing. They affect us both individually (intra-subjective perception) and collectively (interdependent perception).

      Respectfully, thanks again for commenting.

  4. alexissmith2016 says:

    That’s helpful HG. So they may still actually have no idea at all what they are. Goodness!

  5. alexissmith2016 says:

    HG, If a mid-range makes a comment to the effect of they don’t care whether they’re loved or hated as long as they’re noticed and that people remember them (I suspect a MMR because they are a complete and utter bragger and victim who never shuts the fuck up), and they have that complete evil little glint in their eyes when they perceive themselves as gaining control, would that make them a mid who believes they’re a greater? Why the hell are there so many of these ones? I feel a bit like Cole in ‘The sixth sense’ but instead of dead people I see Narcs everywhere!

    1. HG Tudor says:

      No.

  6. Pati says:

    I am new here and don’t know a lot about this subject. So correct me if I am wrong.
    The moral of this article I believe is your kind will do whatever it takes to get their fuel in order to survive. Is it right in our eyes perhaps no,is it right for HG yes.
    Next is HG you know what you are and you are proud of it.
    I dont agree with your kind but I do appreciate honesty or should I say logic.

  7. ava101 says:

    Look for the bare necessities
    The simple bare necessities
    Forget about your worries and your strife
    I mean the bare necessities
    That’s why a bear can rest at ease
    With just the bare necessities of life

    … Speaking of which ….. The exnarc was staring like Kaa. And speaking like Kaa. And then gripping like Kaa.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Sssssssussssshhhh!

  8. Miss A says:

    Why don’t any of my comments show up? :

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Yes they do.

  9. Miss A says:

    Hard to believe I actually got caught in the web of another Narc… even after reading all of your blog posts and buying a few of your books.. This one was not as apparent as my last one, he was on the covert/depressed/low money side. Once again my Florence Nightingale kicked in.. ugh!!! I hate it! I wish I were a bitch! I need a manual on becoming that! My father is the original, so my magnet is ON! I need to turn it OFF! I even followed most of the advice on the red flags.. I do not trust my own judgement anymore.. Man you guys are good, (but bad).. feel like I may enjoy the game somewhat.. is it almost sickness to like being the primary, and not on the shelf? ICK! Any advice for me at all?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Yes, whilst you understand what I write about, your emotional thinking is too high so you are not applying it, leading to ensnarement and the observations you make in your post Miss A. The good news is, you can reduce the ET to guard against this happening and enabling your understanding to be applied. Use this https://narcsite.com/the-way-to-goso-get-out-and-stay-out/

      1. Miss A says:

        Thank you !

  10. seballerina says:

    Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)

    7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

    You exist as you are by the will of God. It doesn’t matter if you believe or not, or if you ever even ponder God in your life. This is a present tense, real-time verse. It is going on now, His creation activities. If He changes His mind about what you are, you will be changed in an instant. And God can change his mind. If you are evil by His definition, then you are evil. By your own definition, not necessarily. Certainly some of the things you do are evil, and this is something that can be said about every human being.

    Everyone needs fuel, too. Literally everyone, HG. In this way you are not special. Human babies die without love in their early stages of life. If they don’t get it and they survive, they are forever damaged in their ability to bond with others. We all need it for our existence. The difference between you and others is that you want to control how it comes, when it comes, and its quality and characteristics, and negative fuel works just as well, while the rest of us just hope for positive fuel and don’t try to control so much and run away from negative fuel.

    As wonderfully intelligent and masterful as you are, HG, you are still a human with a soul, and at the end of your life, you, too, will stand before the creator and have your entire life played out in front of you. Jesus will be there, too, and he will help you, for you will feel absolutely every bit of pain you have caused others as though it were you feeling it. You will also feel every ripple of the pain you have caused others that caused them to cause others, as though it were happening to you.

    You will also feel the good you do, in the same way. And at the end of the life review, it will not be what you have done that will decide your soul’s fate, it will be how you feel about being in the presence of the living God, and what that causes your soul to do.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Only narcissists need fuel. Non-Narcissists do not. To say that they require fuel is misleading.

      1. seballerina says:

        I see your point: for you “fuel” is one thing, and “love” is another. When they both come from the same person, though, there isn’t a difference. When she (“she” used generally as an example of one place love might come from, not referring to anyone specifically) gives it to you, it is love, and when she gives it to someone else, it is still love. You may receive it and define it as fuel, but that isn’t what she is giving you, and it doesn’t change its nature because you want it to.

        When you give it, I don’t know what you call what you are giving your (romantic) targets, but it comes into the recipients as love. We are mistaken when we think you are giving love, as you have stated many times that your kind don’t feel love, therefore you aren’t giving us that.

        If you are thinking that your viewpoint on what you are receiving is the only true one, you are mistaken (an extremely rare occurrence, I’m sure!). You may not receive it as love, but it remains what it is as defined by the giver.

        I don’t have time to try to draw a parallel to what I need verses your need for fuel, but it exists.

      2. njfilly says:

        You have stated that your need for fuel is not defined as an emotional need. How would you define this need then? Physical? Physiological?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Self-defence.

  11. Susan says:

    There are positive benefits from researching this site for those who need help to understand narcissism and how to proceed. The choice to share this information is appreciated.

    But, to keep things in perspective, this venture generates fuel for the creator. We are contributing to the fuel matrix even if only in a small way. I don’t think this site is a non profit (correct me if I’m wrong), so it also generates income. Kudos if the income is donated.

    Not a criticism. Just don’t think it’s necessary to apply good or bad labels. We are all trying to survive.

    Do I wish narcissists would change. Of course but I keep the slim chances of that happening in the forefront of my mind. Do I wish HG would make different choices? Yes. Nothing would make me happier than to open this blog one day and read about his epiphany.

    At least for now, the choice to share this information for the reasons HG has stated is resulting in positive benefit for those in need.

    1. Beth says:

      Hi
      This is as much as an ephiphany as HG will ever experience and as much contrition as he will ever be able to show by way of (as a by-product, I understand) enlightening the unenlightened. I hope this procures at least some compassion on judgement day even though no doubt he has no concern about such things. I am also sure Fuel is being obtained but me personally, I think it’s more than a fair exchange. If these top ups reduce even slightly the misery bestowed on the unlucky ones in his personal matrix then win-win. I think the whole thing is just awful. They have this thing that haunts them and we have the fall out.. and most narcs I’ve encountered cannot be described as contented, fulfilled or at peace with themselves or the world .. the misery they spread tarnishes them too, particularly in the latter part of the human lifespan. It’s depressing the whole dynamic. What a waste of endeavour .. at least this one (HG) has something productive and useful and good to salvage out of it all.

  12. jessrnny says:

    Empaths need fuel as well. We prefer positive fuel and we have the ability to self fuel although most don’t know it yet! Many don’t even consider that it’s selfish of an empath to expect a narcissist to provide positive fuel eternally just as it is for them to want our negative fuel and act accordingly. Perspective.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Fuel is ours, not yours.

      1. Violetta says:

        I am all eyes
        I am all ears
        I am the wall
        And I’m watching you fall
        Because faith is mine!

        “Faith” by Ghost

      2. Jess says:

        “Have you seen my fivehead?”

        Bahahahhahaha!

  13. liza says:

    why not treat your need for fuel like an addiction? a drug addict is convinced that he/she is uncapable to live without his fix, withdrawal is verry painfull, but when assisted by good doctors it is possible, and defenitly worth it, imagine all the good things you can do if you could save the time and energy you dedicate to fuel gathering and scheming against your targets, you will have the choice to do things or not do them your narcissism will not govern your existance. I know it sounds like wishfull thinging, but i truely believe that it is worth trying.
    PS: i’m not saying that you are a junki it is just an analogy.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      The drug addicts existence does not depend on the drug, ours does. Their drug addiction is a coping mechanism not a self-defence mechanism. Ours is a self-defence mechanism.

      1. liza says:

        grrr, i can’t accepte that their is no way.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Tough.

      2. jessrnny says:

        Ooh!

      3. Joy&Love says:

        Mr Tudor, it could be said that addicts in the throes of addiction feel a physiological need for the drug having learnt that dependence. They were born predisposed but at some point they made a decision. Once broken by grace they operate free from the drug so in fact they didn’t really need it.

        Could it be the case that Ns feel they need fuel with every fibre of their being, but when they let go they can eventually be changed? Is there evidence that Ns need fuel for existence, as is the case with food? There are testimonies of evil, utterly cruel men and women who have gone on to live changed lives. To do this however one has to first believe, accept brokenness, want to change, let go of control, then accept unlimited grace and love from the Creator. It may be the most difficult thing to do, but it is not impossible.

        What you are sharing is unprecedented, and people who previously had with no hope are being healed. The testimonies are there. There is always hope.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Fuel is required for our existence.

          The majority of narcissists are Lesser or Mid Range, they do not know what they are and therefore they cannot “let go and eventually be changed” because they do not know what they are and therefore know not what to let go of, even if they could. Greater see no need to do this.

          If you believe those individuals have changed their lives, you have been conned. They still control, but in a different way.

          1. Joy&Love says:

            I’m trying to apply logic as you’ve taught us, so please share the evidence re Ns need for fuel for existence.

            Re your second point, I agree that based on what you’ve taught, Mid and Lesser may not know what they are. What they do know without a doubt is that their actions inflict immense pain and suffering on the vulnerable. That is the start in terms of what they need to release.

            I speak about what I have seen, and the change is remarkable and sustained. Those who change are not perfect but neither are they the same person that they were before. These are people who recognise their wretched state and make that bold step for themselves not for anyone else. It’s after all between each human soul and the Creator.

            Could we also consider that in the same way emotional thinking successfully cons Empaths to ignore and deny the truth staring at them, (and I was trapped by that till you enlightened me)so too may the creature within Ns con them into an alternate reality whereby they feel they cease to exist without that parasite, which then latches on all the more firmly and continues to suck away their very soul. We are not created for this. I say get rid of it. Not everyone is strong enough for that challenge, but I know you are.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            Read the book Fuel.

            Narcissists experience emotional thinking too, but in a different way to empaths.

          3. Lorelei says:

            They do indeed control in different ways HG. I suspect (more than suspect) a close friend is an aging AA narcissist. The aggregate of behavior in the past is profound and I think AA is his (basically)primary source (for fuel). Is this possible? Regardless—I’m ok with the secondary position as he is wonderful to me and he’s 82. I plan to look after him when he can’t make decisions as he ran off his kids. Friends for 20 years. I just understand my position now and his several unusual control oriented behaviors toward me have been easily quenched in the past. He’s a retired surgeon and brilliant. It’s quite a connection to see a total lack of awareness behind the defense mechanism and how this co-exists with substantial intelligence. Same for my “scientist handyman.” Zero awareness. Zilch. None. I recall you telling me mid-rangers can indeed be academically competitive or indeed brighter than a greater and it has to do with how the intelligence is expressed—among other variables certainly.

  14. kel2day says:

    Excellent illustration. But you wouldn’t want to be any other way. No one wants to have to rummage, beg, and kill for food, (and the Andes plane crash survivors didn’t kill each other, they painfully ate them after they died, not heartily, but sorrowfully). Very good example, but the problem is that you enjoy what you are.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Your final sentence is accurate indeed.

  15. Soon to be sparkling! says:

    No HG NO!

    It is not your fault that you were made this way. It’s awful that this was done to you!!! Awful!!!

    But for what you do now….? That is your choice. Now IS your fault.

    All this hurt, all this suffering! You don’t care. We know that. But it IS wrong to be cruel.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Wrong to you? Agreed.

      Wrong for me. No.

      1. Soon to be sparkling! says:

        I wish it could be different.

  16. KellyD says:

    No, there is never any guilt, shame, remorse, pity, empathy, sympathy, or accountability. It is never to be about you, always only about the narc. His/her needs are the only things of importance. You may wither and die, like a plant losing its leaves and then losing its color and finally its roots, but his greatness will go on to the next sucker willing to give up their life for the fake “love” of the narc.

  17. Jaya says:

    Are you magnificent? Yes. Unique? Yes. Intelligent, eloquent, poetic, witty.. yes of course.
    Is the knowledge you are freely providing more valuable than gold? Absolutely! You are a saviour to so many, myself included and I will be eternally grateful to you.
    But good? No HG, you’re not a good man. You’re the polar opposite.

    The Real Meaning of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ | Psychology Today
    ‘Good’ means a lack of self-centredness. It means the ability to empathize with other people, to feel compassion for them, and to put their needs before your own. It means, if necessary, sacrificing your own well-being for the sake of others’

    No disrespect intended

    1. HG Tudor says:

      There is no objective standard of what is good or what is evil. What PT states is merely an intra subjective perception adopted by a majority who have evolved in a similar way, it does not mean this is objectively right or good.

      I do not regard as sacrificing my own well-being for the sake of others as good, I regard it as idiocy.

      Accuracy intended.

      1. MB says:

        “I do not regard as sacrificing my own well-being for the sake of others as good, I regard it as idiocy.”

        Can I get some of this, HG?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Sure, where shall I send my contempt?!

          1. MB says:

            Ha ha. I think you missed the point!

        2. FYC says:

          MB, Did the unicorn turn into a toad? Is glitter turned to dust? Say it ain’t so!

          1. MB says:

            FYC, it’s only temporary! I’m showcasing my love of herps. (But toads are my favorite) shhhh! Don’t tell the salamanders.

          2. FYC says:

            MB, What about geckos and chameleons? They are pretty cute. Your secret is safe with me, I have not seen a salamander in a long time. This conversation makes me want to head out to nature.

      2. empath007 says:

        There is an objective standard.

        It is idiocy to only think of yourself and not others… EVER. That is emotionally stunted thinking.

        We operate within a society… that is fact…
        And if the majority operated with your prespective then it would Be in even more chaos then it already is.

        You also
        Personally count on the kindness of others in order to do what you do… if everyone was like you would not be able to operate affectively cause no one would care about you… only themselves.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          There is no objective standard. None whatsoever.

          There is an intra subjective standard.

          You fail to understand the difference.

          1. empath007 says:

            I will always fail to understand your kind.

            That is a fact.

            People hate your kind. That is (in part) why none of you ever tell anyone who you really are. The bigger reasons are because you want to maintain control. It’s addicting you need your fuel. That is why the ones who operate off instinct whom are presented with the facts never admit it…. your own kind gets outraged at being labeled a narcissist.

            Even they operate off the majority perspective.

          2. empath007 says:

            I’m sorry I vented about this again.

            I’m going to have to learn to agree to disagree.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            No, learn to be accurate, it will help you, that is the whole point of correcting you so you do not labour under a misapprehension because that is contrary to your best interests.

            By continuing to think that there is only one “right” or “good” way of thinking or behaving and this can be measured objectively means you will not understand how we have a different perspective that is right for us. This is central to understanding the way my kind operate and thus is central to your own progress.

          4. empath007 says:

            It may be right for your kind. But it does not strive towards the betterment of society or the human condition at large ( unless it directly benefits them) …

            I just don’t see it as a beneficial thought process.

            I’m just going to stop commenting on the subject.

            I appreciate you trying to teach me. But I’m too stubborn in my views regarding this particular topic.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            That is unfortunate. By conveying this to you, I am endeavouring to assist you. Believing yourself to be stubborn is actually a manifestation of your emotional thinking which is dead set on stopping you applying what I am explaining to you. Set aside your distaste for me and my kind, set aside your intrinsic frustration at the unfairness of the dynamic, ignore being stubborn and instead focus on the logic.

          6. empath007 says:

            I will take that into consideration.

          7. HG Tudor says:

            No, they operate off their intra subjective perspective to reject anything perceived as control and to achieve that, the moral framework of the intra-subjective majority is used because this is the most effective way to provoke you and thus assert control.

          8. Lorelei says:

            The conversation here between you & NA beats the pants off the FB support forums with posts like, “I broke no contact again” (with Jim Bob!)

          9. Joanne says:

            With Jim Bob!
            I am dying.
            Not funny, but so funny. God forgive me 🙂

          10. Lorelei says:

            Laugh—it was the dumbest thing I’d ever seen Joanne. It’s no wonder I got worse before I got better after the disengagement. Hanging out on FB narc groups is not helpful. It is where HG’s site was mentioned so of course it ended up how it needed to. I think of this (the necessity of the referral) when I occasionally refer his work because it sounds really out there but it’s not at all. It’s just that all of this is so unusual but once it’s not it isn’t . Occasionally I get a smart comment like, “If he told you what curtains to buy..” So wrong—I’d argue if he tried to talk about fabric! It’s just a lack of understanding. Maybe I should tell the select few to go die on a couch (like I did) and then get back to me. Glad you are here Joanne—💕💕. We know and the world isn’t the same for sure.

          11. Joanne says:

            Lorelei
            HG called the FB groups “Wallowing holes.” I spent some time there at the start and it really held me spinning in place. ANY type of post was replied to with a comment like “Go no contact!” — regardless of its content. Just not helpful. Or: “trauma bond!” As if that is the final *answer* to anything. I guess these groups are soft landing places in the beginning so I shouldn’t drag on them too much.

            I got lit up by a commenter here on narcsite a while back for using the term “FB wallowing hole” (and also for making a joke about Sam Vaknin). I know everyone has to learn and heal at their own pace. But I do think it’s true that most of the commenters on this site are on a different level of understanding, or at least readiness to understand.

            I missed the ‘die on a couch’ reference?

          12. HG Tudor says:

            It’s because the majority of those who learn here make the most progress

          13. Lorelei says:

            Ah Joanne—they are well intended but there is little substantial content of value. HG came up enough times I finally looked. Prob last Sept? I’m guessing. My couch reference was re, my collapse that was progressively worse over the past decade. I was fighting it and finally just lost it and couldn’t really function aside from going to work. I was beaten down, quiet, gained a lot of weight really quickly from drinking primarily.. It was then my ex disengaged because I was too broken to even respond to his insults. Silent treatments were a reprieve in a way and I actually started to long for them so I wasn’t insulted in some overt manner. I missed years watching my kids, especially 2-3 in particular. I literally transformed from an active and engaging person to a shell. I went to the doctor last year, she’s amazed because she didn’t know my “baseline” and I lost weight quickly, I’m active as hell (as I always was)—even my cholesterol had been high because I ate poorly from a lack of energy! It’s 160 now and I’m constantly on the go—like I always was. I was in effect, no longer me. So, the couch reference is the dynamic of having collapsed emotionally because all I did was sleep and drink. My friends were just not sure?? I had a gradual decline in my frequency of interactions yes, but at the end it was like getting kicked down a hill. I mean seriously—even the food I was eating is abhorrent to me. I couldn’t even get up to prepare healthy meals and anyone that knows me is aware of how out there it was. My favorite food is a tomato. Hands down. I’m still shaking my head. I have loads of sadness over this. So, I have a ton of work to continue with certainly, but it’s a lot better.

          14. Joanne says:

            Lorelei
            I’m so sorry you went through that and the physical effect it had on you 🙁 I’m glad you found your way here and are working on healing. It sounds like you’re bouncing back, bit by bit. It’s never too late to restart and get your SELF back. I hope things are good with your kids now too. Do you share them with your ex or are they from another relationship?

          15. Lorelei says:

            I’m closer to baseline. I think. Bouncing slower than I hoped. They are there three eve a week. I work strategically during this time to optimize my time. The goal is they are mostly sleeping when there.*
            They are mainly in their rooms when with him from what I hear. He’s only useful for making rice Krispy treats, otherwise he’s useless to anyone. Kids are doing fabulous, although I got real assertive with my son over brushing teeth today and he said I hit him when grabbing his iPad which did not happen and he cried. 🤷🏼‍♀️

          16. Joanne says:

            Just keep making progress Lorelei. Keep moving forward. You are on the right track 🤗

          17. Lorelei says:

            Appreciate the kind thoughts Joanne. It just took a long time to get buried and it’s a process to dig out. Remember Kill Bill where she was buried alive? It’s kinda feeling like it’s that much energy to get out of the damn dirt.

        2. HG Tudor says:

          Let me put it in base terms that you might grasp.

          I do what I want, I succeed and am unconcerned by matters such as conscience, guilt or remorse.

          You get hurt, upset, terrified, miserable. You get sucked in and turned over by our kind. You shed tears, you worry, you are confused, you are curled up in a ball sobbing wondering why, why, why?

          That’s idiocy.

          1. empath007 says:

            Idiocy? It’s idiocy to react to abuse?

            Do you think all of us operate on a day to day basis totally unable to funtion in most areas of our life? No… we don’t. We function just fine.

            In my life I’ve only dealt with a total of 6 narcissist (of whom I entered their sphere of influence) I got rid of every single one of them… instinctively…. way before
            I found this site… is that an idiot??

            My narc tried to get me fired…. I noticed… ended up with a promotion… is that an idiot??

            Having feelings and a strong reaction to abuse does not make anyone an idiot. It makes them hurt and confused.

            To be so blind to everyone else’s thoughts and feelings does not make anyone more intellegent. It makes them cold… and that’s about it.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            High on emotion, short on logical substance – as I expected. You do not understand there is no such thing as an objective standard of right and wrong. Until you do, you’ll struggle.

          3. empath007 says:

            HG this is your site and you may correct me as you see fit.

            It is my belief there is right and wrong. Perhaps you see me as struggling. That is your right. I do not see it as struggling as it is my worldview and I’m perfectly comfortable to keep it.

            My mistake is in seeing your comments and then reacting to them that I disagree…
            But the fact I disagree is not an issue for me.

            Moving forward I won’t post my comments regarding my opinion about an objective standard. Everyone knows where I stand anyways and I don’t need to have debates about it on your site if it leads to conversations like this one which are not constructive and reduced to name calling.

            I do not think you are an idiot. To me an idiot would have to continually act in certian ways to be labeled as such.

            If you regard me as an idiot that is fine. You are entilted to your own opinion. I do not regard myself as one…. and that’s all that matters to me.

            Empaths are not idiots because we feel deeply. We may do idiotic things from time to time (as your kind does as well) but we are not idiots purely based on capacity to feel.

            You are only seeing things from the perspective of an abuser… since it is what you do… make people upset…. you are constantly creating reactions in people. What I am trying to explain is that just because people react to abuse in these isolated incidents does not make them idiotic. You may see a lot of it in people because you create it for them… but in general empaths are doing ok…. we don’t sit around crying all day
            Long.

            I don’t hold your response against you. My ability to empathize understands that sometimes I am annoying pain in the arse… this is fine..: I accept this about myself.

            But may I suggest in the future you try to refrain from calling your readers idiots.

          4. HG Tudor says:

            I will make the point again as you have missed it.

            1. There is no such thing as an objective standard of right and wrong. By repeatedly stating that you believe there is a right and wrong does not change it. There is, as I have consistently explained, an intra subjective concept of right and wrong which is the majority view, but you cannot point to anything which asserts an objective standard – why? Because the concept of good and evil, right and wrong are imagined constructs created by humans. You are incorrect in your assertion and have repeatedly failed to understand this. Understanding this point is part of grasping why my kind operate as we do, we have a different intra subjective concept of what is right and wrong which works for us, but similarly it is not an objective standard of right and wrong.

            2. I invite you to re-read the comments and you will see that you first used the label “idiocy” with regard to the standpoint I advocated, thus you labelled me an idiot. You entered the comments on this thread at 9:41 pm and stated

            “There is an objective standard. It is idiocy to only think of yourself and not others.”

            Go back and read the thread. That was the start of your first comment on this thread and it was you who used the term “idiocy” directed at me.

            I countered your response, based on logic and then utilised the same label that YOU used, to drive home the point. If you do not like me doing that, then refrain from doing so yourself. To then suggest I refrain from calling your readers idiots is disingenuous since you first used the term “idiocy” and my response was directed at you, not anybody else, using the same label that you first used. This is an easily resolved point, you and other readers can go back and read the comments and see not only have you commenced the name-calling but you have thereafter sought to elicit sympathy by maintaining I started the name-calling when it is clear I did not.

          5. empath007 says:

            I appreciate your response but I was simply trying to be accurate. My response was part of a thread of comments… you threw out the word idiocy… so I threw it back In trying to make a point about the other side of things. From my perspective… you did start the name calling.

            I wasn’t trying to “gain sympathy” I was saying me and my kind are not idiots soley based on the fact we have feelings.

            I’m fine. I slept great.

            And I’m sure we’d both like to move on from this topic.

            I will definitely give your first point a lot more thought… perhaps if I ponder it more it will break this stubborn skull of mine.

            Thank you HG

          6. HG Tudor says:

            You are welcome, E007, as I stated, I am trying to assist you in your understanding to your benefit. It is the brutal truth here.

          7. empath007 says:

            Well sometimes I have my own brutal truths.

            If you’re kind is so dam great then why aren’t you all proud of your label???

            That’s a whole other topic. We don’t need to get into today.

          8. HG Tudor says:

            1. The majority do not know what they are, hence they cannot be proud of the label.
            2. I am proud of what I am and what I achieve.

            Question answered.

          9. empath007 says:

            Then why don’t you tell SM?

            You’re proud of it… so why the big secret from her?

          10. HG Tudor says:

            Because I am not an idiot.

          11. empath007 says:

            Correct. But that also means your not as proud of it as you think you are… maybe normalizing narcissism is something we need to be doing as a society which would make your kind less misunderstood. And if your kind can’t even admit what they are… there is some
            Shame attached to that… because when someone is presented with facts and they still deny it. That doesn’t make them very intellegent.

          12. HG Tudor says:

            No, it is not shame. It is being judicious. I know what I am. I am proud of that. I do not need to tell others what I am to remain proud because doing so transfers power and I do not do that, why, because I am not an idiot.
            You are imposing (understandably) your worldview on my perspective and that is why you keep making mistakes.

          13. empath007 says:

            That is interesting. And yes I can completely agree and understand that the main reason isn’t to transfer power… But why is it a transfer of power? Because you would be giving away your secret… admitting you are doing something “wrong”.

            Perhaps you aren’t ashamed. I can believe that.

            But it is considered a shameful label at large. Which is part of the reason your kind who don’t know what they are deny it. (Also… to not know what you are is kind of ridiculous at best) They do deny it because it is shameful. No one wants to Be labeled an abuser. Why? Because it’s embarrassing and shameful label.

          14. empath007 says:

            Based on the majority perspective we were discussing. It is seen as bad or wrong.

            Your kind is aware of this. And wants to fit in to some degree and will therefore reject the label.

          15. HG Tudor says:

            No, they do not know about the label, therefore the narcissist cannot reject it voluntarily (Lesser or Mid Range). When the label is given to them by the victim, it is not the label per se that is being rejected, it is the control that is behind the use of the label that is rejected.

          16. empath007 says:

            Yes control is the driving factor. I agree and understand that.

            But I think another factor is that your mind understands people regard that behaviour as “bad”.

            For example after mine told me what he was… he later rejected his claim (in order to assert control and make me feel guilty) but one of his phrases was “ that doesn’t automatically make me a scheming pyscho”…. which says to me
            There’s some shame associated with the label (at large… even if he didn’t feel that way) I’m my letter to him (which I haven’t emailed you yet.. I address this, telling him that in part he is correct about that statement as many operate off instinct etc)

            I think you are in a little bit of denial that shame is attached to the label. And that no one wants it. And it does play a role in the rejection.

          17. HG Tudor says:

            1. The label has a stigma attached to it. Yes, it might also be considered a shameful label, but not by narcissists, but by non-narcissists who use the term to stigmatise from their majority intra subjective viewpoint.
            2. “To not know what you are is kind of ridiculous at best”. This flippant and ignorant comment is what is actually ridiculous. This underpins your inability to understand. Lesser and Mid Range Narcissists do not know what they are because that is part of the self-defence mechanism and it has to be that way for it to work effectively. This lack of insight is called anosognosia. Many (but not all) schizophrenics do not regard what are labelled as their delusions, as delusions. They cannot see it, why, because it is their intra-subjective reality. Are they ridiculous? Many people with Alzheimer’s also do not know that they have Alzheimer´s owing to this condition. Are they ridiculous? Many people who are diagnosed as bi-polar also do not realise that they are, this if why they often (like many schizophrenics) refuse to take their medication because they are unable to see their condition. They believe what they are doing (in their intra-subjective reality) is not problematic (where it is when viewed from the alternate intra-subjective reality). Are people with bi-polar ridiculous.
            3. “They do deny it because it is shameful. No one wants to be labelled an abuser. Why? Because it’s embarrassing and shameful label.” No, again, you fail to understand. This is what your worldview believes is behind it and a narcissist may even say that (adopting the majority intra-subjective worldview in order to fit in) but it is not driven by shame at the label, it is driven by the need for control. If you say to a narcissist, “you are a narcissist” the actual reason this is rejected is not to do with shame, it is because your comment is asserting control over the narcissist and rejecting his control, therefore your comment must be attacked, denied and otherwise rejected.

          18. empath007 says:

            Your second point was made very well. Thank you for posting it.

          19. HG Tudor says:

            You are welcome. I do acknowledge your attempts to understand and engage in a constructive fashion.

          20. empath007 says:

            Thanks HG. It can be tough when emotions run high… gonna take a little breather from the site today… seems fitting after yesterday.

            Thank you for your conversation HG and other readers.

          21. HG Tudor says:

            Not a problem.

          22. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Empath007, arguments happen, people get hurt, but you must know I love having you here, so please don’t feel bad and leave. 😘

          23. empath007 says:

            Awe. Sweetest, you have always been someone I felt connected with here. Your intelligence and good humour always come through on your posts.

            I did some good healthy thinking last night. I feel just fine, the exchange was good… brought up a lot of memories from the past. Led me to some decisions that will assist me once again in the future.

            Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate them.

          24. Joanne says:

            e007
            You’re not going anywhere please 🙂
            I see your points but I think what it boils down to is that we have our world view, and narcs have theirs. It will never ever make logical sense to us.

          25. empath007 says:

            Wait… are you guys… hoovering me 🤔🤔 Hahahaha ! Just kidding! Hugs to you both 🤗🥰

          26. Joanne says:

            But of course we are! Like loyal members of the coterie 😉😉🥰😘

          27. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Same here, Empath007! Plus, we still have a virtual drink pending!

          28. WiserNow says:

            empath007,
            Thank you for being honest and stating your thoughts. Discussions like this are not easy, especially when you are the one who raises the subject and disagrees with HG. However, it’s really valuable to debate this way. It makes everyone think and it brings things out into the open.

            You did us all a service, so please take some satisfaction in that. I hope you come back to the site with enthusiasm and feeling positive 🙂

          29. Pati says:

            HG, I do understand that the majority of lessers and midranger dont know what they are and they will never know.
            I live with my N ,I also live with a family member that has schizophrenia (double whammy) the question I have is that both are in the DSM one is a mental illness ,the other a personality disorder .
            One can be treated and the N cannot .
            However when both in reality why does the N believe what he says even though they are lying and manipulate,and the one with Schizophrenia when in reality knows the difference and knows what he has and takes his medication and is good empathetic person . Arent they similar to a degree ?

          30. HG Tudor says:

            One has no insight, the other has periodic insight. If you want to understand more about why Lesser and Mid Range operate in this fashion you need to organise a consultation.

          31. Pati says:

            So are you saying the N has no insight right ?

          32. HG Tudor says:

            If Lesser or Mid-Range.

          33. Pati says:

            Got it ,mine is LMR (determined by you ) so he has no insight, Thank you

          34. Lorelei says:

            Correct HG—don’t be an idiot! Haha—that would be an interesting conversation though! Not sure how you could ease into, “I know this sounds a little odd but just hang in there with me..” Keep a lid on it and behave.

          35. K says:

            empath007
            He would be an absolute fool to tell SM.

          36. empath007 says:

            Read my reply To him K.

          37. empath007 says:

            I’m sorry I had mentioned anything again. It’s a sore spot with me (this particular subject) and I’m obsessed with trying to get my point across.

            I think it’s best we stop this conversation as I do not appreciate being called an idiot.

          38. HG Tudor says:

            Well you were the first to brandish the term idiocy. If you do so erroneously you can expect to be corrected and to then cry foul at being corrected shows the transparency of your position. Your surrender is noted.

          39. empath007 says:

            Inaccurate. You used the word idiocy in your reply to Jaya.
            Which is why I used it in my response to you initially. To say that you may think one way of behaving is idiocy… and I think the opposite is too then.

          40. HG Tudor says:

            I am referring to the exchange between you and I.

          41. empath007 says:

            I used it because you used it. I was not personally attacking you. I used it in the same context you did. I was trying to say if you think putting others first is idiocy then I think not doing it is idiocy. If you don’t believe me… then you don’t.

          42. empath007 says:

            MB also quoted it in her response

            “I do not regard sacrificing my own well being for the sake of others as good, I regard it as idiocy”

          43. HG Tudor says:

            Indeed I do, however what I do not assert is that this is a universal, objective truth, it is my perspective based on the intra-subjective perspective shared by my kind. I am explaining our viewpoints and perspective, the whole point of this blog.

          44. empath007 says:

            Your viewpoint is that we are idiots for having feelings…. how am I supposed to agree with that?

            We just have much different views on what constitutes idiocy.

            Anyways. Next time I will keep my mouth shut lol

          45. HG Tudor says:

            I did not state that.

            In any event, you continue to miss the point.

          46. empath007 says:

            Yes you did … when you described us curled up in a ball crying asking why why why?

            Which is not what we all do by the way. I personally…. just got really angry and did research.

          47. HG Tudor says:

            I know not all of you do it, but many of you have done so, this has been explained to me by individuals in consultation along with a host of behaviours which I do not engage in, but your kind do, which denote being adversely impacted and that is the difference. It puts you in a position of weakness.

            You are repeatedly railing against the logic because your ET is seizing on your trait of fairness.

          48. Lorelei says:

            It’s an expression by example empath007–people aren’t typically curled up in a ball crying. I have never done so—I’d personally like to work on cutting down the deficits associated with emotional thinking though and I’m not a fan of certain behaviors that impact the liberty of others, but I’d like to be more self protective of my own liberty and those I care about. To be effective likely means learning and learning…

          49. HG Tudor says:

            Correct

          50. Brutal Truth says:

            Let me explain this to you in terms YOU can grasp.
            You are a maladaptive human being who has no capability to interact in a healthy manner in a loving way. You are nothing more than a walking disgusting corpse.
            You are no superhero, you walk a fine line that could easily cross into criminal territory.
            You’re the kind of man police love to arrest cause you get what’s coming to you.

          51. HG Tudor says:

            You stick with suing Harvey Weinstein (New York Supreme Court) and Colorado Technical University and Career Education Corp.(United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division).

            Oh, you cannot because both cases were dismissed at the interlocutory stage.

            Cheerio!

          52. Violetta says:

            I’ve built walls
            A fortress deep and mighty
            That none may penetrate
            I have no need of friendship, friendship causes pain
            It’s laughter and it’s loving I disdain
            I am a rock
            I am an island….

            I touch no one and no one touches me
            I am a rock
            I am an island
            And a rock feels no pain
            And an island never cries

            – Simon & Garfunkel

          53. HG Tudor says:

            But then…

            Cecilia, you’re breaking my heart
            You’re shaking my confidence daily
            Oh, Cecilia, I’m down on my knees
            I’m begging you please to come home
            Cecilia, you’re breaking my heart
            You’re shaking my confidence daily
            Oh, Cecilia, I’m down on my knees
            I’m begging you please to come home
            Come on home

            I wish they would make their mind up!

          54. kel2day says:

            Bad is..
            If you have to hide what you’re doing, then it’s probably bad.

            Narcissistic viewpoint is that they do nothing wrong, because it’s only done for their need for control and fuel. If majority rule was narcissistic, if there were no morals, no one who cared, if our version of good was minimal, then there would be nothing for them to hide. But their existence is based on hiding, wearing a facade, what would be the joy for them if there was nothing to hide? None of them would be wrong, none of them would be bad, they would all be trying to be better than the other, and trying to be in control, trying to be impressive. But none of them would actually care about the other.

        3. Code 3 says:

          Empath007,
          No. I hear you but please consider the meaning of the word “objective”.

          You and I prefer a world where people are kind. That’s how we are wired. But we’re not all wired the same. The universe doesn’t care one way or the other if 7 billion Homo sapiens apes are peaceable and kindly, ruthlessly self-interested and warlike, or a mix. We have a mix. Morality isn’t an objectively truthful phenomena (you can’t measure a particle of “evil”….), it’s a concept.

          I’m not sure about the idiocy thing, depends on your personal values. And how you define success.

          High self-interest low empathy types may be more successful generally if you measure success in for example material wealth – that sounds about right, makes sense. If it makes you feel any better they don’t always “win” – Hitler died in a hole, saddam hussein was hanged. Apex predators have advantages but they’re not invulnerable. Prey creatures are likely to get eaten but they’re usually more numerous. 99% of humans aren’t wealthy but doing fine in passing on genes which is the ultimate (only?) game really.
          I’m rambling but hope that helps 🙂

          1. HG Tudor says:

            You are far from rambling, you are accurate. You understand the point about “objective”.

          2. MB says:

            Code 3, “you can’t measure a particle of evil” Well stated.

            For the record, I wasn’t agreeing with HG that Empaths are idiots. I didn’t even read his words that way. (Take them personally that is) I actually think a little more self-preservation would be helpful to many of us. Hence I asked if I could have some. Putting others needs in front of your own IS idiocy from his perspective. It doesn’t make us idiots.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            Correct.

          4. empath007 says:

            Well then why I am I being attacked for staring the opposite.

            I understand what the word objective means.

            Courts exist for a reason…. laws exist for a reason…. if we could all get away with murder and state “I’m a narcissist it’s not my fault”….
            Is that the kind of world we want to live in??! Where narcissim becomes the excuse for poor behaviour all in then name
            Of “perspective”

            Children are being used on pornography sites… this is ok because someone is a Narcissist’s?

            No. That’s why we have lawyers and judges.

            We walk a dangerous line when we give people too many excuses for thier bad behaviour.

            There is absolutely right and wrong. And we are responsible for our own actions.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            You still do not understand the point.

            There is right and wrong, but not an objective right or an objective wrong.

            Explain to me how something is objectively good or objectively right. Note “objectively”. Where and how is it decided as objectively good?

            You are not being attacked. You are being corrected, because you are repeatedly making a mistake and this comment demonstrates it once again.

          6. empath007 says:

            how can there be right or wrong without objectivity attached? Courts require standards and rules in order to do what they do.

            I will think about what you are saying…. I really will. It’s just not all going to click over night.

          7. HG Tudor says:

            Courts are based on intra subjectivity. Laws are based on intra subjectivity. Moral are based on intra subjectivity.

            None of these are based on an objective standard.

          8. empath007 says:

            Ok. I will think on that. Thank you.

          9. FYC says:

            E007, I love that your intent is to find justice, but with regard to laws, you need look no further to find injustices.

            In the US it was once legal to burn ‘witches’ at the stake, discriminate, withhold voting rights, treat humans as property (including beat and rape), and be cruel to animals because they are possessions. All of those laws changed over time, but they existed. In current Sharia law (Nigera, Saudi Arabia), women have been sentenced to death by stoning for having sexual relations resulting in childbirth *after* divorce. Hands have been cut off for ‘stealing’ even if the stealing is taking back stolen property. It is all about the corruption of power in an effort to control. Many countries do not have a presumption of innocence. Some countries think it is okay to permanently remove body parts because they do not believe women should experience pleasure. They believe this is a ‘good’ practice and that pleasure is ‘evil’. I am sure you get my point. Not all judgements are just.

            I am not saying this to be contrary, just to demonstrate that not every one agrees on what is good and evil. That is the point. It is kind of like the well-known quote on pornography, “It may be hard to define, but you know it when you see it.” I think you are coming from this perspective. I am sure you know when you are being abused, and you are correct that abuse is always unjust.

          10. HG Tudor says:

            Just or unjust is not an objective concept either FYC.

          11. FYC says:

            Accurate, HG. I stand corrected.

          12. HG Tudor says:

            Thank you FYC, it is right to state that the content of the rest of your comment was of your usual high standard.

          13. FYC says:

            HG,Thank you kindly. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. Narcissism is not clouding your view on the facts. We are in agreement.

          14. empath007 says:

            his second paragraph where he describes us in our state of agony is telling indeed.

            Go on and read it. He says what we do is “idiocy”.

            That’s his perspective.

            Whick ok fine… it’s not like my perspective of the opposite behaviour is any more flattering.

            He’s perfectly entilted to his opinion.

            But not of us are idiots
            For having feelings.

            I’ll tell you what an idiot is… a narcissist who is presented with FACTS about their behaviours and actions…. and then would vehemently deny they are a narcissist. HG does not fall into that category…. therefore he is intellegent enough to understand what he does. Many of his brethren are not.

            Can anyone tell I’m slightly heated by this topic? Lol.

            I needed to take a seat about 30 posts ago 🤣

            Hope you’re having a good day MB!

          15. HG Tudor says:

            You are still missing the point.

            FYC and 03 have (as I have) explained to you how you are wrong with regard to the issue of an objective standard of right and wrong. By failing to understand this, you will struggle to master understanding of this topic and apply it.

          16. MB says:

            Empath007, I can certainly tell you are heated about this! There’s nothing wrong with passion about your convictions. I admire that. As for me, acknowledging a different perspective isn’t about giving anybody an excuse or a free pass to do anything. Pornography, murder, and the other examples you provided should absolutely be punished. I hope you don’t feel that I’m one that’s attacking you. I can see your perspective just as I can see HGs. It’s not about anybody getting away with committing heinous acts. It’s about accepting that what might be “wrong” for one person is “right” for another. It really is that simple. And, as ever, if one chooses the behavior, one chooses the consequences imposed by the majority view. As with most things in life, it isn’t a hill I’m going to die on. I can see both perspectives and I understand the emotion you feel regarding yours.

          17. empath007 says:

            Thanks MB. No I do not feel like you are attacking me. I’m just you know… repeating mistakes I did with my narcissist by never dropping a subject and providing challenge fuel 🤣

            Old habits die hard.

            But I see it as getting some of my strength back… so that’s pretry alright.

          18. MB says:

            Empath007, you’ve certainly been heard. The best way is to state it once and move forward for your own sanity. You’ll get yourself in a dither and tied up in knots and still never get a Narc to agree with your perspective. In fact, it’s counterproductive to your aims as they will keep extracting your fuel.* Easier said than done when you have strong feelings about a subject, I know.

            *I’m not saying this is what HG is doing. Just imparting some sound advice I’ve received from a reliable source. 😉

          19. HG Tudor says:

            Correct MB, but it is worth pointing out (again) that what is happening here is that the logic is that there is no objective standard of right and wrong. E007´s emotional thinking is failing to enable her to understand this. The point about there being no objective standard of right and wrong is NOT a matter of perspective. What IS right and wrong IS a matter of perspective, because this is an intra subjective matter, that is the whole point of what I have been stating.

          20. MB says:

            Absolutely, HG. We’ve discussed this many times on the blog. I found it fascinating the first time you explained it to us. It was not something I had considered prior to that discussion. Your logic is always sound.

            E007 may grasp the concept, but reject it, especially if this is the first time she’s participated with regard to this subject. Emotion is high with this matter as stated.

          21. HG Tudor says:

            Indeed.

          22. K says:

            HG
            In my world drug trafficking, bookies and prostitution are legitimate means of employment; that was part of my childhood environment.

          23. HG Tudor says:

            I knew that I knew you from somewhere. Hello again!

          24. K says:

            HG
            Ha ha ha…yes, it was The Combat Zone (that’s where all the XXX flicks, druggies and prostitutes were). The good ol’ days.

          25. empath007 says:

            I know…. I know… when I have time later today I will re read some comments and reflect.

          26. empath007 says:

            I’m not really trying to get him to agree with me. Just be a voice for empaths especially regarding the whole “idiot”
            Claim.

            I’ve seen people blather on about a variety of topics on this site… so today is my turn I guess haha.

            You are correct otherwise though. In my real life its something I’ve truly worked on a lot.

            And no Hg does not get fuel from me. I’m quite certian he doesn’t care at all about what I say… which is fine. But I care about what I have to say… therefore I will say it.

          27. HG Tudor says:

            I care about inaccuracy. Hence I have corrected you.

          28. empath007 says:

            Fair enough.

          29. empath007 says:

            I have read the thread again.

            I did some extended research also.

            I feel as though I can grasp the concept intellectually… but not emotionally quite yet.

            So perhaps one step forward from yesterday.

            To all the readers. I really appreciate your comments and support. And offering your perspectives in a supportive manner.

          30. MB says:

            Empath007, this has been an interesting discussion. Yes, we blather on about all kinds of things on the blog. Even beauty routines! (Which have been apt of late.) The only forbidden topics are cooking related and we’ve even stretched that at times and risked the dungeon. You *almost* always have a voice here! HG is most generous to give us a voice and this place of education. The myriad of personalities and topics here keep it an engaging medium.

          31. NarcAngel says:

            Consequences of the majority view are the words that stood out to me in MB’s comment and sum it up for me. It is the majority view that determines right and wrong with regard to law and legal matters, but it can work both ways. If you are not among the majority or share their view, you still have your own idea of what is right and wrong, so as HG has pointed out – there is no grand arbiter, just a collective decision enforced by the majority view.

            Laws and punishment were once enforced causing sustained oppression in the areas of:
            Slavery
            Gay rights and marriage
            Women voting
            To name only a few.

            They may have been upheld by law due to the majority view at the time, but it does not stop me from viewing the majority view at that time as idiocy.

          32. HG Tudor says:

            Absolutely accurate. Laws are founded on a moral majority. Where does this moral majority come from? The intra subjective majority collective perspective. Why do Laws and moral outlooks Change (as you’ve identified some examples) because they are not objectively fixed, they change because the intra subjective perspective alters. If my kind were the majority, we would not be labelled disordered , for example.

          33. empath007 says:

            This exchange between yourself and NA was helpful.

          34. HG Tudor says:

            You’re welcome

          35. MB says:

            I always enjoy your posts, NA. This has been a good exchange.

          36. K says:

            empath007
            Fact: HG never stated that we are idiots.

            Fact: You are not being attacked; your ET is, incorrectly, leading to perceive that you are being attacked.

            Take a step back, remove your emotion and look at it objectively. This is about his world view not the empath’s selfish point of view.

          37. HG Tudor says:

            Logic.

          38. empath007 says:

            He regarded our coping mechanisms as idiocy and that they put us in a position of weakness. That’s also a fact.

          39. K says:

            empath007
            Some of my IRL empaths are blinded by their emotions and they can’t or don’t want to change. They repeatedly put themselves and their children in danger and that is idiocy and they are idiots.

            Before I came to narcsite, I thought all my narcissists were idiots. They are not idiots at all; they are narcissists and they have to use their self-defence mechanism to cope and it’s not their fault.

          40. empath007 says:

            I agree I’m not being attacked. But certainly misunderstood.

          41. NarcAngel says:

            Code3
            Great explanation and insight.

          42. empath007 says:

            Narcissits are obsessed with the idea of power.

            Empaths are
            Not.

            Therefore narcissist find a way to try and assert as much power over people as they possibly can.

            The empath does
            Not view power and control as that important. Or at least not to a level a narc would. Therefore we don’t behave in ways a narc would to gain it.

            That does not make us weak. That does not make us stupid. It means our priorities are different. It does not mean we can not obtain the same level of success as narcissits if we want too.

            Oprah: extremly powerful empath.

            Ed Sheehan: very famous empath.

            Keanu Reeves: influential person. Not a narc.

            Empaths are capable of achieving success regardless of the fact that we have feelings…. we just simply do not care about it as much about power… we direct our efforts to other things in our lives.

            It is a mistake to underestimate an empaths ability to also be intellegent. Not only that but we are incredibly instinctive people.

            That’s how I see it. I see us as succesful by our own standard of we define success.

          43. HG Tudor says:

            Incorrect. The obsession is with control and fuel.

            Your obsession lies with always trying to maintain that empaths are not weak rather than actually understanding what empaths weaknesses are. That is a subtle and crucial distinction.

          44. Joy&Love says:

            This conversation is so important because it underscores the need for focus if victory is to be achieved. Why are we on this blog? Presumably to understand the mind of the “oppressor” so that we can beat him/her at his/ her game and in so doing free ourselves our children our loved ones from that soul sucking grip and avoid re- victimisation. This is a battle that many have repeatedly lost. Others, while not winning in the pyrrhic sense have been left with almost nothing and are still trying to recover from the engagement.

            Now into this picture walks HG, a narcissist of the class of the “oppressor”, who has found himself in a position where it suits him to give us all the insider secrets we need to achieve our goal. Is this a good thing? For us, yes-I feel like I won the lottery! Are the revelations painful? Yes they are. Should we then rail at the HG because he’s sharing these hitherto unknown secrets albeit for personal reasons? No. Do we project the face of our personal abuser on him? Some do. However its important to be aware that while it may feel good, it is not logical, and it prevents us from getting what we need. So when emotion rises, be it good or bad based on the world view, let us go back to our reason for being here and focus on that. Victory then can be ours.

            Of course if your reason is different from that of the majority then this doesn’t apply. Peace & Love.

          45. HG Tudor says:

            Bravo. I may use this on my about section!

          46. Joy&Love says:

            Thank you HG. As a recovering N-addict, if my sentiments help someone, I’m all for it.

          47. WiserNow says:

            Joy&Love,

            Yes, yes and yes to (almost) everything you have said.

            The only ‘no’ would be that some of us are not ‘railing’ specifically at HG. We are voicing *our* perspectives in the same way that HG is voicing his. This leads to what looks like a debate or argument or criticism of HG. It is actually more constructive and educational than that, in my view.

            While it looks like ‘railing’, I believe it is more like ‘discussing’, and it’s done in an intelligent, articulate and respectful way (in the majority). It leads to greater awareness and understanding and a broadening of everyone’s personal views and insights. That is a positive thing 🙂

          48. Joy&Love says:

            Hi Wiser Now. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. I don’t believe that all who disagree with HG “rail” against him. I don’t think that’s what I said. However some do. I don’t agree with his world view but accept it as his reality and by extension mine when engaging with narcissists. Truth be told, I find him quite scary despite his immense charm -no offense HG- and would want to stay as far away as possible based on what he reveals. So I enjoy conversations, and different POVs but based on fact and logic. As for feelings and opinions, let’s have them too, but recognize and accept them as such.

          49. HG Tudor says:

            None taken. That’s a sensible attitude to have.

          50. NarcAngel says:

            “So I enjoy conversations, and different POVs but based on fact and logic. As for feelings and opinions, let’s have them too, but recognize and accept them as such.”

            I can’t “like” this comment enough. In fact I can’t like any comments due to an issue outside of my control. But I would if I could.

          51. WiserNow says:

            Joy&Love
            You’re welcome and thank you also.

            I find your comment interesting in that you say, “I enjoy conversations, and different POVs but based on fact and logic. As for feelings and opinions, let’s have them too, but recognize and accept them as such.”

            To me, it sounds like you’re saying some ‘points of view’ can be based on fact and logic, while some cannot. It just so happens that you are in agreement with HG’s ‘point of view’ and thus, you regard it as ‘fact and logic’. While the ‘points of view’ of those you don’t happen to agree with are cast aside as being based on ‘feelings and opinions’ and therefore not as valid.

            They are *all* points of view, so how can some be irrefutably factual or logical while some are irrefutably emotional. To me, that is black and white thinking. A perspective is not ‘factual’, no matter whose perspective it is. Why should one set of ‘perspectives’ be recognised and accepted as factual and logical and another recognised as feelings and opinions. They are all perspectives and none can be ‘proven’ to be factual.

            Also, your earlier comment talked about ‘winning’ and ‘victory’ and described narcissists as ‘the oppressor’. I understand where you’re coming from, because narcissists can indeed be tyrannical and oppressive, however, I found it interesting.

            If someone has recently escaped or ended their ‘ensnarement’ with a narcissist, their thought processes will be very different to someone who has been free of a narcissistic relationship for a longer time and has had time to consider this subject with more distance, so that can also shape your overall perspective. I’m not sure what your particular situation is, so it’s all relative.

            The way I see it is that an empath’s instinctive reactions can change so that they become aware and can resist their emotional thinking. By doing that, they can see or realise when they are at risk of narcissistic abuse. I don’t see that as winning or victory. To me, it’s a case of gaining awareness or understanding. To call it ‘victory’ is again, black and white thinking.

            An empath is no ‘better’ than a narcissist and likewise, a narcissist is no ‘better’ than an empath. They exist on the same spectrum, only they are at opposite ends. There is no victory or defeat for either one to oppress or control the other. Mutual benefits would arise if they ‘both’ learned to understand their own instincts and also understand the other.

            Anyway, I’m not arguing with you. I would just like to express my ‘point of view’ and I welcome the ability to do so with you on this site.

          52. NarcAngel says:

            Joy&Love

            Excellent comment getting to the core and using the logic that will see you (and many others if they apply it) to success.

          53. Joy&Love says:

            Thank you NA. It’s succeeding already. I have my joy back, lol.

          54. lisk says:

            Oh no no no no no no.

            Oprah is an Absolute Narc!!!

            (Not sure if I’m responding in the right subthread—-on my phone here.)

          55. WAF Tudorita says:

            “It is my belief there is right and wrong“

            And that’s how you know you’re missing the truth. If you have to “believe” in it

          56. HG Tudor says:

            Well stated.

        4. K says:

          empath007
          It’s not idiotic from their POV. It makes perfect sense to narcissists because of the different perspectives. They do NOT have a choice and it’s not their fault so, rather than fight it, put your energy into making an effort to understand it.

          1. empath007 says:

            I don’t know that just because I disagree means I don’t understand. But I get your point. Thanks k

          2. Joy&Love says:

            Fully agree K. To do otherwise is counter productive since the point is to learn their unique perspective so that we can better equip ourselves to avoid victimisation. That’s part of the goal stated for the blog and to me that’s priceless. People’s perspectives are always their own. No point in name calling when the purpose of the blog is to impart understanding.

          3. K says:

            Thank you Joy&Love,
            You’ve got it! It’s imperative that we set aside our perspective and learn what we are truly dealing with so we can protect ourselves and evade future entanglements.

            The blog is priceless specifically because HG imparts HIS perspective so we can understand the narcissist’s world view and we all need to set aside our emotions in order to learn in a constructive manner so we can move forward.

            The blog truly is an amazing place.

          4. empath007 says:

            Also. I’m saying having feelings And crying does not make us idiotic from my point of view. Maybe HG should try understanding that instead of calling us idiots who curl up in the fetal position asking why why why?

            We are not idiots because we feel. Why is no one getting that ?? If you think yourself an idiot for having feelings then I guess you agree with HG. And consider yourself weak and pathetic. Soley based on the fact you have emotion.

            I’m standing up for us! Can no one see that?

          5. HG Tudor says:

            E007, you keep missing the point of what has been explained to you.

          6. K says:

            You are welcome empath007,
            I understand your where you are coming from, however, it is incorrect to state that HG called you an idiot because it is untrue.

          7. lisk says:

            empath007

            When HG sees this:

            You get hurt, upset, terrified, miserable. You get sucked in and turned over by our kind. You shed tears, you worry, you are confused, you are curled up in a ball sobbing wondering why, why, why?

            I do not regard as sacrificing my own well-being for the sake of others as good, I regard it as idiocy.

            HG feels this:

            Contempt for the minion who cannot control him/herself or his/her environment. Disdain for the person who has put him/herself in a vulnerable position that has resulted in pain and loss. A lack of respect for the victim who keeps allowing the same painful thing to happen to him/herself over and over again.

            He feels those natural Narc thoughts because he has contempt for his very young and very vulnerable self, the one who, for a time, could not fight back and control himself or his environment. He hates the self that let himself down by being too weak. Deep down he knows that pain that makes people curl up into a ball and he refuses to ever feel it again. He cannot accept that people invite this pain willingly as adults, because at a very young age he had to involuntarily sacrifice not only his own mental well-being, but also his identity, for the sake of another narc.

            To him, anyone who would do/not do what his young, vulnerable (and at this point, non-existent) self did/did not do in abusive situations is someone who engages in idiocy.

            Through various tactics/strategies (and that genetic predisposition thing), HG got himself out of that situation and will NEVER let himself engage in that idiocy again.

            In essence, when he talks of idiocy he is projecting his vulnerable, out-of-control, and lost self onto us.

            To his credit, he is giving us the resources to help ourselves out of our painful situations, to help us refrain from sacrificing for the sake of others, and to help keep us from allowing ourselves to be hurt YET AGAIN.

          8. Joy&Love says:

            Thanks for that explanation Lisk. I’m still learning about Ns and this is something that increases understanding and is relatable. HG would you agree with this assessment?

          9. lisk says:

            empath007,

            If someone says to me, “Wow, that’s a smart decision you made there!” I’m going to believe that person thinks I’m a smart person.

            If some says to me, “What you did was idiotic.” I’m going to believe that person thinks I’m an idiot.

            This is actually a very human response. Sometimes psychobabble and intellectuallizing helps us reorient this response, but for the most part, humans respond this way.

            And to be real here. how many of us correct ourselves and say, “Wait a minute, Self. That person said your *behavior* was smart NOT that *you* are smart!”

            The same goes for the person holding their very subjective opinion. They see a behavior—they judge the person. And we are all judging others all the time by their behaviors.

            So, essentially, HG does see empaths as idiots when he judges their behavior as idiocy.

            And in the original statement above, he does it with much disdain, i.e., with much emotion. It is no wonder you are responding to his contempt with equal emotion.

            As with any narc, though, we are seeing how emotionally responding to a narc gets us frustrated and not always in a better place in the end.

          10. Joy&Love says:

            I would disagree with you on that Lisk. If someone were to tell me I acted stupidly, I would be stung by the brutality of the words, and probably retaliate verbally. However, my reasoning would not lead me to feel I am an idiot or that the individual is saying that I am.

            Also, there are times I berate myself for making a stupid decision. I never think I’m an idiot, however in the context that existed I acted stupidly, like when I ignored red flags and got ensnared. I however forgive myself and move on. When I make a wise decision, I similarly applaud myself for doing so. I do not give myself permanent labels for things that are transitory, and self-awareness helps. It is possible that I’m not the majority, but I would hope that is not the case.

          11. empath007 says:

            Lisk I have to thank you for this comment. This is exactly how I felt.

            I very much appreciate you stepping in.

      3. FYC says:

        I may regret entering this conversation, but I do so for the sake of accuracy and to empower those will a world view of good versus evil. [Caveat: I am an empath and love kindness and empathy. I also pursue knowledge and respect science. These color my world views.]

        HG is empirically correct. “Good” is a word created by humans to define a positive value or pleasurable affect regarding a subject. Evil is the same, but reflects profound malevolence. We use words to capture our experience and our feelings about an experience and to communicate the same. What Jaya and E007 define as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is based upon their experience, feelings and their thoughts (processing) of both. The same is true for HG. The critical difference lies in the values of non-NPD versus NPD/APD individuals.

        To better understand (that is to say, empathize) with HG’s experience and views, one must consider how he arrived at his POV. NPD/APD is a *total* defense mechanism adopted for literal survival at a very early age. It is not an intellectual choice made at an adult age. It is not situational. NPD/APD individuals are living out internalized responses to early abuse by utilizing a defense mechanism. In their world, ‘good’ was punished as weakness and ‘evil’ was lauded (or demonstrated) as powerful. The entire point of NPD/APD as a defense mechanism is to attain power and maintain control. To control is to cope. I think we as empaths miss the importance and completeness of this adopted mechanism for survival.

        I am not saying there is not cruelty. I am not saying there are not crimes. I am not saying those who are highly defended do not seek to cause pain in order to feel powerful or to control. Abuse of any kind is not okay and not healthy. Psychologists define “health” as the least defended psychological state. What they fail to point out is, the non-defended person is, by definition, vulnerable to others. Others include unscrupulous people and NPD/APD people who seek to take advantage or impose control. Not a good combo. Therein lies the reason why we need our own defenses; including knowledge, insight, logic, opting out and taking action.

        Sacrificing yourself for another is subjecting yourself to abuse when the other person is a NPD/APD individual. So choose healthy instead. Know your values and defend them with strong boundaries. When faced with abuse or lies and reject them. Protect yourself and Get Out and Stay Out. Classifying someone as ‘evil’ or ‘bad’ actually reinforces their delusion of power. FTSSH. Blow-up the concept that keeps you tied to disempowerment. Criminals? Sure. Jerks? Yes. Evil, smhevil. See things as they are and act accordingly. You choose. You have the power. Seize it!

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Sensible.

          1. Beth says:

            Hi all
            I’d like to say that I think we ‘empths’ are idiots from the perspective of N’s because that’s part of the overall contempt they have for our kind.. the more we grasp that the greater the chance of seeing things for what they are and not what we may like them to be, which is surely what we are doing here, and why this blog exists at all
            Mine actually used to call me dummy in an affectionate voice thus creating confusion.. he sounds like he loves me but actually he’s being condescending and insulting ..
            the sooner we grasp we are viewed with distain and as grossly inferior the sooner we might pack up our feelings and jog on ..
            ♥️To fellow empths
            Regards to HG for the insight and the platform as always.

          2. K says:

            Beth
            Absolutely correct.

        2. empath007 says:

          Thank you FYC. I think people don’t actually understand my position that well…. as perhaps I am not stating it well.

          In any case. I’m sort of tired of trying to defend it here.

          Thanks to you and others for your input.

          Like I said to HG I will take it all into consideration… but change does not happen over night.

          1. FYC says:

            Fair enough, E007.

          2. njfilly says:

            I appreciate everything you had to say and your passion in defending your position.

            It was an interesting debate. I enjoyed reading it all. I do see the points on both sides.

          3. Almostnormal says:

            ☺ Hey. I have this point of View about all of this:Narcd and the so calles empaths are just the dame kind of people. Both of them have issues about control and the searching for acceptance and ‘love’ from others. It’s like for example narcs don’t care about people yet they are extremly nice to people, emphats care a lot about people, but they are distance and cold to them. So obvioulsly they attract each other so they can learn, cause life is about lessons. Narcs help emphats to think about them fight for themselves and learn to think about themselves and emphats also teach narcs to think more about the impact they have in others. Of they learn the les son they stop atractting each other and become a ‘normal’ persom with both of the behaiviors a little narcissits and a little emphatm acording to the situation. If they don’t learn they are doom to attract and be attracted to narcs or emphats until you are death and have to start all over again. So yo you Emphat 7 I have to say that It will be nice If you start being less sensitivo and more objective and stop deffending anything from HG Tudor cause he is going to figth till death and he don’t care about the lost of energy and wear (or Does he… Mmm) anyway it’s about time for you to grow and graduarte from this kind of life les son :). There is not such a thing of good or bad, only gray everybody is gray! Not enterily black or white. Hugs for you! (I am from Ecuador so My english is not that good sorry)

          4. empath007 says:

            Well if a narc can view people as black and white… then I can view a subject as black and white haha.

            Thank you almost normal 🙂 hugs to you too.

          5. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Empath007, I understand your reaction, I would have reacted the same way because I’m over-emotional too (duh!) and I agree with you on the fact that we are not idiots for being empathic and having emotional reactions. We in this blog are certainly not idiots either, because we were smart enough to notice red flags, do a search, and then study and analyze the enemy’s point of view to combat our weaknesses and learn their methods so that we are prepared to fight. I agree with HG, however, that, after knowing what our weak point is (ET) with regards to the narcissist, going back to the same behavior is idiocy. When you don’t know, you act by repetition and intuition, in the same way narcs also repeat the same cycle in all their relations. But when you know, you try to alter the mechanism that did not work, despite of what you feel. Listening to your ET in a situation that you know will only cause problems is idiotic. Listening to your ET in dealing with normal people that will not abuse you because you have good emotions makes you a wonderful Empath whose pure and generous feelings stand out from the rest. which is what we are. We are not idiots; we are just prompt to acting idiotically when interacting with narcs, but that’s not gonna happen to these Empaths here anymore because now we know that not everyone deserves our compassion. But I will always be an Empath, and I’m not gonna stop have emotional thinking. That would make me a narc.

          6. HG Tudor says:

            You understand the distinction

          7. WiserNow says:

            Empath007,

            This is a very thought-provoking discussion that you have had with HG and other commenters and I’m a bit late to the party, but I’d just like to say that I agree with you and I think I know what you mean.

            That doesn’t mean that I disagree with HG. I understand what he is saying about ‘intra-subjective perspectives’ as well. I understand that there is no grand arbiter that decides on what is right or wrong or good or bad. I get the intellectual argument and the importance of logic. It makes sense that HG has his point of view and that empaths have theirs, and neither point of view is inherently ‘wrong’. Neither narcissists or empaths are inherently to blame and neither can be described as ‘idiots’ because they are what they are. Both exist and both evolved as human ways of ‘coping’ or ‘living’.

            I would like to bring a wider-based argument into this mix. If we stand back and look at ‘society’ as an ‘umbrella’ under which both narcissists and empaths stand and under which both are free to behave as is their want, what kind of umbrella is conducive to ‘both’ of these human characters being able to continue living as they both wish?

            To illustrate my point with a ‘real-world’ example, consider the current situation between Hong Kong and China with regard to the protests in Hong Kong. We could argue that the protesters in general are collectively protesting for their human rights to be upheld, because they do not wish to live according to a totalitarian (i.e. narcissist) dictatorship. We could also argue that there is nothing inherently ‘wrong’ with China’s politics because to describe them as ‘wrong’ is an ‘intra-subjective’ perspective.

            I would just like to ask who here – including both narcissists and non-narcissists – would ‘like’ or ‘want’ or ‘welcome’ their human rights being subject to a totalitarian government?

            There is a point at which ‘logic’ alone does not equate to a valid argument. We are all lucky here that we actually have the freedom to discuss ‘intra-subjective’ perspectives at all because the freedom we have to do so is provided by the ‘umbrella’ of the ‘moral majority’ perspective being that empathy and conscience is a social ‘good’.

            So, while HG’s (intellectual) argument *is* valid that there is no ‘objective’ decision maker that ultimately decides what is good or bad, or right or wrong, in the greater scheme of things, our own survival and what benefits our progress as humans *is* (or can be) very dependent (in a very practical or logical sense) on what is deemed to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

          8. HG Tudor says:

            “That doesn’t mean that I disagree with HG. I understand what he is saying about ‘intra-subjective perspectives’ as well. I understand that there is no grand arbiter that decides on what is right or wrong or good or bad. I get the intellectual argument and the importance of logic. It makes sense that HG has his point of view and that empaths have theirs, and neither point of view is inherently ‘wrong’. ”

            You do not disagree with mean. You entirely agree with me as this is what I have repeatedly stated.

            I note you have expanded the scope of the argument with this question

            “I would like to bring a wider-based argument into this mix. If we stand back and look at ‘society’ as an ‘umbrella’ under which both narcissists and empaths stand and under which both are free to behave as is their want, what kind of umbrella is conducive to ‘both’ of these human characters being able to continue living as they both wish?”

            What you go on to state thereafter falls (understandably owing to your perspective) because you have not adhered to this “to continue living as they both WISH” (my emphasis). The wishes differ, they will not equate to the same outcome.

          9. WiserNow says:

            HG,

            Before I say anything more, I already know that you will not concede agreement with an opinion that differs from yours because that would constitute a ‘transference of power’ which you are loathe to do. So, I’m not even going to try to ‘convince’ you. I am merely stating my point of view.

            What I meant by a ‘wider-based argument’ is that individuals live in a society and that society has an overall cultural ‘flavour’. For instance, in China, the society operates under a totalitarian political regime that restricts freedom of speech and punishes open opposition to the reigning political party. You could say that kind of society is ruled by a ‘moral majority’ that has adopted the overall rule of narcissistic behaviour (whether the individuals have adopted the overall rule willingly or unwillingly).

            On the other hand, in Western countries, people live in societies that have an overall democratic cultural flavour, where the ‘moral majority’ has adopted the rule of empathic values (i.e. freedom of speech, opposing political parties, voting rights, etc).

            This is not a ‘black and white’ argument. I realise that each society has elements that are ‘grey’.

            What I’m saying is that an overall ’empathic’ culture as a social backdrop ‘enables’ both narcissists and empaths to live according to their particular individual instinctual behaviours. Even though you are a narcissist, you have the freedom to create a blog on the internet and say what you want to say in order to be who and what you want to be and to live in the way you choose to. In China, for example, you wouldn’t have the same freedoms because the internet is not as permissive and your behaviours would be more closely monitored.

            So, as a ‘backdrop’, a society is *objectively* ‘better’ for *everyone* if it is based on a ‘moral majority’ that leans towards empathic beliefs and values.

            Again, you don’t have to agree and I’m not expecting you to. This is how I perceive the ‘moral majority’ and ‘intra-subjective’ stance that has been discussed in this thread.

          10. HG Tudor says:

            In China, I would be the one doing the controlling, hence your scenario would not concern me. Thus, the suggestion that society is objectively better for everyone is incorrect. The question of “better” is intra-subjective.

          11. WiserNow says:

            HG,
            Oh, so if you lived in China, you would do the controlling?

            Does that mean you would ultimately try to topple the existing dictator and take his place? Good luck with that.

          12. HG Tudor says:

            It’s called allying.

          13. WiserNow says:

            HG,
            You have a loose definition of ‘controlling’ if what you’re actually doing is ‘allying’. That is not strictly ‘control’. More like ‘joining forces’ if done openly, or ‘collusion’ if done secretly.

          14. HG Tudor says:

            If I cause them to ally with what I want, I have achieved control.

          15. mommypino says:

            But then HG you would have to be lucky enough to be born in the right family for them to be your ally. If not you will just be one of their minions and it would be very close to impossible for you to rise and overcome that social status. So many talented, shrewd and narcissistic Chinese have fled China to migrate to neighboring Asian countries because of that. They do not have any opportunities there but in the countries that they moved to they have become the wealthiest and most powerful people.

          16. HG Tudor says:

            The “born in the right circumstances” cuts no ice with me, whatsoever. Think about it.

          17. mommypino says:

            Why HG? It is a reality. Even Mao Tse-tung was born into a wealthy family. If you are born impoverished, you can dedicate your life to accumulating wealth from scratch but you have minimal influence until you finally have something to leverage. I have read and heard about the stories of the wealthiest business tycoons in my home country and neighboring Asian countries and most of them are Chinese who escaped China because their tyrannical political structure and their economic system did not allow them to rise as much as the more democratic and capitalistic countries have allowed them to.

          18. HG Tudor says:

            You’ve failed to grasp what I was referring to.

          19. mommypino says:

            Were you referring to your narcissistic trait?

          20. HG Tudor says:

            No.

          21. WAF Tudorita says:

            Hg are you saying you are already royalty

            Sorry if I missed something I’m kinda tired lately and many threads have my interest right now – trying to keep up

            Also in another thread we are discussing “Miller” and his mother can someone give me the full name so I can research , I’ve missed who we’re discussing

          22. mommypino says:

            WAF T, is it Alice Miller?

            HG were you referring to you having internal LOC?

          23. HG Tudor says:

            No

          24. mommypino says:

            I give up! I can’t figure it out. 🤪

          25. HG Tudor says:

            What was I born with and into? How did that impact on me? How did I deal with that?

            That is why referring to essentially being born “lucky” cuts no ice with me.

          26. mommypino says:

            Thank you HG! That is very true.

          27. mommypino says:

            HG is it because your paramount need is fuel and control and you don’t have to be at the top to be able to achieve this. All that you need as a narcissist is to be able to affect things to have an outcome that you want and if you can achieve that as a minion, a lieutenant, a spy or a king, you have still achieved it?

          28. empath007 says:

            Thank you wiser now. I found that comment helpful.

          29. WiserNow says:

            You’re welcome empath007.
            On the whole, I agree with what you’re saying. I understand the perspective that HG is explaining about right and wrong etc, however, I don’t agree that there is no ‘objective’ way to decide what is ultimately right or wrong or good or bad. That’s my view and I don’t expect HG to agree with me.

            I also agree with you that being an emotional empath is not outrightly an attitude that should be or needs to be changed. Empaths need to change it because narcissists don’t have the capacity to genuinely reciprocate in a relationship and so we need to change our instinctual reactions to protect ourselves.

            To me, the incapacity of narcissists to change is actually a weakness. Also, their so-called ‘power’ is based on lies, manipulation and ‘pretending’ to be pro-social. If they had ‘real’ and ‘objective’ power, they would be able to lead others openly and equitably without resorting to denials, deflection, blame-shifting, gaslighting, fake golden periods, entrapment, isolation tactics, and devaluation. To me, that is not real power or control. To me, that is trickery and opportunism, and it is does not represent openly laudable power. That’s my opinion.

            Yes HG, I know that is my ‘intra-subjective’ perspective, but it’s also the reason why you can’t openly acknowledge your real inner thoughts and feelings. If you did openly state your real thoughts and feelings, you would no longer have power. Do narcissists have ‘real’ and ‘objective’ power then? I would say no, they don’t.

          30. HG Tudor says:

            WiserNow, identify for me how the notion of good and evil has an objective basis. You are entitled to your view, but it is ill-founded. Nothing you have stated demonstrates the existence of an objective basis for good or evil. What you regard as good is founded on a construct arising from intra-subjective reality. I will not agree with your view because it is inaccurate.

            Being an emotional empath is not an attitude. It is what an individual is. Nowhere have I advocated that an empath must change what they are, why I have I not done so? It is because you cannot change being an empath. You need to arm yourself with the correct knowledge and reduce your emotional thinking to apply that knowledge, if you do not, you become ensnared in a variety of ways by our kind. You do not need to change because of our incapacity to reciprocate genuinely in a relationship.

            There is no objective standard of power either, thus it is another flawed argument, yes it is an opinion, but an ill-founded one.

            Nobody has objective power, there is no such thing. Just like there is no such thing as an objective standard of good or evil, right or wrong.

            The empaths obsession with the concept of being good and right and failing to understand it is purely their perspective is part of what makes you vulnerable.

          31. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Objection! I call for an amendment: [Some] empaths’ obsession with the concepts of right and good versus evil. I’m not claiming to be better than anyone or live above those ideas, I simply don’t care much about those abstract concepts. I don’t want to engage in a moral discussion, I just believe rarely anything is completely objective, even time is relative. If someone calls me idiotic or moronic for example, I place the accusation in its place of importance relative to the effect that person has over me or my life. If that person has little presence in my life, I shake it off and move on.

          32. MB says:

            Shake It Off, SP! Taylor Swift style!

          33. WiserNow says:

            HG,
            Correction 1: I didn’t say ‘evil’. I used the words: good, bad, right and wrong.

            Correction 2: I don’t have an ‘obsession’ as you call it. My comments acknowledged both your ‘intra-subjective perspective’ (or opinion) and mine equally. I said I understood yours and that I even agreed with it to a point.

            Correction 3: Objective power does exist. Presidents are voted into objective power. Royal family members have objective power by means of their birth. Court judges have objective power in legal cases. Leaders of organisations have objective power by reason of their hierarchical position and title. This ‘objective’ power is granted and resides in the position rather than the person. It may not be enduring power or all-encompassing power, but generally, it *is* objective.

            You want me to identify one example of good and bad having an ‘objective’ basis?

            Ok, here’s one: Traffic lights on busy roads.
            Traffic lights are an objective road rule that all drivers are subject to. It is deemed ‘good’ to have traffic lights because they allow traffic to flow harmoniously and give all drivers the ability to drive safely in their chosen direction.

            There could equally be no traffic lights at all which is another ‘objective’ situation. Without traffic lights, driving would be ‘bad’ because all drivers would find it difficult to safely drive in their chosen direction.

            I will acknowledge that being an empath is not an ‘attitude’. It is an overall character trait or personality type.

          34. HG Tudor says:

            1. Evil was used as an example of an inapplicable objective standard, just like good, bad, right or wrong.

            2. My perspective deems it an obsession. You disagree. That is your perspective.

            3. No, those individuals gain power as a consequence of an intra-subjective reality that allows the granting of power. It is not objectively granted. All of your examples are predicated on constructs which are created by human beings, not as a consequence of an objective standard. The president only governs because the people accept an entitlement to do so based on the concept of democracy. There is no objective basis.

            4. Rules are imposed through the intra subjective reality once again. A majority of individuals deem that the use of and obeying traffic lights is “good” it is not an objective standard, it relies on the majority utilising the intra subjective reality. If I choose to ignore the traffic lights, such behaviour is labelled as “bad”. By whom? An objective standard – no. By the majority who are imposing their intra-subjective reality on me, I do not share it, because driving as I please is my entitlement through my intra subjective reality. Of course, that will lead to an issue for me because I run the risk of the police seeing me run a red light and then impose the legal systems upon me. That legal system does not exist objectively. It comes from laws passed by a legislature. is that legislature objective? No, it is a human system whereby the majority intra subjective view is imposed.

            I have made the point repeatedly and clearly that there is no objective standard with regard to deeming behaviour good, bad, evil, correct, wrong, acceptable and similar descriptions. That is the end of the matter.

          35. WiserNow says:

            HG,
            “That is the end of the matter”. Really? That sounds like something my father would have said when I was a child.

            Or something a kid would say when he didn’t want to play with the other kids anymore, like: “It’s my ball and you’re not playing!”

            We could go on and on with this topic. I wonder why the word ‘objective’ even exists at all then if there is no human construct, system or opinion that can be described as objective.

          36. HG Tudor says:

            I have drawn a line under it, because I have explained repeatedly the position and you do not accept it. Therefore, there is no point in me trying to get you to understand and I have limited time as it is, even less to continue to provide the same explanation to you.

            Your attempt to compare my sensible cessation of the discussion to that of a child is an ad hominem response and speaks for itself.

            You could go on and on with this topic. I am not doing so for reasons already explained, WN. There are other matters which require my attention. Feel free to continue to articulate your thoughts if you wish, but do not expect any response.

            Interestingly enough your final paragraph contains some accuracy – an opinion cannot be objective because it is just that, an opinion. Furthermore, a human construct is inherently intra subjective and therefore cannot be objective.

          37. WhoCares says:

            ​WiserNow,

            “Court judges have objective power in legal cases.”

            I just want to speak to just this point by providing an example.

            In Family Law here, it is presupposed that a child has a right to have contact with both parents (it is assumed that this in the child’s best interest) and that a parent has a right to have contact with his/her child – unless it is deemed to not be in the best interest of the child. It is generally accepted (intra subjective perspective) that a child is better for having contact with both parents but we know (here) what contact with a narcissist parent can do to a child.

            In my case, at one point, my ex was questioned at length by a judge. My ex answered in a way that confirmed that he believed that his life was being sabotaged by more than one source. His answers also supported my allegations against him. His answers also confirmed for the judge that he absolutely believed the story he was protraying. The judge outright declared that my ex had a “very bizarre belief system” but, almost in the same breath said that his desire to his child more was “a normal parental response.” So, on one hand the judge, in a roundabout way, declared my ex as “crazy” but then ruled in favor of him having increased time with his child. So, apparently, “crazy” isn’t against the *generally* accepted laws – along as that “craziness” doesn’t harm the child?

            Was this an objective or intra subjective response on the part of the judge?

            I’ll say this: I wouldn’t call that judge an idiot but I would say, in face the evidence, that his was an idiotic response.

            HG, I know you wanted the matter closed and if you don’t feel this adds to the discussion then don’t feel obligated to post it.

            I enjoyed the discussion between you and NA, but also, the perspective that laws are objective (as stated by some) has been grating on my nerves.

          38. HG Tudor says:

            I’ve allowed this comment as you express your observation based on your personal experience since it involved a narcissist, thank you for doing so.

          39. WhoCares says:

            Thank-you.
            And I should add a minor correction: “his desire to *see his child more was ‘a normal parental response'”

          40. WiserNow says:

            WhoCares,

            Firstly, just because I said that court judges have objective power in legal cases, doesn’t mean that I believe they make valid judgements.

            Also, your comment made me think of the grey areas in this whole discussion. I know that as an empathic person, you care about children and want to protect them and want what’s best for their wellbeing, so please don’t take this the wrong way.

            Since we have been debating at length here about nothing being objectively ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ and that nothing is objective because everything is based on perception, I would just like to ask one thing.

            If nothing can be said to be objectively good or bad, than how can an empathic mother be correct in knowing what is ‘good’ for her child? Her belief is an ‘intra-subjective perspective’ right? So, following HG’s argument all through this thread, her intra-subjective perspective is not objective, just like a court judge’s ‘intra-subjective perspective’ is not objective.

            Why do we deem one ‘good’ but the other as not being able to be described objectively as good or bad?

            I don’t expect you to answer that, and please don’t take it personally. I just find it interesting that many people have said that there is no objective basis to the words good and bad, but when it depends on something they feel strongly about, then they fail to see that their previous argument no longer applies.

            Maybe the judge in your case was following a law that was deemed to be a valid way to decide what a child’s best interests were and that law was made within a particular construct that didn’t take into account the personalities of each particular parent based on a mental diagnosis? I don’t know.

            I have heard of cases where family courts and social services have made decisions and acted in ways that seem obviously harmful to a child’s best interests so I understand you. I think it’s a very complex area and it’s difficult to have a legal ‘construct’ within that area that will properly lead to the most satisfactory outcomes for everyone.

          41. WhoCares says:

            WiserNow,

            Thank-you for your reply. First off; please know that I haven’t taken anything personally and I’m happy to have the opportunity to discuss this. Also, I know that by your making your statement on the objectivity and judges you weren’t saying that you believe they make valid decisions.

            “If nothing can be said to be objectively good or bad, than how can an empathic mother be correct in knowing what is ‘good’ for her child? Her belief is an ‘intra-subjective perspective’ right?”

            You are right. From the law’s perspective; until the courts or a judge have objective, concrete evidence, an empathic parent’s suggestion to the Court as to what is “good” for the child is just that: her suggestion, or ‘intra-subjective perspective.’ (I’m using “her” but it could just as easily a male empathic parent.)

            But the courts perspective (from the outset) that it is “good” – and even “healthy” – for a child to have contact with both parents is based on a general (societal) agreed upon perspective – until there is evidence to the contrary.

            We have learned from our own experiences with narcissists and the shared experiences here the damage that can be caused from having contact with a narcissist. Many of us have realized that we got romantically involved with a narcissist because we were already set up (victim tenderized) 

            by a familial narcissist in our past. We have become aware of the physical, sexual, emotional and financial dangers of engaging with a narcissist. Also, we know the cognitive damage that we are left with and our resulting susceptibility to future entanglements. I subscribed to the belief that it is in a child’s best interest to have two parents in his or her life (which contributed to the length I stayed entangled) – until I understood that one of the parents in my child’s life is an abuser. Then I had to rework that belief…and my further learning here blew that – generally accepted belief (by the majority) – out of the water. All of that realization is my evidence that I know, as an empathic mother, what is “good” for my child.  Sorry, that was a long-winded response to your question: “how can an empathic mother be correct in knowing what is ‘good’ for her child?” And I still struggle with whether or not a child should have two parents in his/her life – but I definitely *now* subscribe to the belief that it is to the child’s detriment to have a narcissist parent in his/her life. Is that an intra-subjective perspective or an objective perspective? It is based on evidence that can be verified by others, by my own personal experience with narcissists and I also believe there are scientific studies out there on the cognitive effects of narcissistic abuse.

            “Maybe the judge in your case was following a law that was deemed to be a valid way to decide what a child’s best interests were and that law was made within a particular construct that didn’t take into account the personalities of each particular parent based on a mental diagnosis?”

            I am not an expert on Family Law, but this is what I know for certain: Family Law isn’t based on mental health and there is the prevailing belief – or ‘hope’ – that abusers will get better or improve upon their behaviour. We are told here that narcissists cannot change. Yes, many still subscribe to the belief that it is difficult but that they can change. I am not on the fence with this one: I am in agreement that they cannot change and I certainly will not put my child’s health and well-being on the line waiting for my narcissist to “improve.” The psychological community also, (for the most part and at least in my personal experience) believes in the potential for a narcissist to change. Perhaps the courts have to uphold this belief of the “psychological experts” until given further evidence.

            “I have heard of cases where family courts and social services have made decisions and acted in ways that seem obviously harmful to a child’s best interests so I understand you.”

            I have heard and witnessed similar horror stories – and to say that it is disconcerting is an understatement.

          42. WiserNow says:

            WhoCares,
            I agree with what you have said. I do believe that there are objective reasons why something is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and I think that those objective reasons require more thought and analysis and empirical evidence than simply stamping them with the labels ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Trying to convince someone that something is ‘good’ without giving them a solid reason is not going to work, but that doesn’t mean that the ‘something’ cannot be described as objectively ‘good’.

            I think that ‘social constructs’ are not easy to create. If society was made up of humans that all had one kind of personality type, perhaps the social construct would be agreeable to everyone equally. As it is, the social construct needs to cater for many different kinds of personalities, and therefore it will not cater to everyone equally and needs to be constantly adjusted and changed in a neverending progressive way to keep improving the likelihood that greater numbers of humans will live in a satisfactory and harmonious way.

            The horror stories that come out of legal constructs or social constructs are sad and terrible for those involved. They cause suffering and loss and those experiences also create effects and consequences that can either ultimately improve or worsen the existing ‘construct’.

            I don’t know what the answers are WhoCares. This business of being human is not very straightforward at all.

          43. HG Tudor says:

            There are no objective reasons for why something is good or bad. There is no universal standard that you can point to and say “Look, because of this universal standard, what you have done is good.” The concepts of good and bad are human-made, they are constructs and therefore are governed by intra-subjectivity.

          44. WiserNow says:

            Ok HG, you are entitled to your ‘intra-subjective perspective’. Can we at least agree to disagree?

          45. HG Tudor says:

            We can agree you are incorrect.

          46. WiserNow says:

            Lol… HG, why am I even asking you – a narcissist – for an agreement?
            When will I ever learn?!

          47. HG Tudor says:

            The reason why I keep correcting you, is to help you learn. It is fundamental to grasp the point I am making because this is at the heart of understanding why our kind operate as we do. If you keep stating there is an objective standard of good and bad, right and wrong etc, this will mislead readers. This is why it must be addressed.

          48. WhoCares says:

            WiserNow,

            If a social construct “needs to be constantly adjusted and changed in a neverending progressive way to keep improving the likelihood that greater numbers of humans will live in a satisfactory and harmonious way” then it cannot be objective. Because there is no objective standard as to what is considered satisfactory and harmonious. The “best interest” rule with regard to a child’s welfare in family law is certainly not an objective standard…and similarly, the DSM – which is ‘the bible’ in psychology – is an evolving document which has cultural influences evident in different evolutionary stages of its incarnation.

          49. HG Tudor says:

            Correct.

          50. WokeAF says:

            👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

          51. WiserNow says:

            WhoCares,

            I understand what you are saying. It makes me think that adjectives like ‘objective’ (or ‘perfect’ or ‘beautiful’ or even ‘logical’ and ‘factual’) do not and can not describe what is based on subjective judgement or what represents human knowledge at a particular point in time. What is considered objective or logical to one group of people at one point in time, may not be considered objective or logical to another group at another time.

            So, in essence, such definitive descriptive words can not represent anything in totality in an immutable way.

            I looked up the meaning of ‘objective’ and Google gives the following:
            ‘Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.’

            The word ‘objective’ does have use in language and in conveying meaning, so therefore it exists. The word loses ‘actual’ meaning though, when it seeks to describe things (or concepts) that by their nature are based on subjectivity.

          52. WAF Tudorita says:

            “ many people have said that there is no objective basis to the words good and bad, but when it depends on something they feel strongly about, then they fail to see that their previous argument no longer applies“

            Then they’re not paying attention

          53. WiserNow says:

            WAF Tudorita,

            “Then they’re not paying attention.”

            That sounds like a harsh judgement or criticism to me. It sounds like you believe you have the answers, while those who don’t agree with you are “hard of understanding”.

            I think that we are all paying attention and we all believe in our own minds that we are thinking about it constructively.

            Anyway, I don’t wish to argue WAF Tudorita. I find this subject very interesting and I find everyone’s views to have value.

          54. WAF Tudorita says:

            I apologize if that’s how it came off. Wasn’t intended.

          55. NarcAngel says:

            “It sounds like you believe you have the answers, while those who don’t agree with you are “hard of understanding”

            Funny, that’s how you come across to me on occasion.

          56. MommyPino says:

            Not from my perspective. In my personal experiences with both WiserNow and WokeAF, they are both very open minded to other views. WokeAF even invited me to share a link of my favorite preacher lol. I also enjoyed discussions that I had with WiserNow and we didn’t agree in all of them. I also enjoy reading your insights NA as they are often well composed, witty and funny.

          57. WiserNow says:

            Thank you Mommypino. I think you are very open-minded too, and I enjoy our discussions very much as well. I really appreciate that you have made this comment and that you have said that we don’t all have to agree with each other to ‘enjoy’ each other’s different perspectives.

            Recently, I read an article about parts of the human brain that ‘light up’ under different circumstances or in particular situations. (I can’t remember the article’s title or author, but it was about new ways of looking at the human brain with imaging, I think.) Anyway, it was discovered that the part of the human brain that is active when we learn new tasks lights up consistently when we are in social situations with other people. I thought that was interesting.

            I think our brains do that because social situations require us to ‘learn’ in an active way about each other so that we can be ‘safe’ in situations with other people. As humans, we are social and we need and enjoy being with other people, but we also have to stay safe in groups where other people can think very differently than we do. So our brains are ‘activated’ to learn about each other. That’s how I interpret that article’s findings anyway.

            Thanks again for your comment 🙂

          58. MommyPino says:

            My pleasure WiserNow! ❤️ And thank you as well for your kind words and the interesting article that you have read. I will look it up.

          59. WAF Tudorita says:

            Lol
            Since we all re-read what we write, I like to let people’s own words roll around in their head rather than say anything

          60. WiserNow says:

            That’s fair enough NarcAngel.

            If that’s how I come across to you, then there are elements of my character that are the same as elements of yours, because I feel the same way about you.

          61. Mercy says:

            WiserNow, for what it’s worth I appreciated reading your point of view on this subject and I also appreciate HG for allowing the discussion to take place. Its been educational.

          62. WiserNow says:

            Thank you very much Mercy. That’s kind of you and I appreciate that you took the time to say that to me.

            I agree with you about the discussion. I found it very interesting and educational too, and I have enjoyed reading all the different comments about it.

          63. Violetta says:

            Let us be in harmony with each other. Remember, HG doesn’t love any of us more than the others.

            Or less.

            Or at all.

          64. HG Tudor says:

            Ah, you got there in the end!

          65. Violetta says:

            To the Aztecs, sacrifing people (including oneself) to Huitzilopochtli was an obligation, even an honor.

            Now it would be a crime.

            Chinese still dump unwanted babies (usually girls) wherever. Ancient Romans left them by the side of the road.

            It’s scary to think how many things we think of as Natural Laws didn’t exist for much of humanity’s history. Some of the Levitical laws against various levels of incest…. obviously, somebody was doing it, or they wouldn’t need to make laws against it.

            Parole boards often consider whether candidates have “shown remorse.” You might very well teach them to show it, but good luck getting some of them to FEEL it.

            It makes more sense to keep them as long as they pose a danger. Someone who feels little remorse but would rather not return to incarceration has some likelihood of obeying certain rules in return for that freedom.

            Someone with no self-control might feel just awful every time something terrible seems to happen–and it always does seem to happen.

            Legislating the moral sense is impractical.

        3. Chihuahuamum says:

          From my perspective there is right vs wrong and good vs evil but mine is from my religious values i grew up with. Wrong and evil threaten stability and safety of humankind. There is a real difference and imo not just based on perspective otherwise people could kill others and say its ok from their perspective and no its not ok. Same with the damage narcissists cause its not ok.

          1. HG Tudor says:

            You are correct that your perspective of right and wrong is from religious values. Those religious values are not an objective standard. They are a construct, they are an intra subjective standard.

            People DO kill others and say it is okay from their perspective. All of these groups have killed people, are they evil?

            1. The Irish Republican Army
            2. The British Army.
            3. The US Marines
            4. The New York Police Department.
            5. ISIS.
            6. The South African Police.
            7. Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation).

            What about Nelson Mandela? Good or evil? He was on the US terror watch list until 2008, was this because he was good?

            Good and evil are intra subjective. There is no objective standard.

          2. FYC says:

            Well stated, HG; there are many more examples of the same. Chimum, please know I respect your faith and understand your POV,

          3. Chihuahuamum says:

            Hi HG…i was too general in what i said. There are situations where people kill and arent necessarily evil or have no choice as in defending themselves or others.
            ISIS…evil!!!
            Theres a lot of killing thats been done in the name of good when it was malicious based.
            What im talking about is the psychopaths that walk around killing people for no reason and on a smaller level psychologically wreaking havoc in peoples lives and saying from their perspective its ok and necessary. From their perspective it is but its still evil and wrong. Its also delusional of them to think its ok.

          4. HG Tudor says:

            Yes it is evil from your perspective. It is not evil from their perspective. I note you have failed to comment on the other instances I provided. Do you think the relatives of those killed by the South African Police in the Sharpeville Massacre consider the actions of the police good or evil? Do you consider Nelson Mandela to have been a good or evil man? If good, why was he on a terror watch list then?

            There is no objective standard of what is right or wrong, what is good or evil. It is entirely a matter of perspective.

            Take this for an example.

            You are stood looking along a road, you see an old lady walking along. A young,large man with a skinhead is charging towards her, arms outstretch and is about to barge her over.
            What do you see from your perspective? An aggressive man assaulting an old lady. You would describe that as wrong.

            FM1T is looking at the old lady from a different viewpoint. She can see more of the street and the buildings than you, from your perspective. She sees the skinhead charging at the old lady. She also sees that some scaffolding above is collapsing and will hit the old lady.
            What does FM1T see from her perspective. A heroic man trying to save the old lady by pushing her out of harm’s way. You would describe that as right.

            It is the same action – a man pushing an old lady over. Yet from one perspective it is right and another it is wrong. Perspective.

            The behaviour you describe as delusional is delusional from YOUR perspective. Yes, it will be the majority intra-subjective perspective, but it is still a perspective.

            When you speak you do not see sound as colour. Some people do. They are not making it up, this is what they see. You label that as a delusion, why? Because it is a minority intra-subjective view, not shared by the majority intra-subjective view, but that person´s view is not the right one, your view is not the right one. It is “right” for both of you, why, because that is the intra-subjective reality for each of you.

      4. K says:

        HG
        I am confused. You didn’t call anyone an idiot. You referred to Emotional Thinking/behavior as Idiocy and that’s an accurate assessment; ET makes us stupid because it misdirects us.

        There is a lot of context missing on a blog, but I know an empath who routinely puts her children is harms way (physically violent situations and property damage, as well as, the potential for sexual assault).

        I told her she was a fucking idiot for putting her children in danger. She is pathetic, weak and remiss.

        Stupidity: overlooking or dismissing conspicuously crucial information.

        It’s right in front of your nose, yet you overlook or dismiss it. (Google Definition)

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Correct and you grasp this because you are applying logic and not being led by ET into maintaining an unsustainable argument. Well done.

          1. K says:

            My pleasure HG.

          2. K says:

            And thank you.

        2. E Hew says:

          You are correct K, there’s no way I’m always putting anyone’s interest ahead of my own. I would be an idiot to do so and in some cases it would certainly put me and my family in harms way.

          I also did not interpret HG’s comment as describing Empaths as idiots. It’s not his style. No mental challenge there, and it would also defeat the purpose of his work in which he clearly takes great pride.

          1. K says:

            Thank you E Hew,
            You are right; it’s about balance and knowing when to put up boundaries and say, “No” to things that may put us or our loved ones in harms way.

            Correct; HG did not state that empaths are idiots and he is correct to point out that our behavior can be idiotic at times because that’s an accurate and truthful representation.

            He calls it like it is and I appreciate that.

        3. empath007 says:

          He regarded our coping mechanisms as idiocy. And was quite rude to me when he said it too (which whatever… that I don’t care about, I am liable to use harsh tones myself from time to time – we all are)

          This is the last time I am going to state my position:

          I have read what you all said… I will take it into consideration, I am not incapable of seeing others points of view, I just have a strong moral code and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. That is why I go on the defense during this topic. But I have REPEATEDLY said “Thank you HG I will consider this”…. I can’t change my views in one second without taking the time to really think about it and also do some more extensive research on the topic in order to come to a conclusion I am comfortable with. I’m sorry but I can’t change my life long views in a second because someone says something to me… those things take time.

          I much prefer HGs trying to assist me today in trying to understand. I see what he is doing. I recognize it. and I will consider it all. This is but ONE topic I have a hard time understanding. I admit as such several times. I like to do research and be well informed.

          As for calling us idiots. A reference was made to our coping mechanisms that this is idiocy. I can not and will not agree with that. We ALL have different coping mechanisms for stress. No one on this site is an idiot… no one… we are all having our own journey coping with things as best we can. And I felt it was important to say something about that.

          I am a person who feels and I know I am not an idiot. You speak of children? Mine were not even allowed to MEET my narc… because I felt the relationship was too tumultuous and did not want to include them in it.. I was with him for a year.. they don’t even know his name…

          That is one example of many of how intelligent I am. How discerning I am and I do it all with feelings and in my opinion that does NOT make me weak.

          Has my ET been problematic in my life? most definitely. but I do not regard myself as a weak or stupid person because of it. and neither should any of you. We can learn to recognize our ET and try and manage it…. but it doesn’t define us. In my opinion.

          Ok…. Sorry everyone for taking up so much time today. We all get passionate from time to time.

          1. K says:

            empath007
            There’s nothing wrong with having a strong moral code or your own unique POV, those are important to you and you don’t need to change that in order to understand another’s POV.

            To be very clear, HG did not state that empaths are idiots. If you could point out the evidence where he wrote: Empaths are idiots, I would really appreciate it.

            You are correct; we all have different coping mechanisms for stress, including narcissists. Narcissist’s have no choice in the matter and many of us here (myself included) have called them idiots, assholes, weak, dicks, etc.

            There’s nothing wrong with emotions but it’s important to set the them aside and look at the whole picture objectively.

          2. empath007 says:

            I explained my view on the idiot thing extremly clearly several times. I said:

            He regarded our coping mechanisms as idiocy.
            And I disagree because of x y z.

            Then I go on to give example from my own personal life’s where I use my intelligence to protect myself and my children:

            My children didn’t not meet the narc.

            He tried to get me fired. I formulated a plan and ended up with a promotion instead.

            Are two examples of how admist my emotions I remained logical and in tact as well. Meaning: people with feelings are
            Not weaker or idiots.

            It’s fine if he calls me names or whatever’s I don’t need care…. but that doesn’t mean I needn’t to agree.

            That’s the point I was trying to make. Feel free to disagree.

          3. empath007 says:

            Sorry for all the typos

          4. K says:

            empath007
            Yet, you fail to use intelligence here on narcsite and you are unable to be objective because of your emotional thinking.

            Fact: HG did NOT call you an idiot. Period.

            Fact: Your comment is an excellent example of your emotional thinking making something out of nothing.

            Fact: Empath’s can be idiots because, rather than be objective, they continue to be misled by their ET.

          5. empath007 says:

            Everyone can act like an idiot sometimes. Thank you for you input K.

          6. empath007 says:

            K you asked for evidence he called me An idiot

            HG says:

            “ My response was directed at you, not anybody else using the same label that you first used”

            Evidence.

            Also… I was not the first one to use the term as jaya and I confirmed. And you can go ahead and read for yourself.

            Evidence.

          7. HG Tudor says:

            You misunderstand yet again. It has been repeatedly explained to you. For the final time.

            1. You have missed the fundamental point which is that there is no objective standard of good and evil. That is what you need to grasp, instead you fail to understand this and focus on the idiocy issue.
            2. With regard to the idiocy issue, several readers have understood this and politely explained it to you, there is a distinction between idiocy and an idiot. Although after repetition, it will become less distinct.

          8. K says:

            empath007
            That’s your evidence?! Pathetic.

            Fact: HG did NOT call you or empaths idiot(s).

            You claim to have a strong moral code, yet you have continued to lie repeatedly throughout your comments about HG calling you an idiot.

            Your hypocrisy and contradictory behaviour is stunning. You are a liar, and you continue to be misled by your emotional thinking and that makes you an idiot.

            I read the comment to Jaya and it does not state: empath 007 is an idiot.

            Google integrity and read about it because you have none.

          9. empath007 says:

            K if you want to talk about emotions controlling someone perhaps you should look at your own.

            You seem pretty worked up about a conversation that doesn’t have to involve you if you don’t want it too.

          10. K says:

            empath007
            Incorrect; you inaccurately stated that HG engaged in name calling and continued to lie about it.

          11. empath007 says:

            I appreciate that you have been on the site a long time and have a relationship with HG and feel the need to come to
            His defence.

            I have always thought HG does a pretty spectacular job defending his own position all on his own. As he is in fact intellegent and well versed enough in his subject to do so.

            I do not mind when readers defend his POV especially in the context of trying to help me understand it.

            But what the other readers, myself and HG did not do is loose thier cool and explode at me ( a person you do not know in real life… therefore have no real basis of my personal moral code) as you just did.

            My comments were not directed at you personally K. I supplied what I believed to be evidence of my case… sometimes people make mistakes when they feel emotional. I’m sure you have too at times in your own life.

            The most sensible suggestion for all of this is that if that is how you feel about me based on one thread of comments (which is your right… you do not have to like me)

            Then I suggest it seems only logical you then do not interact with me. Since you beleive all those things about me you just said.

            I wish you well K. I’ve always been happy you’ve been on the site as you have used your inate ability to find information to help people on it. All the best to you.

          12. K says:

            empath007
            I did not explode and I do not dislike you, that’s your ET at work.

            It’s all very matter-of fact; you repeatedly made inaccurate statements and I pointed it out. Irrespective of how you feel about it, facts are facts and, rather than take responsibility for your behaviour, you chose to continue to defend those inaccurate statements and cast yourself as the victim.

            This isn’t personal; it’s about clarity. You accused HG of something he didn’t do, which leads me to question your strong moral code. Your behavior belies your morality and that is confusing to the reader.

          13. MommyPino says:

            Wow K, here you go again calling someone a liar and spewing facts as if you are the grand arbiter of facts. You are the one who needs to control your ET. Empath007 has been very calm at addressing everyone here and I have not seen her directing any ad hominem attacks on anyone. You really have a bad temper K and it needs addressing. Learn to disagree without destroying the other person.

          14. NarcAngel says:

            Empath007
            No one expects you to change your views in a second (or at all if you choose not to). They have only offered you things to consider. You have been here long enough to know that I am not shy with my opinions and I would not accept being called an idiot without some discussion. Moreover I would not hesitate to address HG if I thought that he called you one. I do not believe that he did, but I understand you need some time to review the thread to see if you still believe that to be the case. I didn’t see anyone else here who did either, so that is an indicator that there has been a misunderstanding on your part. I absolutely believe we should speak up about things that are important to us so I understand your persistence also. It’s just that sometimes our conviction can keep us focused solely on our point and miss key components of another. HG takes great pride in the education he provides here and in our successes. He would not waste precious time addressing this issue that he believes is crucial to your understanding of the mindset of a narcissist and how it differs from that of an empath if he thought you an idiot.

          15. empath007 says:

            Thank you NA. I appreciate this post and also the one you posted earlier I found extremly helpful as well. I will be reviewing them later when I have more time to reflect as I thought there were a lot of good points made.

            I’m not upset at HG. Even if he does think I’m and idiot… that fine… hes entilted to his own opinions.

            That’s does not however mean I will sit there and agree and not defend my position.

          16. HG Tudor says:

            No, you think that I think you are an idiot. You are doing a lot however to tip the balance.

          17. empath007 says:

            Ok. Thank you for your honesty HG.

          18. HG Tudor says:

            You are welcome.

          19. Joy&Love says:

            I’m not sure why you are not able to distinguish between idiotic behaviour (temporary state) and being an idiot (identity). And surely If we continue to do idiotic things then we eventually become an idiot. It’s hard to swallow but it’s true. None of us want that which is why we are in this forum.

          20. HG Tudor says:

            Accurate. HG applauds.

          21. empath007 says:

            I don’t view crying and being hurt as idiotic. I’m entitled to my opinion.

          22. WAF Tudorita says:

            E007
            Don’t blow a gasket about K
            As MP stated, this appears to just be how she is, she comes off as hostile, then denies it.

            HG is the master, and if he calls you an idiot or insinuates you’re being thick , it’s not from his own ET-in-denial. He’s not being hostile and masking it for an ego boost.
            Just take the note and back off.

            I know it sucks, esp when you’re trying to communicate and have previous narc-abuse wounds
            I defer to whatever
            HG says bc my opinion is irrelevant – this is a place to learn not showboat.
            (Something certain other ppl might do well to test out).

            On the topic – because I for whatever reason don’t have trouble letting go of my “intra”? (Was that it?) — personal reality , I was able to grasp the non existence of any objective reality quite easily.

            Don’t fight to hold onto it.
            Don’t fight to protect your beliefs or inner framework. Open it up and eagerly invite clear seeing of a reality without right or wrong. It’ll benefit your journey.

            And just use the phrase I got hit with
            “You’re responsible for your own idiocy” 😆

          23. empath007 says:

            No gasket blowing. I’m not concerned about that.

            It’s simple really… I misinterpreted a point. And then based a counter argument on my misrepresentation. I have since corrected myself by not further pushing the issue.

            Everything’s fine on my end.

            Thanks for your thoughts WAF! Time to move onward and upward.

          24. HG Tudor says:

            An admirable response E007. HG approves.

          25. empath007 says:

            I don’t desire your approval HG. But understand the sentiment. Thank you.

          26. NarcAngel says:

            Empath007
            Glad to hear that you have settled it within yourself. Onward it is.

        4. Jaya says:

          K I have to jump in here. HG was the first to use the term idiocy on this post. He did it in response to my answer to his question about him being a good man. I disagreed (and still do) and gave my reason. He called my reasoning idiocy. I consider my reasoning to be part of me, so he called me an idiot.
          There feels like an undertone of superiority coming through from many of the regular posters – people
          I had admired up til now.
          Are we even reading the same post?

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Wrong. I labelled the reasoning. If you extend that to you, that’s your issue.

            I have to emphasise that the fundamental issue here relates to the concept of an objective standard and its inapplicability to the concept of good and bad. That is because understanding this is important in the context of my work and your progress. There’s been a failure to address this and instead keep harking on about the idiocy point which is missing the point although I’m unsurprised by that.

          2. empath007 says:

            I have not been ignoring your thoughts on trying Tom educate Me. There is at least 10 posts of mine that’s would prove that. I simply said I need time to review and thanked you for your input.

            You and I have disagreed about two things on This blog continuously:

            1) the objectives prespective
            2) that’s feelings weaken.

            Both of these have come up in this conversation again. And it’s because you chose to use the word idiocy for our coping mechanisms.

            It does matter. Because it’s insulting.

          3. empath007 says:

            You are entitled to your opinion. It’s OK if you find it idiotic. Im not always flattering to your kind either.

            But feelings do not make people “weak”.

            That’s my position on the subject. And unlike the main point ignore the thread (objective perspectives) I will not be changing my opinion on it.

          4. HG Tudor says:

            The fact that you repeatedly fail to grasp what is being explained to you by other readers and also by me and instead have a slavish devotion to maintaining you have been called an idiot is very much risking becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

            1. There is no such thing as an objective standard of good and bad. You have not been able to address this or accept it.
            2. Feelings do weaken. That is the perspective of the narcissist, which is what this blog is founded on. It is about explaining the way my kind think and do. Instead of understanding that this is explaining a perspective to you, you insist on asserting they do not weaken. They may not, from your perspective, but that is not what this blog or the relevant article is concerned about. This has been explained to you again repeatedly by readers.

          5. empath007 says:

            I posted my final thoughts last night on your first point… not sure if it was posted… but I basically said that I can understand it intellectually but still have a hard time grasping it emotionally. Perhaps in time that will come.

            Thank you and other readers for your input.

          6. K says:

            Jaya
            Wrong. He did not call you an idiot and there’s no undertone of superiority; it’s about accuracy and clarity.

            Is this the statement you are referring to?

            I do not regard as sacrificing my own well-being for the sake of others as good, I regard it as idiocy.

            Accuracy intended.

          7. HG Tudor says:

            Correct.

          8. lisk says:

            “There feels like an undertone of superiority coming through from many of the regular posters – people I had admired up til now.”

            Jaya, I totally see that. HG’s lieutenants have revealed how far they’ll go to defend him and help him toss his word salad, all in order to help him avoid accountability, all in order to get the “HG approves” stamp.

            If empath007 feels as if she’s been ganged up on in this thread, it is because she indeed has been ganged up on.

            And that is a fact.

          9. HG Tudor says:

            1. There are no Lieutenants here.
            2. Nobody was ganged up on. If you assert something which is incorrect, expert to be corrected. Perhaps you missed the part where I explained the concept many times to try to help E007. Perhaps you also missed the attempts by other people to explain the concept to 007, to assist understanding. That is not ganging up, so it is not a fact, it is your opinion and an ill-founded one.

          10. empath007 says:

            I did not feel ganged up on.

            I have a pretty strong sense of self and it would take a lot more then this discussion to bring me down.

            I would like to request we now drop the subject… onwards and upwards.

          11. HG Tudor says:

            Hear hear. I am pleased to read this sensible observation.

            Let’s get back to more important things. Me.

          12. empath007 says:

            Lisk. Your support of me is noted. That takes guts to display your opposing opinion to the other readers.

            I have decided to drop the subject. For a vast variety of reasons. At this point I will be encouraging everyone else to do the same.

            I don’t know you in real life…But I don’t forget people who are in my corner. So this won’t be forgotten by me. And I very much appreciate your defence.

            As I said this morning… onward and upwards now. Focusing on this issue any further won’t accomplish anything.

          13. FYC says:

            Hi E007, Hopefully you realize that people with different opinions can also be in your corner. In my experience, constructive dissent often offers opportunity for thought provoking growth. I would not want anyone here to feel stifled or judged. I welcome open discussion/debate. I learn more by seeing all perspectives.

          14. empath007 says:

            Of course. I thanked everyone for their comments a few times. I find you in particular FYC to always be mature and thoughtful in your responses. It’s obvious you are intelligent and good at forming constructive thoughts.

            But I very much appreciate lisks comments. And wanted to thank her.

          15. FYC says:

            “HG’s lieutenants have revealed how far they’ll go to defend him and help him toss his word salad, all in order to help him avoid accountability, all in order to get the “HG approves” stamp.”

            Hello Lisk, I don’t know if I am one of the people you were referring to in your above comment regarding HG lieutenants, but if so, I can assure you I am not. If you will recall, I came to your defense a few months back when two very narcissistic commenters were disparaging you severely. It was totally unfounded and so I spoke up on your behalf. I did not do so for your approval. I did so because this is an open forum for all opinions and their opinions of you were not factual factually based, but harshly judgmental. My opinion was in opposition to their views. I doubt they changed their point of view (and stated so), but that is okay, that was not my aim. I merely gave my point of view for consideration. You had my compassion for your experience and still do.

            In this case, I took issue with the term “evil” and made my case. I also agreed there is no *objective* standard for good and evil and this is apparent across the world. These were my points.

            Honestly, no-one was called an idiot. What I took away was the direct quote that sacrificing our own wellbeing is idiotic. Since I have done exactly that in my childhood for N family, I whole-heartedly agreed (judging only myself) and as an adult would never do so again.

            I was impressed that 007 said she wanted to take time to integrate her thoughts and feelings and planned to consider it further. I stated previously that I encourage and value all opinions even if they differ from my own. Like NA, I tend to be more given to logical thought than emotional thought, but I have both. I do not have all the answers, I am a perpetual seeker of knowledge and wisdom. I have a long way to go, but I am enjoying the pursuit. It seeks in many ways most are here for a similar reason and I wish every the best in their own pursuits.

          16. lisk says:

            I missed none of that word salad . . . ehem those “explanations.”

            Whether they’re lieutenants or not, their posts are a dreadful and embarrassing display of either trying to speak for you, defend you, or showcase their “intelligence” and learning for you in order to receive your approval.

            The most revealing thing about this thread, however, is how many words you yourself spent on defending your original statement re: idiocy.

            A convincing defense of the truth would not take that much, especially for someone of your intellect.

            Overall, while I find the interactions in this thread disappointing, I don’t regret reading through them. They remind me of the bad old days with Narcx and have me thankful that those days are over due to my following your good advice.

          17. HG Tudor says:

            1. Wrong.
            2. They are not. You demonstrate that you have no evidence to support that. Your view of those individuals is your opinion and their behaviour is theirs.
            3. You have failed to note the reference that was made to trying to get E007 to understand, something she recognised was being done. Why do you fail to acknowledge that?
            4. Read again. You will see that my comments are directed towards the issue of an objective standard of good and evil, not the debate about idiocy, that was being perpetuated by E007 in the main and responded to by other readers, not me. Your reference therefore is not supported by what was actually written and therefore your comment re intellect is weak.
            5. I am pleased my advice has assisted you.

          18. NarcAngel says:

            HG
            Do you see the differing responses to this thread (good/bad/idiocy) as being affected by the types (schools and cadres) of empaths involved? That was one of my thoughts.

          19. HG Tudor says:

            I do.

          20. Sweetest Perfection says:

            NA, that’s a very interesting question! I would love for HG to give some examples if he would like to do so… without names, just general observations about each cadre.

          21. NarcAngel says:

            SweetP
            It’s about your shock! I am more than a dancing bear on occasion lol.

          22. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Hahaha that made me laugh so hard! Don’t be silly, I use exclamations a lot, I’m very exaggerated!!!

          23. WAF Tudorita says:

            Agreed great question , and it made me stop and think for a minute about my own thoughts /responses on the thread , and others, while thinking of the cadres.

            For myself , I am more likely to get caught by ET by certain threads- but I very rarely even have the energy to compose anything beyond a brief comment if it’s a busy work week, and I’m scrabbling to make ends meet – which in reality is most of the time LOL
            Nothing like good hard physical work to keep the ET at bay for me.

            Personally I REALLY enjoyed most of the exchange bc it brought to my attention how difficult it can be for ppl to grasp the reality that’s there no right or wrong .
            Even if ppl can grasp that no name calling took place, do these same ppl grasp the other reality we were discussing – that there IS no objective reality? That narcissistic abuse isn’t “wrong” but simple IS.

            This will help when discussing narcissism with others IRL bc I hadn’t realized honestly how stuck in objective empath reality we can get.

            This is important and I see why HG followed through with E007 ok this point.

            It’s USELESS to defend the empaths perspective as right or valid- of COURSE it’s valid – it exists doesn’t it?
            But holding to that perspective limits real and thorough understanding.
            I WANT to think like a narc- even if it’s uncomfortable (which it’s not which freaks me out but I digress) because that’s 1/6 of the population and it will serve me well to know what I’m dealing with all around me, every day. It’s akin to discovering aliens in human suits have been waking around us here the whole time and we didn’t notice . What a fun exciting game this is! I love it.

            I appreciate all discussion on the illusion of concrete realities !

            Thanks to all

          24. Sweetest Perfection says:

            That’s a great reflection, WAF. I also thought about my comments and how they could show that I’m a carrier Empath but I have no clue. Of course I’m not used to finding the traits of the cadres, unlike HG.

          25. NarcAngel says:

            WAF T
            Yes, it’s important that we understand how they think or what is the point of being here? It was conveyed how that specific behaviour of the empath is perceived to be abhorrent and unimaginable to the narc as a response for themselves. That they could not conceive of it due to the disorder demanding they seek power and control instead as an alternative to what they once felt and can never allow again. Not that we should put stock in it or adopt that attitude for ourselves. That was my view.

            I am prone to more logic over emotion and have enough narcissistic content that I was able to accept the message as a factual presentation of the narcissistic view without feeling slighted personally. We do/did not all have the same response, which led me to the question of differing schools and cadres of empath having effect on that just as we may respond differently to the behaviours and manipulations in our personal narcissistic relationships.

          26. mommypino says:

            Interesting thoughts WAF T!

            HG, I wonder with all of these talk about empaths’ ET, don’t narcissists have a lot of ET as well? The narcissists that I knew IRL had distorted understanding of people’s actions/behaviors and situations that this false understanding have caused a lot of conflicts in their lives. When my half sister believed for example that our brother didn’t love her because he defended his wife from her and he told her that he’s not a shoulder to cry on, doesn’t that count as ET? I’m asking this because from some of the comments that I have read, there seems to be an impression (and please correct me if I am not understanding this correctly) that empaths are prone to ET and narcissists are logical. I am actually way more logical than the narcissists that I encountered in my life.

          27. HG Tudor says:

            Yes, narcissists have emotional thinking also, but of a different nature. A classic one is the logic that each relationship beforehand has failed, yet the narcissist has an infatuation with the new IPPS and this time, it is the one. Logic suggests that (for most narcissists) this relationship will fail like all before it, yet the narcissists emotional thinking drives him or her to believe to the contrary.

          28. mommypino says:

            Thank you HG. I always appreciate your answers.

          29. HG Tudor says:

            You’re welcome

          30. mommypino says:

            NA, the good/the bad/ the idiocy? As to who’s criteria? Can’t we just all say that we have different perspectives instead of saying that this person gave an idiotic comment because this person belongs to such a cadre or school? I am against pigeonholing people as we are much more complex than that. I identify with some of the Geyser but not everything. People who know me in real life would raise their eyebrows if someone would describe me to them as histrionic because I’m actually quite reserved in real life. I respect HG’s work but nobody else knows me as much as myself and the people who know me in real life.

          31. NarcAngel says:

            MommyP
            I was referring to the subjects of discussion IN the thread to HG because as he has stated many times – he cannot see what we are referring to in the pane, not judging those who spoke on them. If I had not clarified he may have asked: “in reference to what”. I was not stating that anyone made an idiotic comment. You should check your emotion and ask for clarification if you are unsure instead of assuming. Good example though of how people can interpret something that is not there.

          32. HG Tudor says:

            Well stated.

          33. mommypino says:

            Got it NA. Thanks for the clarification. Will ask for clarification next time. 😎

            And I just want to correct a grammatical error *whose instead of who’s.

          34. WAF Tudorita says:

            MP girl how u doin 💕

            My kid brought home the Plague from school so that’s my life right now. Lol! Hope you’re good

          35. mommypino says:

            Oh no! Sorry about that WAF, I hope that both of you start to feel better soon! I am good thank you. I have been dismantling a second hand Barbie Jeep so I can spray paint it to look like a Jurassic Park Jeep. I’m slightly nervous and hoping that it will turn out ok.

            You know about the plague from school, I was thinking when I was reading about Dr. O’s cleanliness and their paranoia about the Legionnaires’ disease, “the luxury of not having any kids lol”. Kids are pretty much like the most adorable walking viral incubators. I can’t count how many times I got sick because of the bugs they brought home lol.

          36. K says:

            NarcAngel
            Based on their comments, one is a MMRN and the other is a LMRN or ULN.

          37. NarcAngel says:

            Lisk
            Your post has the potential to be as offensive as the posts of those you are referring to. Why do you view those who have given observations that differ from yours as dreadful and embarrassing lieutenants, speaking for him, or trying to receive approval? Is it not possible for you to accept that with the number of intelligent people on here that there may be similar opinions and beliefs expressed and that they are very much their own? When your opinions and posts align with others do you consider yourself intelligent with an opinion or a dreadful embarrassment? The idea here is to exchange beliefs and opinions for others to consider and sometimes clarification is needed, often because we can become clouded when emotional, but at the end if the day whether someone adopts or rejects them is up to them. Empath007 has thanked everyone for their input and will ultimately decide what she does with the information that was provided. Why do you feel the need to insult others as having no mind or opinion of their own merely because they participated and your opinion differs?

          38. WAF Tudorita says:

            MP
            The Good , The Bad , and The Idiocy is Clint Eastwood’s next movie ? Lol

            NA
            LOL at you having “enough narcissistic content”
            I suspect the same abt myself

            I do see the view of emotional response as weak – and I think many of us empaths resent our own emotional experience and reactions- yet will defend our “right” and the “goodness” of them the next moment.

            I find this evidenced by E007’s response to HG that she doesn’t need his approval.
            We like to think we don’t need approval but in the same breath defend our “right” to react emotionally to being (or not being) referred to as an idiot. (E007 pls note I’m using this as an example of what appears to be a shared blind spot here)
            If HG “approved “take the compliment and walk . Lol I don’t gotta TELL him & everyone you don’t need it, that just makes it look like the opposite.

            As to the “ lieutenants “ here -.. no. That’s a misunderstanding of lieutenant I think. I can see how some come off as having their nose all the way up HG’s ass, but I think that’s also a misunderstanding. Maybe.
            .

            I occasionally notice in myself and others here and IRL the chin-out, stomping feet you-can’t-make-me-change defence of being an empath –
            -but it’s this insistence on our worldview that got us chained to narcissists to begin with. We imposed OUR worldview and refused to accept as valid , the narc reality.

            Being an empath & having emotional reactions hinders success in many areas.

            HG do you find your contempt for the emotional reactions of empaths hypocritical to your own need for fuel? Mean if we weren’t this way, you’d be starving.
            Do you HAVE contempt for our emotional reactions?

            Thanks for the great discussion

          39. HG Tudor says:

            I have contempt for the fact that people are governed by such feelings which are a weakness. I (unlike most of my brethren) recognise that the manifestation of some of these feelings (when they are directed towards us) is what we require and therein lies a matter of irritation, one is chained to the very feelings one despises.

          40. mommypino says:

            WAF T 😂. That’s a great name for a sequel indeed! Or a nickname for this thread lol. It makes me imagine all of the commenters wearing ponchos 😊. We just watched Gran Torino last night. He’s definitely one of my most favorite actors of all time. I don’t know if he’s a narc in real life. I see some red flags but he’s so amazingly cool that I am willing to overlook it. Most of his characters in the movies are of a Saviour Super Empath though. I don’t know anyone who could ever take his place in the movies. He’s one of a kind and his son who looks like his carbon copy doesn’t have his strong ex factor which makes me think that his son is probably a Normal. I feel like only Es and Ns have the X factor. Or maybe he just doesn’t have the life experiences that his dad has and that makes his dad seem a much more deep and interesting person.

          41. WAF Tudorita says:

            MP well I’ve been attracted to Clint Eastwood since I was 17 so there’s a good chance he’s a narc LOL

          42. HG Tudor says:

            You’ve got to ask yourself one question, “Do I feel Lucky?”

          43. WAF Tudorita says:

            Nice one

          44. lisk says:

            empath007 (October 4, 2019 at 15:04)

            I refused to just stand back and watch.

            I did not see this post of yours before my subsequent post. Had I done so, I gladly would have taken your lead to drop the subject.

            Onward and upward.

      5. MommyPino says:

        “I do not regard as sacrificing my own well-being for the sake of others as good, I regard it as idiocy.”

        I respectfully disagree that this is idiocy HG. A parent putting their children ahead of their needs and well being is not acting in idiocy. A friend sacrificing his money that he saved to buy a new car to loan it to a friend who needs money for emergency medical needs is not being an idiot; he is being a good friend. And a husband who doesn’t buy new clothes so that they can prioritize his wife’s tuition fee so she can achieve her dream of being a teacher is not acting in idiocy either; he is being a good other half. The only time that it becomes idiocy is when we are good to other people but we forget to be good to ourselves. But I also understand that you are entitled to your own perspective just like we are and you were just simply stating what you personally regard as idiocy.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Sacrificing buying a new car or new clothes is not sacrificing your own well-being MP, it is entirely different to actions which sacrifice well-being.

          1. MommyPino says:

            I stand corrected HG. But in my opinion, there are a lot of instances where sacrificing their own well being for others is not idiocy. We see it all the time in the news and the people that we know on our daily lives. The teacher who died trying to tackle a gun man in school, the mom who got disfigures because of dog bites while hugging her child to use herself to cover her child from the dog attacking them. But you are right that some of my examples were not on point. But I also agree with you on the different perspectives in fact I have applied it in the way I see things daily.

    2. Claire says:

      He is a good man in his own way. I often feel disgusted when I read what H.G. has done to his former girlfriends sans Leslie. On the other hand, HG is helping us, created Angel Assistance and apart from his brilliant mind and multi talents in writing, he is brutally honest.
      In fact, HG is revealing his soul at this blog. I applaud him for the courage to do so.
      HG is like a talented and skilled boxer but the one who uses dirty techniques to win.
      For those ones who cited the Holy Bible – remember the fallen angels .
      Some of them did good things though.
      In Eastern philosophy Yin and Yang , dark-bright are not completely opposite. Following this conception of dualism HG is not completely dark , i.e. bad neither the empaths are completely bright ,i. e. good.
      I couldn’t agree more.

      1. Violetta says:

        What we see here isn’t really immoral (which describes most humans, except for a very few moral ones). It’s amoral.

        GH has sufficient education and intelligence to have an abstract understanding of right and wrong, which the low-functioning narcs do not.
        There is, however, no visceral connection to these concepts, no compassion, which usually begins as “[person I care about, often mother] would be unhappy about this.” Without knowing the specific details, I gather that GH never bonded with someone because the approval was impossible to get or not worth the effort; therefore, making someone unhappy wasn’t avoidable. May as well be hanged for a sheep as well as a lamb.

        There is also no external moral structure as in Hope of heaven or fear of hell.

        From that point of view, altruism WOULD seem awfully silly. The people advocating it are either lesser narcs trying to decoy the competition away, thus hypocrites, or sincere and therefore gullible twits who deserve whatever they get.

        The only thing that might sway such a person is enlightened self-interest: “if I forego this immediate benefit, I can get a greater one later.” A lower-functioning narc might not even be capable of that: remember the scorpion and the frog?

        My LLN was always shocked when his actions blew up in his face. It wasn’t that his need was do great he was willing to face the consequences. He honestly never considered that there might BE consequences.

        1. Joy&Love says:

          Definitely amoral V- well said.

    3. MommyPino says:

      Hi Jaya, while we share the same perspective on what is good, I respectfully believe that you are not in a position to make that assessment and judgement. 1. The criteria that you have cited is not necessarily the criteria that everybody follows in deeming a person good, hence the difference in perspectives that HG has been teaching us. And 2. you do not know him personally to make any assessment on what kind of person he is. Just because someone is a narcissist doesn’t mean that they have never put someone else’s well being before theirs. My narcissist mom has done that so many times albeit they were done for fuel. And even if we know him personally, we cannot play God and make a complete judgment on a person’s character because only God knows what is really in their hearts and everything that they have done in their lifetime. I know for a fact that his work has done a lot of good to empaths who need clarity and help in navigating their way out of the toxic ensnarement and the effects of the experiences with narcissists.

      1. Jaya says:

        Thank you for your insight MP, I agree to a point. Absolutely HG’s work and advice have saved many – myself included and I am more grateful than I can express. There is no question as to how valuable his work is.
        I would not have commented with my opinion had HG not asked the question was he a good man? I responded using only the information about himself he has given – how he has treated people in the past (and currently?), lack of guilt or shame for his actions and his pride in what he is and what he does. I understand there is no universal criteria as to what is deemed good and what is not, I can only respond with my own interpretation of it. Which I did. I am cursing myself now for responding but having known a “good man” in my life, it was abhorrent to me that HG placed himself in the same category.

        1. mommypino says:

          Hi Jaya, please don’t feel bad for posting your thoughts. If you haven’t done this then there wouldn’t be that discussion that a lot of commenters here say they enjoyed and gave them a lot of insight. Everything that you said makes complete sense and are very reasonable. I will confess that I didn’t read the original article because honestly I have been very busy lately and I have already read it before. Now that you gave me the context I understand that you weren’t being judgmental and you were simply responding to the article. I just got in and wondered what the hullabaloo was and added my two cents. It does get heated sometimes when people have varying views and are passionate about something. To be quite honest, there was ET from both sides of the argument but not from everyone involved. I can totally understand why and how you and empath007 felt that you were referred to as idiots when HG stated that a certain empathic behavior (sacrificing one’s wellbeing) is idiocy. In HG’s mind, the idiocy is limited only to that behavior (in his perspective) and does not extend to the person behaving that way. He has explained the difference in this thread I think more than once. But Lisk has brilliantly explained the other side too, why you and empath007 would naturally extend the idiocy description to yourself. It is a normal human reaction. You were not acting in malice or anything apart from just reacting as humans. If I did something for someone and somebody tells me that what I did was very sweet and kind, wouldn’t I naturally extend that as to mean that I am sweet and kind? If you did something and somebody comments that what you did was stupid or dumb, naturally you would feel that you are being inferred to as stupid or dumb. And the reason why someone who disagrees with both of you cannot see that (that it is a natural human reaction on your part and 100 percent reasonable) is because they also have ET. And they’re ET is coming from passionately defending someone that they feel grateful for and admire and respect and they are being protective. If only both sides can pause and really consider the explanations offered by both sides then we will start to really understand both sides. And also we are only responsible for our own behaviors and both you and empath007 have remained respectful throughout the whole discussion. Please don’t be afraid to speak your mind and to relay your wisdom and your perspectives because that’s how we all learn, from reading everyone’s different perspectives. 💕

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Not just my perspective though because other people, who are not narcissists understood what I stated.

          2. Jaya says:

            Thank you MP for your kind words. I feel understood and appreciate that very much.
            I try to stay in the background, I know I will see different perspectives and learn.
            This article of HG’s affected me deeply with feelings of revulsion, desperation and panic. Physically I got the shakes and felt like the ground was sliding sideways and I just watched it. Completely lost my equilibrium and I reacted to the post before thinking.
            Since finding this site I have taken HG’s word as absolute truth. My panic was that the contents of this article meant that yes, HG is correct (never before have I questioned this) in which case black is white, bad is good and I can follow the logic that indeed, one could consider HG is a good man. Hence the trembling and desperation. Who wants to live in a world like this?
            But before total despair kicked in, I thought of a good man I knew. I know in my head and my heart there is no way he and HG are even remotely similar apart from both being human.
            HG is in a class of his own, ultra everything. Intelligent, articulate, cultured, influential, athletic, a magnificent specimen in his prime. I don’t doubt any of that. But he can’t claim those traits he doesn’t have. The ones *I* define as good. Honesty, kindness, love for another, selflessness, loyalty, compassion.. these are what I use as a standard to measure good and bad. I felt threatened for some reason that my core beliefs were upside down and I am adrift.
            But I have an anchor, a standard to compare against and my world is righted. How silly of me to get so defensive and upset (and intimidated I must admit) over the concept of a word. Good, bad, evil, gracious it really doesn’t matter. The word I think of to describe one person is not the same one I would use to describe another if their characters, traits, behaviour was different from one another. Doesn’t matter what the actual word is, it has a particular meaning for me.
            HG, I wasn’t offended (after the initial stabbed to the heart reaction) at you calling the content of my example of reasoning idiocy. I actually thought by your response that I may have touched on a sore spot. Your plea for us to agree you’re not bad, you’re a good man made me feel sad for you. Like a child seeking approval. But if you love that child you will correct it and not let it claim what it isn’t entitled to.
            It is disrespectful and dishonest to claim something you don’t deserve, like winning a contest (just a random example nothing more!) the winner won. Fourth place getter can’t claim the prize because he didn’t win. He can’t claim first place, regardless of what he says.
            HG has stated All narcissists abuse. Abuse to me is the polar opposite of what my concept of good is.
            My world view is changing and expanding and I guess it’s unsettling. It’s hard to remember sometimes there is goodness and kindness in the world and not everyone considers caring for others a contemptible weakness. Those who post here regularly, I admire you for your confidence and in the main, support for others. In my opinion the idea of there being a ‘clique’ comes from the sometimes lengthy personal interactions that are off topic (and a bit annoying..) between regular posters. Makes the blog colourful but feels exclusive.
            Speaking of lengthy.. apologies for the long winded rant. I obviously have that “need to be understood” trait something chronic

          3. mommypino says:

            You’re so welcome Jaya! I’m so happy that I was able to make you feel understood. I admire your strong principles and you have every right to stick by them in fact that I think it’s best for people to have core principles that they will adhere to no matter what. I have expressed here on this blog that my anchor is my belief in God. It is so important for all of us to have an anchor so that whenever storms come into our lives we stay in place steadfastly. As for HG’s philosophy on the good and the bad being intra-subjective, I have applied it also as my coping mechanism. I am still sticking to my core principles on what is good or bad, but I have learned that the narcissists in my life are also entitled to their own versions of truth and good and bad. If the narcissists tell me that I am bad or tell lies about me, I don’t fight it anymore like I used to. I tell them in my mind, that’s ok if you want to believe that, I’m a narcissist, I’m a gold digger, I’m this and that, it’s totally fine, maybe I am maybe I’m not. I don’t care. You are entitled to your own reality and I am entitled to keep loving myself and my life and the people that are important to me. Go away in peace and leave me alone lol. But I’m still sticking with my core principles. By learning to draw that boundary between my personal truth and moral beliefs vs everyone else’s I am able to feel free. 💕

          4. lisk says:

            Jaya,

            I admire your eloquence and aspire to your principles.

            Sincerely,
            lisk

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

Infected

Next article

Angel Assistance