The Holy Narcissist



The holy narcissist is one of the especially effective members of the narcissistic brethren. The attraction of religion but moreover being a member of the clergy carries with it considerable advantages for those of our kind who manage to install themselves within organised religion.

The holy narcissist is nigh on impeachable. What better authority can there be for always being right, always having the high ground and always being revered than as an instrument of God? The holy narcissist has the supreme power in his corner and a book full of phrases and sentences that he can turn to in support of his wisdom. He is here to do good work and by virtue of his position he is assumed to be truthful, kind, compassionate and empathic. The holy narcissist has one of the most effective facades one might hope to see amongst our kind. His is not a façade which has to be worked at through the careful application of community works, diligent industry at work and all round good guy in the neighbourhood. No, the holy narcissist has centuries of instilled goodness to drape around him in an impenetrable cloak of goodness. He has saints and apostles marching behind him, archangels hovering above him, charitable works to point to, the salvation of the sick, the poor and the needy, all woven into this vast façade.

Once he joins the clergy he can avail himself of this façade in an instant. There is no steady and incremental accumulation of the veneer of respectability like the rest of our kind but instead it is akin to placing a cloak around himself and immediately he has a façade and not just a façade, but perhaps the ultimate façade on which to rely.

He is the embodiment of goodness, God’s word flows through him and as such he can act with unquestionable authority. He has zealots ready to support him and to shout down the heretics. Even though organised religion may not wield the power that it once did, one would be foolish to underestimate its effect still. Even those who do not believe and readily bait and insult those who do, are likely to think twice before attacking a man of the cloth. They wear God’s armour and the indoctrination of people, even those who have rejected the notion of such a being, means they would hesitate before launching some kind of attack against a member of the clergy. I have seen it happen. Those who are vociferous in all other aspects still show a deference to that dog collar.

A position in religion appeals greatly to our kind. You are blessed with an instant authority. You have scriptures, texts and readings which are used as a form of law to castigate mortal man and thus allow the holy narcissist to maintain superiority. There are grand and ornate ceremonies which the holy narcissist is the centre of. He dresses differently from the simplicity of the Catholic black which distinguished from others in the community to the papal splendour of the man (almost) at the top. Decadence, shiny and glittering decadence abounds and he even is able to stand at preach at his fellow man and woman. How does he do so? From the elevated position of the pulpit. Proof, if proof were needed that he is greater than those around him and finds himself part way between heaven and earth.

Where confession plays a part he is able to absorb the sins of his worshippers. The narcissist always needs to know and of course knowledge is power. Being privy to the foibles, sins and vulnerabilities of someone on the other side of that screen (who is of course readily known) vests considerable power in the holy narcissist. He is able to scold and upbraid and is thanked for doing so. He doles out devaluation on a daily basis and is met with the grateful thanks of those who seek absolution.

Should you offend him you are not just discarded but you are banished, made a pariah and few can smear you so darkly as one who apparently operates from the side of light. Step out of line with the holy narcissist and see how quickly the community is mobilised against you. You are snubbed at church (if you dare to appear) and this tarring and feathering leaks out into the community as a whole as the holy narcissist does not just have a coterie but he has a congregation. He does not just have Lieutenants, he has vergers and sextons, he has bishops and archbishops who will close ranks and turn their backs on those who speak ill of one of their own.

Try to speak out and expose the holy narcissist and he will describe you as ‘troubled’ and that he will pray for you, further advancing how filled with goodness he is and there must be something seriously wrong and deviant with you if you are resorting to making accusations against  man of the cloth.

The holy narcissist has a position of considerable privilege. An ancient and powerful institution which resolutely supports him, the commanding word of God to dispense, the impressive façade and always the capacity to exploit a person’s fear of their own mortality. As it has been stated before, there were no atheists in the trenches. When the chips are down you either call out to God or your mother, usually both. When you know that despite all appearances, a person still has that need to call on a higher power when they are in fear, this places you in a powerful position.

This position comes with many benefits but the most attractive of all is the congregation. A loyal, devout conclave of fuel. Those who attend services, hold coffee mornings, raise collections, operate soup kitchens and so forth are the foot soldiers of empathy. They are inherently good people who care, who are honest and decent and they wish to exhibit their goodness through good acts and deeds. How they respond and light up when the holy narcissist moves amongst them thanking them for their endeavours. Their faces turn to the holy narcissist, rapt with delight, fuel gushing for them as the holy narcissist sweeps through his worshippers, drinking deep of their admiration, their love and their compassion. It is these people who are doing the dirty work, standing in the cold shaking a collecting tin, feeding down and outs in the less desirable areas of the city and walking mile upon mile to gather donations for the charity shop or food parcels. The holy narcissist will tap into this collective goodness and bolt it on to his façade. He will front the mission’s work, the output as he receives the earnest thanks of the disadvantaged and yet more fuel.

This congregation will round on transgressors, they will offer up delicious fuel as a host of secondary sources which has the holy narcissist positively drenched in the positive fuel. With firebrand enthusiasm, the holy preacher will set his sights on those who apparently do evil and will contentedly draw their ire and the associated negative fuel. He is unswayed. The Big Man has his back and with that it is ever onwards Christian soldiers. No matter what form this religion might take, there will always be holy narcissists in their numbers. There is so much that appeals and accords with the narcissist that organised religion will always attract our kind. The ready availability of unquestionable moral authority which is plated and welded to the narcissistic mind set of superiority, omnipotence and grandiosity makes for a heady concoction indeed. Many struggle to escape the clutches of a holy narcissist and if they do not comply, they are hammered into submission by one of the master strokes of organised religion, the concept of guilt.

Empathic individuals are burdened by guilt and with a book full of quotations that support this construct, the holy narcissist has a field day as he exploits this inherent trait of those who he deals with. You must never question him but you must question yourself because you are prone to sin, you are weighed down by guilt and therefore it is always your fault. It is manna from heaven for the narcissist. Everything about organised religion either elevates him or provides him with a set of tools and methods for keeping his congregation and worshippers submissive, appreciative and loyal. He is able to call on near total dedication and loyalty and if the occasional member strays out of line he has the means and the clerical muscle to either bring them back under his control or banish them into the wilderness. Exerting such control and being able to reap the fuel rewards demonstrates how supine his congregation becomes when it is in the hands of the holy narcissist.

No wonder it is referred to as his flock.

759 thoughts on “The Holy Narcissist

  1. Louise says:

    All the Bible is wrote in love, none of Gods word should be used to control another people.

    We should never use scripture without extensive study of it. There is so many misunderstandings of the Scriptures today.

    My ex husband, still to this day uses Gods word to control those around him. Even does a YouTube channel on christianity, and has to cheat to keep going on about repentance. Repentance is a change of one’s heart, repentance in the dictionary means 180° turn from your sins. This man does not try to turn from his sins at all, he tries to do a lot of works to cover them up, to try and bribe the judge. The God I know will not be bribed by Good works, we trust in the work of Jesus on the cross Who paid for all our passed sins and future sins, but we must not take the Mickey out of this and continue to sort of like mock God and his grace. We should see a spiritual growth and change in one’s life.

    But narcissist use this grace to bully people, Control, and do what the hell they like.

    I would be very suspicious if I walked into a church and people started telling me what a good person they are and all what they do. (There is no good but God.)

    There are many narcissist to study in the Bible starting off with Cain.

    To have a better understanding of the Bible here are some names for Jesus Christ, Love, truth, justice, freedom, Wonderful Counsellor, peace, victorious, courageous, Fair, wonderful God and many more.

    Always think of these things when a narcissist is trying to deceive you who God actually is.

  2. Kim e says:

    Good Morning. I must agree with you regarding HG using the word “friends”. I do a small eye roll and smirk whenever he uses that term.
    But then after being with N, the word will forever be altered for me.
    Hope mum is well these days!

    1. Bubbles 🍾 says:

      Dearest Kim e,
      Thank you lovely
      When I saw Mr Tudor’s comment, it really made me laugh, however, I totally ‘understand’ his reasoning
      Mum is extremely well even though she carries on like a pork chop and her brain gets minced a lot
      Luv Bubbles xx 😘

  3. Ren says:

    Starting a new thread.

    A very infamous thought experiment which we can apply to any despot in history. I’ll choose Hitler. As we seem to be obsessed.

    I don’t percieve there are right or wrong answers to this.

    Imagine this.

    Knowing all you know about WW2, you’ve been transported back in time. Adolf is a baby.

    You are alone. Do you kill him, or do not kill him and why do you choose whatever course of action?

    1. Fiddleress says:

      Good question.
      There is a fanstatic short story by Roald Dahl: Genesis and Catastrophe, that plays with the reader’s feelings towards baby Hitler.
      I felt like killing that baby as I was reading the story.

    2. WokeAF says:

      I would not kill him

      If it wasn’t him, it would’ve been, has been, and will continue to be – someone else doing the same thing until that part of human evolution is over

    3. Bubbles 🍾 says:

      Dearest Renarde,
      That’s a real doozy hypothetical question
      I would not have ended his life
      You can’t change history, if not Hilter, it would’ve been some other nut case
      What if …he pursued his art and was successfull, perhaps it would’ve satisfied his internal ego
      What if …he hadn’t joined the army
      What if ….he had better parents
      What if ….his dad wasn’t a child abuser
      What if …..he didn’t lose his siblings
      What if’s? Who knows ?
      Give someone a little bit of power and see how it goes to their head
      Remember the blue and brown eyed person experiment ?
      There will always be narcissistic leader some where, some time, some place
      Luv Bubbles xx 😘

      1. Violetta says:


        Off-topic–there’s an article, “Koalas’ bushfire recovery diets provide hope,” I thought might interest you.

        Seems like the entire planet’s been getting smacked upside its head for quite some time, so it’s nice to have some good news.

        1. Bubbles 🍾 says:

          Dearest Violetta,
          I just read the article…… how fantastic, ‘epicormic’ growth
          Lead by a wonderful ‘Karen’
          This is fabulous news
          Koalas are sooooo cute, we are sponsors of one
          Thank you lovely Violetta, it was a most encouraging read 🐨
          Luv Bubbles xx 😘

  4. Kim e says:

    SP & NA,
    Being the good catholic girl that I am not, I went to catholic school from 2nd thru 8th grade. We were required to go to mass every day except Saturday but only receive communion 1 time a week on Sunday. Confession was on maybe Wednesday ( I dont remember) and if you did not go to confession you could not receive communion and if you did not receive communion “God” made a naughty mark next to your name in the “book” he held in his lap watching over people and marking down their sins and good deeds.
    Yes…this is what I was taught in catholic school.
    The wafers, I agree SP, had no taste and styrofoam is a good description.

  5. Kim e says:

    I am going to find some of their shows and watch. All I really know about her is her makeup that arrived in the room before she did.

  6. Another Cat says:

    One more comment on this thread

    The very last thing at church that contributed to my exit was me feeling lazy, and smeared by ex, and feeling narcissistic.

    You see there is this one elevated position for women during Catholics mass. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not about serving men, not about staying in the background, not about babysitting, and not virgin Mary.

    It’s the damn soprano solo. Innit.

    The woman with the very light little soft voice. Dressed up, hair dolled up. They always called when it was a church holiday. I was asked for.

    Realizing after a while that I only went for this and the social coffee afterwards. Probably because I didn’t really believe.

    Some other women who actually believe will sing Pie Iesu (Andrew Lloyd Webber) At Least as well as I did. Church ppl really can sing. I get teary when hearing them.

    /il soprano

    PS. got kids who actually ask me to sing for them. They are not annoyed with my voice. I have church choirs to thank for this.

  7. Kim e says:

    One year! That is awesome. Congrats!!

    1. WhoCares says:

      Thanks Kim e!

  8. Kim e says:

    “God dies?!!!! Ever hear of a spoiler alert?”
    I hear there is supposed to be a sequel.

  9. WhoCares says:

    Just a general observation on superiority:

    I think expressing solid confidence in one’s beliefs can resemble superiority to another. Some people have the ability to back up and support their views with evidence, facts, and examples.
    Some people who are confident in their views and have trouble defending it with information that seems valid and verifiable to others – and respond with (paraphrasing): ‘it just IS, and you will never understand’ <— this can come across as superiority as well.

  10. Violetta says:

    Poor HG. You were prepared for Swingin’ on the Riviera one day, And then layin’ in the Bombay alley next day, while mysterious opponents targeted you with high-tech gadgets. You were definitely prepared not to let the wrong word slip While kissing persuasive lips. You know the meaning of success,, your needs are more so you give less, They call you the winner who takes all, And you strike like Thunderball. As you have confirmed, any woman you want you’ll get, and you’ll break any heart without regret.

    Did anything prepare you to spend so much time in the middle of the Brawlin’ Belles of St. Trinian’s?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      This is child’s play compared to the places I have been.

      1. Violetta says:

        Frankly, I thought the NYC subway was cake compared to my elementary school playground, but then on the subway, I could defend myself.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Fair point.

          1. Kiki says:

            Thank you HG , I see the point clearly now but somehow I got confused and thought I was supposed asked to see Hitlers deeds as not technically wrong through my own perspective
            A big Massive misunderstanding due to the emotional topic and I know I can stubborn too.

            Phew ugh time to move on to a new topic for me


          2. HG Tudor says:

            I am pleased to see you have cast aside the misunderstanding and now understood the point I was advancing. Good.

      2. Bibi says:

        Wait, whoa. Who is that guy in my backyard? HG, I am in my bathrobe, for Christ sakes! Oops, sorry Lord.

        1. Violetta says:


          Christ won’t be offended. He’s been known to walk around in something that looks like a bathrobe quite a lot.

  11. Fiddleress says:

    To Witch:
    “There’s a song by a punk band called crass about perspective and leadership:”

    Witch, you know that punk band, Crass? I am just excited to come across someone who does! I used to listen to them when I was 16. I was a sort of (very, very nice, quiet, clean and not really unruly) punkette at the time. I had never ‘met’ anyone who had heard of them till tonight.
    Atrocious sound, but I liked their lyrics.

    1. Witch says:

      Yes crass was the greatest punk band of all time

      1. Violetta says:


        Um, no.

        Ramones. Always.

        I’m afraid there is no room for aesthetic relativism or individual perspective here.

        Avaunt, ye heretics! Take your cursed doctrines and be damned to the farthest reaches of Outer Darkness!

        We now return to our scheduled programming.

        1. Witch says:

          Did the ramones piss off Margaret thatcher? American punk could never, fuck those soft bastards

          1. Violetta says:

            No, for that you’d need the Sex Pistols. Or the Anti-Nowhere League.
            You do realize there are two backstories for “So What”: one was that they heard a guy boasting in a pub; the second (and better) was they heard about “God Save the Queen” being banned, and decided they could write a song much more offensive than that.

  12. Fiddleress says:

    To Bibi:
    “‘Bollocks to the Poll Tax.’ Now I know what that is referring to.”

    Haha, this took me back years ago! I was living in Scotland at the time the poll-tax was introduced. It was introduced there a year before the rest of Britain (maybe the UK). Needless to say, the Scots were not amused. But not only the Scots: even though it was called the ‘poll’ tax because it was meant to be paid by taxpayers who had the right to vote, I, even as a non-British who could not vote, was supposed to pay it. I was a student then, on a grant (not paid by Britain), with just about enough to pay for my 9-square-meter room in student halls and food. So not only did say ‘bollocks’ to the poll tax, but also “Can’t pay? Won’t pay!’ which was a slogan back then, supported by Robbie Coltrane (who played Hagrid in Harry Potter). And I did not pay it either (I managed to evade it for 2 years before I left the country).
    That’s me: empath and tax evader. Wrong? Not from my perspective!

    1. Bibi says:

      Haha Fid. BTW the film I saw the shirt in is called Life is Sweet from 1990. I enjoy Leigh’s films. They have very simple titles but rich characters.

      1. Fiddleress says:

        I like Mike Leigh’s films too. Although I watched Naked (1993) for the first time last year and found it one of the most depressing films I’d ever seen. Not to say it was bad, but so bleak. Darker than his previous films.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          It is bleak. Two of the people in Naked are friends of mine.

          1. Bibi says:

            What?! I am gonna have to watch now. I really enjoyed Happy Go Lucky with Sally Hawkins.

            2 of the actors? I don’t know how I feel about my universes cross-pollinating.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            Yes, two of the actors.

          3. Fiddleress says:

            Ah well now you have got the nosey-parker – I mean, the truthseeker – in me interested! May I ask, which characters are played by your friends in Naked, please? Pretty please with a strawberry and sugar icing on top? And chocolate flake? All with a glass of Deutz? A bottle?
            If not, I’ll just drink it all by myself, haha.

          4. Bubbles 🍾 says:

            Dear Mr Tudor,
            Since when did narcissists have ‘ friends’ ?
            Is this some new trend ?
            Luv Bubbles xx 😘

          5. HG Tudor says:

            I’m using terminology you understand.

          6. Bubbles 🍾 says:

            Dear Mr Tudor,
            You just tickled my funny bone on the word ‘friends’, that was all
            Luv Bubbles xx 😘

  13. Kiki says:

    Hi Kel

    Look I just want say that if you intend to stay here and I’m not kicked off over breaking rules ( had no idea I was doing that ) I get your stance and I see your point of view .We all need support from each other , sometimes we disagree but it’s best to move on .
    It’s easy to get heated and misinterpret stuff here , depends how sensitive you are , and that’s not a bad thing to be sensitive.

    Big Hugs


    1. HG Tudor says:

      Nobody gets kicked off the site, comments which breach the rules do not get posted, that is how it works. Everybody is welcome to advance their views, in accordance with the rules.

    2. Kel says:

      Hi Kiki,

      Thank you so much for your encouragement, and yes it’s rather surprising that rules have been cited on your thoughtful perspective.

      If I were to say the grass is green and the sky is blue, it would be met with opposition. It would be argued that the grass is not green if you live in a desert and the sky isn’t blue if there’s a permanent smog haze blocking it.

      I’ve been around enough negativity and word salad, gaslighting, and projection. I don’t want to argue when I say something. Discussion is respecting and considering the others point of view, not saying Wrong! That becomes arguing.

      Right and wrong doesn’t give a flip about majority rule. It is the constant friction between good and evil. Kim Jong-Un is majority rule, his regime is supported by fear and torture, if one should try to challenge it. Those who survive there, do so by playing the game, going against their nature, doing whatever they have to just to have food and keep from starving. Serial killers are often model citizens, their perspective is law abiding by day, and secretly getting off on murder by night. Kim’s point of view, a serial killers point of view, to me feels like they are given more respect here than mine are about my faith.

      I’m discovering life without narcissists and how to let the sun shine inside and outside of me. I don’t want to muddy it up. I’ve had a lifetime of that. I’m glad I came onto this site back when I did, it is an amazing opportunity to be able to talk to HG as a person who is a narcissist and is willing to explain it to us. I readily looked at things through a narcissists viewpoint in order to understand them. But only to learn, and not to replace my way of thinking with theirs.

      This comment will be met with a mound of opposition, and my viewpoint will be seen as challenging, and will not be looked at from my point of view. My point of view will be Wrong!

      It takes so long to try to make a point that should be so simple, and at some point you just give in to the opposition just to end the debate. I don’t want to argue. The grass is green and the sky is blue, I’m happy with that, I don’t want to argue about it.

      I’m being honest and it will be seen here as challenging and bad. I’d rather wear a smile, not have a superior point of view, and not argue. Ironically it’s because of HG and commenters on narcsite that I’m able to do that now.

      Big hugs Kiki!

      1. HG Tudor says:

        Kel, once again you excel at getting it wrong. It is not surprising at all that the rules were cited on the post, because it was done to explain and thus help Kiki understand. Of course, you have not bothered to take the time to consider that, since, if you had, you would not have responded as you have. I am not surprised by your comment. Here is what occurred

        Kiki wrote
        I have to be honest and say , you told Kel that she was only making herself look bad here with her posts .Shaming her.You cannot judge wether she is making herself look bad good or adored here
        You don’t own that power .
        I think that remark was a tad arrogant of you
        Just my take .”

        Kiki made a judgement about NA making a judgement.

        I replied
        Er, so Kiki, what did you just do? Make a judgement.
        See Rule 6.

        What does Rule 6 state? I am going to detail it because it is clear that you have not bothered to look it up.

        Rule 6
        1. Understand that strong views will be advanced and people will disagree with your views as well as support them. Nobody is bullied or ganged up on. Do not bother trying to assert that if you find a significant number of people disagree with you. If you advance a strong view, a controversial view remember it is a view, it is not a solid fact and this means other people are likely to disagree with you and they will debate with you and counter your assertions. They are just as entitled to do this as you were to make your initial assertion. Playing the “I am being bullied card” or “I am being attacked” or “People gang up on me” is factually erroneous and will get short shrift from me.

        My comment and citing of that rule was reminding Kiki that “If you advance a strong view, a controversial view remember it is a view, it is not a solid fact and this means other people are likely to disagree with you and they will debate with you and counter your assertions” if you pass a comment, you can expect other people to reply to it, i.e. Kel makes a comment and NA responds to it, just as both are entitled to do. Therefore whilst NA might be viewed as judging you Kel, she was entitled to reply to your comment as per rule 6.

        You then wrote
        “No Kiki didn’t make a judgment, she said it was just her take”

        I explained
        “That is a judgement. She passed comment, opinion, view, take, judgement – they amount to the same thing. Kiki is entitled to do so and anybody is entitled to respond to what she writes so long as they abide by the rules. Just in the same way as when you express your comment, opinion, view, take, judgement then others have just as much right to respond to it.”

        Since you did not bother to look the rule up, you ought to now understand that Kiki´s comment did not breach any rule, I was explaining to her that when somebody makes a comment (you, Kel) somebody else is entitled to comment on it (NA) and indeed Kiki is entitled to comment on what NA has written.

        You repeatedly engage in the behaviour of making a comment and when someone disagrees with you, you cry foul. Look at your comment above
        “If I were to say the grass is green and the sky is blue, it would be met with opposition. It would be argued that the grass is not green if you live in a desert and the sky isn’t blue if there’s a permanent smog haze blocking it.”
        The comment is flippant in itself, but you repeatedly approach discussions on the basis that if anybody disagrees with you or comments to the contrary that they are somehow being unfair, unkind or attacking you. This mentality pervades what you write. You do it again here ” Kim’s point of view, a serial killers point of view, to me feels like they are given more respect here than mine are about my faith.” and again here “I’m being honest and it will be seen here as challenging and bad. “Nobody has been disrespectful to you, you THINK they have, because your default setting is, “I may comment, but you may not disagree with me and if you do, you are disrespecting me, being unkind, hurtful, mean, bullying etc.”

        I invited you to look at the evidence of NA´s commenting history on the blog so you would find positive observations within them. Instead, you just dismissed this constructive invitation by remaking you had all you need in that thread. Do you not see that as narrow-minded? Evidently you do not.

        I have no issue with you as an individual, indeed my lack of partiality was demonstrated yesterday when I praised you for an observation (although it was actually NA´s) but I thought you had written it. It is clear you have gained knowledge from my work and I am pleased to see that. I am pleased to note it has had a positive influence on your life. I take issue with the behaviour which has been exhibited as explained above.

        If you state something that somebody else disagrees with, they are entitled to state their disagreement. That is how it works here.

        This has rumbled on for long enough now and this particular thread within this article thread is now closed.

        1. Kel says:


          Are you really the same person who has written these stories? You come off so differently in your stories than you do blogging.

          Farewell HG

          1. HG Tudor says:


            Cheerio, see you soon.

          2. truthseeker6157 says:

            I have been following this thread, in part. I haven’t sifted through and read every single comment but got the general gist.
            It’s an emotive thread. I haven’t commented until now as really I didn’t think I had much to bring to this particular party. I’m not religious but have my beliefs. My beliefs are actually pretty illogical as it happens. In short, I believe in ghosts / spirits but not heaven, hell and ‘God’ as such. This in itself is illogical in many ways. Even I can see that. I can’t really substantiate my views I’m sure any religious scholar could blow them clean out the water. That’s fine, they are still my views.

            I think this is a difficult thread because in some cases, people will have an opinion, a belief or a faith and really they can’t fully explain why they have that belief. It just works for them. Such is the nature of faith. If you can’t fully explain it, or substantiate it, then a challenge to that view can feel more personal. It can feel more frustrating. If people could fully prove and substantiate religious belief then it wouldn’t be called ‘Faith’.

            I don’t see ‘superiority’ in any of these comments. I see logic in NA and nothing else. I actually have relied on NA’s logic when I was spiralling down early on and in that instance it was her voice above all that made me stop and rethink. Similarly with HG. I recognise logic through my own personal fog. I respond to it.

            What I actually see on this thread is frustration. I see kind and empathic people getting frustrated with each other. Partly due to the nature of faith and beliefs being so subjective, partly due to the teaching elements not translating directly / as clearly in this particular context.

            I found many of the comments on the thread enlightening and of interest. We, as empaths all have this strong moral compass but it’s difficult to express exactly where that actually comes from. I’d have to admit, in my case. I don’t know. It’s just there and it’s personal to me. My own brand if you like.

            I think the objective in many ways was to illustrate that different perspectives govern different behaviours. Narcissists behave as they do as they are governed by their narcissistic perspective. Empaths behave differently as they are strongly governed by their empathic perspective which just happens to be closely aligned with the majority perspective. Never the Twain shall meet, or if they do, it always ends badly!

            That for me was probably the most important thing to draw from the thread. Understand that, digest that, guilt and blame disappear and we take a giant leap forward in our recovery.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            Well stated.

          4. NarcAngel says:

            A demonstration in reducing emotion and standing back to observe what is actually said/happening. That is appreciated. Well done.

          5. truthseeker6157 says:

            HG, NA,

            Thank you both for your feedback. I’m feeling clearer these days.

          6. HG Tudor says:

            Good to read.

      2. Kiki says:

        Hi Kel

        Yes I read through the majority of your comments and the conversation with NA and HG .

        I have to say I personally feel you are correct, I also picked up the condescending vibe you referred to with NA response .It was all a misunderstanding but I could see NA kept arguing her stance .
        This is no disrespect to HGs blog which has helped me so much .
        I am just the type who will call something out if it bothers me , even if it makes me unpopular.I will never follow along nodding my head and smiling , what’s the saying Keep your head low . That has been said to me before .

        You seem like a lovely person , who simply got tangled up in a misunderstanding,
        I think you were a bit hurt by this Kel ,
        If so a big hug xxxx

  14. blackcoffee30 says:

    There is no God. Life is suffering. Karma is law. Life is a miracle. Heaven and hell are states of being within the 10 Worlds. I have come to believe narcissists inhabit the lower four worlds and are likely incapable of reaching the others within this lifetime. That is karma. The Universe is what it is and does what it does and gives not one shit about our brief moments of existence.

    1. NarcAngel says:

      And I’M the dark cloud? Haha

      It’s not all that bad. At least there’s coffee.

      1. Violetta says:

        Hot Chocolate might be better. If you believe in miracles, since HG came along.

  15. Witch says:

    To those who believe they have experienced miracles, have you thought that it may have been the actions of another empath that assisted you?
    I go above and beyond for people in my line of work to keep them safe physically and emotionally in all areas; housing, children, police, immigration etc. They could attribute any of the successes to a miracle but from my perspective it was me pulling the strings and demanding things on their behalf to keep them safe, and I’m just a regular empath.
    It was also their own determination to see things through. It was also the other empaths and normals willing to listen to me.
    And we all came together and got stuff done.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Surely it occurred from drinking Hot Chocolate?

      1. Witch says:

        I think the 5 cups of coffee I drink everyday is a contributing factor

        1. fox says:

          This explains everything. What religion is this? I want in.

          1. Witch says:

            The religion is coffeaze
            And the followers are coffeazists
            The only rule is being addicted to coffee
            We give out free exfoliating coffee scrubs at our temple

          2. fox says:

            Baristas be praised!

          3. Witch says:

            Yes fox
            All hail coffea baristas be praised

        2. WhoCares says:


          Thank-you for what you do. I have interacted with people like you in social services etc., some go the extra mile and I have had the good fortune of having one or two of those on my side. Despite that, I had 3 housing situations fall through, in the timespan of a month and a half – mostly because of people delaying on paper work or having an agenda that didn’t match mine.
          When I finally got the apartment that I am in now, it was due to my tenacity (and desperation, I might add) and a property management employee who listened to my story and decided she was going to go that extra mile to see that my son and I got housing. She personally drove me to two places, I decided on one, then after learning that the property management company had a 24 hour deadline for applications etc. and realizing that I just didn’t have the technology or means to make it all happen in that window of time, she drove AGAIN to my small community and physically picked up my paper work.
          Was she sent from God? I dunno.
          But what I do know is that she was a single mom of three — and she GOT it — when she listened to my story. That, plus she had the means to help me out.
          Yes, this was an example of two empaths working together with a common goal. The deal was done and signed within less than 24 hours.
          And now we have had stability for a year.

          Someone should buy you a coffee.
          At least.

          1. Witch says:

            I’m glad to hear it worked out in the end. Behind every miracle is an underpaid empath, working over time for free and drinking 5 cups of coffee, teeth are stained but lives are saved

          2. WhoCares says:

            Witch – “I’m glad to hear it worked out in the end.”

            Me too!

            “…teeth are stained but lives are saved”

            That made me smile.

            And thanks for the laugh re: “coffeaze”!

          3. NarcAngel says:

            I’m glad you got the help you needed when you needed it. You did the work and put yourself out there to have that happen and it was recognized by another. I believe that’s what we need more of. Recognition, understanding, empathy and willingness to help each other in the flesh. Not hopes pinned on some unknown deity who watches the problem and then swoops in to take credit when you take action.

          4. WhoCares says:

            Agreed, NA.

            You know, I didn’t realize, until this discussion came up, that it’s been a year (as of this month) since we have officially been in our new place. A full year of safety and stability. I should celebrate.

          5. FYC says:

            WC, A big congratulations on your year of freedom! You have really done well. I remember our first conversation before you left. You have transformed your life with the help of HG and many empaths is many areas of life. I am so happy for you. Really well done.

          6. WhoCares says:

            Thank-you FYC, for your kind words.
            Yes, HG’s work, the blog and the support of fellow empaths here really, really matter. And even if I haven’t been in contact regularly with the main blog, as of late, it still means a lot knowing that there are those here who care about my progress.

            I just wanted to add that I am very grateful for the amount of time HG invests in moderating, and now even with the addition of KHG Clue Hunting Forum!
            I know everyone has had added stress (due to the pandemic) – of course. But I specifically wanted to say that much of HG’s new work – bulletins, the Child Defender Assistance package – plus the KHG forum, have really helped me stay sane, focused, positive and full of logic during these past few months.

            Legal stuff, homeschool stuff were big concerns on top of pandemic concerns this last while, and turns out I managed them just fine. The icing on the cake: we got a letter from my son’s principal, with his report card, saying he is on the honour roll.
            I know that I am not supposed to be keeping score but that letter felt extra good because my ex, more than once, has attempted to lead third parties to believe that our son’s education is suffering in my care and that he has severe attention/learning issues. Not only is this incorrect but he is excelling. This would not have been achievable without the increased stability in our lives this past year.

          7. HG Tudor says:

            You are welcome WC.

          8. NarcAngel says:

            Wow. A year. I was about to add: already? but caught myself, as time is certainly different when you’re in the situation as opposed to watching from the outside. How do you feel now at that realization? What is your next goal? What would you say now to yourself of one year ago? Only if you care to share of course. I absolutely understand if that’s something you’d like to keep private.

            I know we don’t really know each other, but I feel so proud of you for all you’ve come through. To say it’s not been easy is an understatement and that is only from the little you have shared. You absolutely should celebrate in some way that is important just to you because your son has already been gifted with a great mom who is both a fighter and his protector. You are an inspiration to others WhoCares, but that is secondary to the peace and freedom you’ve secured for yourself and your son. I will never forget your story.

          9. WhoCares says:

            NarcAngel, “What is your next goal?”

            In one word: bookshelves.

          10. WhoCares says:


            In all seriousness, I am as surprised as you regarding the passage of a full year. I truly wasn’t paying attention. But then it’s been an eventful 2020, hasn’t it?

            What would I say to myself from a year ago…
            “You were right; transitions are NEVER graceful for you.”
            “But take heart, because it will all work out.”
            And finally: “Trust HG’s work, because a Mid-ranger will reliably – and predictably – always be a Mid-ranger.”

            Sorry for such an initial brief response but I didn’t know what to say and was bit emotional after reading your words, thank-you for them. But “bookshelves” still capture my future plans for what they represent which is: further stability. Or at least the lack of the need to feel as though I might have to up and take flight…come to think of it, I haven’t felt that way in some time. And I see the contentment on my son’s face when we walk in the door and he knows he is “home”. It’s really nice to see that look. And I feel similarly to him.

            My actual next step has been delayed by Covid-19, but if and when it happens, there is a chance I might share.

          11. Fiddleress says:

            I haven’t been around here long enough to know your past circumstances, but reading that you had been free for a year made me feel really pleased for you! You should absolutely celebrate.
            Well done!

          12. WhoCares says:

            Thank-you Fiddleress.

            I have been free (escaped the formal relationship) for 3 years now. A legal battle and lack of long-term living arrangements have delayed stability in my life.
            That is partly because I prioritized mine and my son’s emotional and psychological well-being over everything else. The desire for healing and learning what went wrong propelled me into my education here.
            We’ve had supportive people in our lives during that time – and I have had the blog, fellow empaths and HG’s work behind me.
            A year ago, we finally got our own residence and it had been great having a “Homebase” that is truly ours.

          13. Fiddleress says:

            Three years of freedom, that’s even better! I understood, wrongly, that finding your own home last year meant that was the beginning of your freedom from the relationship. Happy anniversary to you for that anyway. It is so important to live in your own place, and especially a place where you feel safe and relaxed, with no narcissist around. I know the feeling.

          14. WhoCares says:



            “It is so important to live in your own place, and especially a place where you feel safe and relaxed, with no narcissist around. I know the feeling.”

            I am glad that you know that feeling too.
            Have you been free of your narcissist for long?

            Sorry, I don’t know your story because I have been mainly focused on the KHG forum. But I have ‘listened in’ on some conversations between you and other new arrivals and there’s much interesting and intelligent discussion there.

          15. Fiddleress says:

            WhoCares, thank you for your very kind words!

            Don’t be sorry, I think focussing on the KHG forum is a very good sign that you are not burdened by what happened to you anymore, and that is what I am aiming at too (no longer being burdened, and participating more actively in the forum).

            My story is basically one of escaping one narcissist after another since the beginning of my (adult) life, the first one I escaped from being my mother.

            I have been free of narcissists in my everyday life since mid-June. I have been here on this blog for less than 6 months, and my life has changed and continues to change in a way, and at a speed, I could never have imagined possible! I have some supportive friends around me, but the most meaningful support I am receiving comes from HG – his work, and his assistance – along with sharing here on the blog.

            I must say I am a bit up and down at the moment. I am leaving early tomorrow morning for over a week, to my favourite spot by the sea, only two hours’ drive away. It will be cooler than where I live too. Heatwave starting today in this country, so I couldn’t go on the walk I had planned, but will do plenty of walking over the next week.
            I will probably be absent from the blog during that holiday.
            All the best to you, WhoCares, and all reading too (and ‘see’ you soon).

          16. HG Tudor says:

            Enjoy your break, well deserved.

          17. WhoCares says:


            I am happy to hear that you have escaped your narcissists and that you have seen such positive change in a short time. Goes to show how applying effort, in combination with HG’s work, has results.

            “Don’t be sorry, I think focussing on the KHG forum is a very good sign that you are not burdened by what happened to you anymore”

            That’s an accurate observation. I actually don’t feel the need to vent over my narcissist hardly anymore. When I do share the odd example of his behaviour, or detail from my past entanglement, it is more to confirm the accuracy of HG’s work then to actually air a grievance.

            Currently, my main focus truly is to further my learning here.

            Enjoy your seaside visit! Sounds lovely. We had a heatwave here as well, it was brutal – but now that August has arrived, the nights are cool regardless of the heat of the day.

            ‘See’ you in the forum, when you’re there next!

          18. NarcAngel says:

            I had a one word response also,


            Haha. Off to the dungeon I go.

            No need to be sorry. I had no expectation regarding an answer, but I understood it. Share as little or as much as you like – it’s your journey. We are all pulling for you either way.

          19. WhoCares says:



          20. Violetta says:


            In the meantime, can you decorate your home library in Early American Milk Crate? Got me through grad school.

          21. WhoCares says:

            Violetta – “Early American Milk Crate?” Ha! Could be a good compromise, with pre-existing handles, in the event that I feel the impetus to up and take off again.

        3. blackcoffee30 says:

          OMG I just cracked open a new jar of coffee scrub this morning! It’s called, “I’ll Take Mine Black.” Serendipity or … ? You have a convert.

          1. NarcAngel says:

            Serendipity or miracle?

          2. Witch says:

            It was a sign of initiation from coffea
            Coffea has chosen you

      2. Ren says:


        I believe in miracles!

        Dontcha know? You sexuy thang.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Glad somebody got it!

          1. Ren says:

            He he!

            Up here for thinking…

        2. blackcoffee30 says:

          There was no way to direct reply to your comment about FGM, so FYI. It’s in the other thread.

    2. fox says:

      I’m with you, Witch, but even if it was evident that the miracles occurred by the actions of other empaths, those who believe in miracles will believe that God worked through those people to achieve the miracle.

      1. Witch says:

        I guess everyday I do god’s work without believing

        1. fox says:

          Well, I thank you for all the hard work you do, Witch. You make the choice to put in the effort, and I commend you for it.

        2. WhoCares says:

          Witch – imagine that?

        3. Witch says:

          Wait, if I’m doing God’s work but I’m an unbeliever .. does that mean I might be god?
          Don’t worship me though because I’m one of y’all .. just a slob like one of y’all

          1. Violetta says:


            Trying to make your way home?

          2. Witch says:

            Yes and I also use public transport

          3. Violetta says:


            I understand. Just a stranger on the bus.

            If that’s a New York bus, be prepared to twitch and mutter as needed.

          4. WhoCares says:

            “If that’s a New York bus, be prepared to twitch and mutter as needed.”


            I can see where your acting skills come in handy, Violetta.

        4. Violetta says:

          I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.

          – CS Lewis

          1. NarcAngel says:

            Geez Vi, can’t you supply the cliff notes or the gist after something like that?

            The language of religion is going to have to change if they expect to get anyone from the ” U up? ” generation. Ain’t no one got time to plow through all that haha.

          2. fox says:

            Lion Jesus = Best Jesus.

          3. Violetta says:


            I kan nat wherfor yow haf endite swich wordes. Hem ben to mee unknowe!

          4. NarcAngel says:

            I got:
            You can’t locate the whereabouts of your half eaten sandwich clear as day, but the rest remains a mystery.

          5. Violetta says:

            HG doesn’t approve of LOL, so I’ll just put LTTSF.

          6. HG Tudor says:

            Just use ha ha.

          7. Witch says:


    3. Bibi says:

      An old lady tried to argue that every baby is a miracle. I disagreed and said it can’t be a miracle when there are 8 billion of them on the planet. Then she told me I was vacuous for saying this. I told her this was simplistic thinking on her part. Human life should be respected but it sure AF isn’t a miracle.

      But, just my perspective!

      1. NarcAngel says:

        Maybe her belief was based on the fact that it was a miracle she got laid.

        1. Bibi says:


    4. blackcoffee30 says:

      We should have defined the term, “miracle” upon beginning this discussion or did I miss it?

      1. NarcAngel says:

        Defining miracle. Uh oh, haha.

    5. Violetta says:

      Encountering a truly helpful empath rather than another Poison Pollyanna of a Mid-rangel fits my definition of a miracle.

      1. HG Tudor says:

        Ha ha, that entertained me, Violetta.

        1. Violetta says:

          I’m actually quite serious, HG.

          Greaters can stop if they think it is in their interest.

          Lessers are too lazy if you require them to put too much work into it, or they can be easily distracted.

          Mid-rangers are often Sincere.

          This makes them dangerous:

          Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

  16. Bibi says:

    This is an interesting thread and I don’t know where to comment. As for religion, I grew up Catholic and even went to a Catholic Uni. I went through the motions but kept it at a distance.

    What I dislike about religion, at least Christian, are all the ‘rules’. Do this if you want to go to heaven, do that if you choose to go to hell. There are many things about it that I don’t agree.

    Having said that, there are some good things. I do enjoy religious texts, I enjoy religious themed films (asking these existential questions). I enjoy reading about the saints b/c they suffered and often would ‘die for something higher’. Very Romantic.

    I read a lot of Thomas Merton and I wish I could have had such solitude to write and think as he. I like the idea of nuns and those giving their lives to serve others, again to ‘live for something higher.’

    All this is idealism. Merton would be outraged by Trump and his selfishness. I like stained glass windows, the stories, the death and suffering of saints bring me comfort. (I am either a sociopath or I am just weird.)

    I prefer Buddhism and much of that philosophy. I am in an Islam philosophy group on FB. (You can make fun of me there–it is true that I really have no clue what they are talking about, as their posts are so obfuscated, so I remain quiet as a monk.)

    As for Hitler–he believed he would be revered for his acts, that he was a ‘Man of the State.’ For me, I don’t think I could go on living if I didn’t believe in justice or a true moral structure that is immanent and innate. I understand that the universe is indifferent and to quote Professor Levy from Crimes and Misdemeanors,’It is only we with our capacity to love who give meaning to the indifferent universe.’

    I feel like this planet has been without love this entire year. Everyone is so selfish (ok, not everyone but it feels that way). People are dying and they don’t care. Why should my life matter? Or anyone’s?

    I don’t consider myself a love devotee, but have been in such a dark place these past few months. Been reading a lot on Joan of Arc. I have to believe there is something greater than this life–and perhaps that can be with a work of art.

    I view religion as art or literature–something to study and learn from and even admire in parts, but ultimately, it doesn’t ever become me.

    1. WhoCares says:


      You are not weird at all. Your post really resonated with me.

      “I view religion as art or literature–something to study and learn from and even admire in parts, but ultimately, it doesn’t ever become me.”

      I remember sitting in Western Religions and learning the relationship between Christianity, Islam and Judaism and be fascinated how they related and more alike then they were different. The professor for this course was passionate and an excellent storyteller – which helped.

      I recall a fellow psych student, who was a Christian, detail her search for the church that was right for her and she happened to fall in love with the story of how the Mennonites and Amish branched and spread in Canada and the US, and she decided to choose a Mennonite Church. Although I couldn’t identify with her search, I did recognize how important it was to her.

      Personally, I love old stories. Old traditions, and pageantry…it sometimes makes me sad that I grew up in Canada where there isn’t a lot of ‘old tradition’ (yes, Indigenous traditions are old) at least in comparison to places in Europe where many more old tradition and festivals and are preserved and abound.

      I do enjoy that feeling of being ‘in communion’ or fellowship of sharing a particular experience. Although, it has never happened in church (yes, I have attended church in the past.) I have felt it at an amazing Jazz concert once, in Montreal, where the performers had everyone’s rapt attention and everyone was absorbed in the music and the moment. I have felt it watching an impromptu drumming circle on the plains of Saskatchewan. And I have seen and felt it watching my son, at a Pow-wow – dancing like a wild child – at night by the light of both bonfire and coloured electric lights, with local First nations kids.

      I can *sometimes* feel it listening to Christmas carols (yes, religious ones) – which I am a sucker for.

      Unfortunately, my personal experiences, growing up with religion and ‘the Church’ were full of hypocrisy. It the hypocrisy that I cannot stomach.

      1. Bibi says:

        Thank you for sharing, Whocares. Yes, I agree about the Christmas Carols–the religious ones are often the richest. Again, works of art. A lot of great art stemmed from religion so I never toss it out as potential subject matter from where I can learn.

        I appreciate some of the messages in Buddhism about attaining peace. The idea of getting away from mere hedonism and shallowness, etc.

        1. Another Cat says:

          Totally agree Bibi. The Christmas carols and medieval dominican songs are fantastic to listen to. And, well, La sagrada familia, Angkor Vat and other buildings of art.

        2. WhoCares says:

          “A lot of great art stemmed from religion so I never toss it out as potential subject matter from where I can learn.”

          So true, Bibi. Visual art and literary art.

      2. blackcoffee30 says:

        “I do enjoy that feeling of being ‘in communion’ or fellowship of sharing a particular experience…” the human experience, a human revolution, is my religion. It’s so beautiful.

    2. NarcAngel says:

      Taking what you like for yourself and leaving the rest doesn’t sound weird to me. I do love the architecture of old churches. In fact, I owned a pew from one that was demolished for many years. I won’t tell you the things that happened on it haha.

      1. Violetta says:

        That’s an older tradition than you think, NA. There are medieval fabliaux about people who thought Church would be a kewl place to do Norty Things.

        1. Fiddleress says:

          Haha, Violetta, church as “a kewl place to do Norty Things”: this factored in Jonathan Swift’s Argument Against Abolishing Christianity in England:
          “Where are more appointments and rendezvouses of gallantry? Where more care to appear in the foremost box, with greater advantage of dress?”.

          1. Violetta says:

            The fabliaux make that look like A.A. Milne.

          2. Fiddleress says:

            “The fabliaux make that look like A.A. Milne” Hahaha!
            Yes, well, you know, Violetta, that’s me: coy, and not in the least naughty.
            (Damn, where’s my bloody halo? Gone again. I really wonder why…)

    3. blackcoffee30 says:

      “I view religion as art or literature–something to study and learn from and even admire in parts” 💖 me too. Is the group a particular Islamic philosophy or general study?

  17. Kel says:

    Kel says:
    July 29, 2020 at 15:37
    It’s funny how everyone still overlooks red flags after learning about them. More than lambs in the flock here, there, and everywhere.

    My first comment on this thread is apt for my last.

    1. NarcAngel says:

      And……..there it is. As expected.

      1. Kel says:

        It was already there on July 29th

    2. mommypino says:


      I can’t find your response to me at my WordPress browser so I’m just replying under here.

      You’re fine Kel. We eventually learn which people are safe to have conversations about certain things. It’s hard when you are talking to people who doesn’t know you and you don’t know. Like I said, my brother is an atheist and sometimes the topic of religion arises and we both feel safe expressing our points of view. Nobody feels any pressure to prove anything or defend anything. He knows what kind of person I am and that I’m not trying to convert him and I know that he doesn’t look down on me or think that I am stupid because I believe in God. It’s just like a regular conversation. He’s pretty logical too, a professor in engineering, and yet he doesn’t expect me to prove God with facts and logic. He’s smart enough to know that religion is based on faith and not evidence.

      Take care as well! 💕

      1. WokeAF says:

        Kel, if you’re comfortable sharing, what was your majority empath cadre?

        1. mommypino says:

          Kel I just want to clarify that when I said you’re fine I meant you are not a sucker and you’re fine. I said that because in your message that I responded to you said you feel like a sucker. I didn’t mean you’re fine as in to deny that you got hurt. I just want to clarify that because sometimes what I say sounds differently than what I meant to say. 🌸

  18. Witch says:

    I thought I said a lot worse in this thread but maybe I didn’t sound superior but more like a twat

    1. Witch says:

      I was hoping someone would say “you do sound like a twat” so then I could say “thank you I was worried I sound like an arse”
      Of mice and men

      1. Violetta says:


        Get the soap. Witch’s turn.

      2. WokeAF says:

        Well if it helps, your twat comment made me lol

  19. Kiki says:

    Just looking through this thread .Yikes , I don’t know if I’m stupid , no seriously but I don’t get the whole evil and good being just perspective.
    Perspective in a twisted deformed mind maybe re Hitler.
    Especially the Hitler argument between Kel and HG .It sent shivers down my spine .

    Hitler thought what he was doing was right from his perspective, is that it ? . I honestly don’t get it .
    Why didn’t he sacrifice himself for his torture experiments then , he may have had a breakthrough.His perspective didn’t let him do that did it .
    Hitler and his henchmen / women were in my opinion sadists of the worst kind , the epitome of cruelty , pain and horror that is EVIL no matter what

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Kiki, it is evil from YOUR perspective, not from his. It is all about perspective and until you grasp this fundamental point, you will not fully understand narcissism. I have given plenty of explanations and examples in this thread and if you are still struggling to understand, do consult with me and I will explain it in even greater detail to help you. As I have explained before, understanding the differing perspective (you do not have to like it or agree with it, you need to understand it) is crucial to understanding narcissism effectively.

      He did not volunteer for the torture experiments because
      1. He ruled the regime
      2. He was required to run the regime
      3. He regarded the individuals who were experimented on as sub-human (again from his perspective) and he did not belong to that group (from his perspective) so he would not be subjected to such experiments, they would because of the classification (form his perspective) that they were sub-human.
      “Hitler and his henchmen / women were in my opinion sadists of the worst kind , the epitome of cruelty , pain and horror that is EVIL no matter what” – precisely, in your opinion, i.e. from YOUR perspective.

      1. Kiki says:

        Thanks HG , I can grasp many complex abstract chemistry problems , this I get but I can’t reason with .
        Surely logic would see that causing pain and horror to others is wrong.
        I love the saying“ Do unto others as you would like done onto you .“

        As much as I love them Animals do this purely by instinct killing siblings / offspring of other males etc it is not intellect just base instinct to survive and pass on genes.

        Maybe sadists have less advanced cerebral cortex to work on I don’t know ???
        Doesn’t a sadist get sexual pleasure from cruelty that really isn’t logic .

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Please answer the following from your perspective.
          1. I punch a man in the face. I break his jaw. Is this right or wrong?
          2. I shoot a man who is an enemy combatant in a war. Is this right or wrong?
          3. I steal a sandwich from a shop because I am starving. Is this right or wrong?
          4. I shoot a man causing him pain and horror to stop him from stabbing you? Is this right or wrong.
          5. I allow Coventry to be bombed with loss of life and property to avoid allowing the enemy to know that I have broken their code for communications. Is this right or wrong?
          6. I threaten to shoot a child in the head, so her father, who knows the location of a dirty bomb in London tells me where it is. Is this right or wrong?

          1. Bibi says:

            HG, it took me some time, but I do understand the Understanding Perspective now, at least from an intellectual, detached sense. It’s not something that emotionally relate to but I do understand it. For empaths/emotion types–it is very hard to push past that emotion and view things purely in a detached manner.

            I do believe in right and wrong, but I recognize where that position is coming. How I assess it is, would I want this to happen to me? How would I feel if someone did that to me? Your examples listed above would all depend, but with self preservation in mind some things can be forgiven.

            Were I a store owner and someone starving stole a sandwich, I would not report that person, but then I recognize that many might. It would still be in their right to do so.

            Before I understood this, I used to pull my hair out in frustration when it came to relating or trying to reason with the Mid Ranger. Why can’t he see it? How does he not think what he is doing is wrong?

            As example, he gave me a fake name for over 2 yrs. From my perspective, this shows dishonesty and a lack of empathy for my feelings. From his perspective, this is just self-preservation. ‘I will share what I like when I am good and ready.’

            When encountered with the situation at the end of the 7 yrs, he denied lying. (My perspective: he lied.) His perspective: I gave you my middle name and my mother’s maiden name so it was technically still my name. (No lie.)

            Before understanding this, I would think I was arguing with a crazy person. Asking myself a million questions: why can’t he see it? Over and over.

            Also, in one of your posts you mentioned a Poll Tax in the UK in the 80s. That is funny b/c I recently watched a Mike Leigh film from 1990 where one of the characters is wearing a large tee shirt that says, ‘Bollocks to the Poll Tax.’ Now I know what that is referring to.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            Good to read Bibi.

            I am not suggesting that there is no right and wrong, I am explaining that it is a matter of perspective meaning the concept of good is not fixed, it alters, ditto evil. I have provided many examples.

            “As example, he gave me a fake name for over 2 yrs. From my perspective, this shows dishonesty and a lack of empathy for my feelings. From his perspective, this is just self-preservation. ‘I will share what I like when I am good and ready.’ ” – that’s correct, different perspectives and the narcissistic perspective exists in order to achieve the Prime Aims, chief of which is fuel and control.

            Your concept of right and wrong is predicated on emotional empathy (something you have touched on in your post).
            Our concept of right and wrong is predicated on control.
            Different perspectives, hence the outcomes so many are familiar with. This is why it is so important that people understand it is a matter of perspective because by understanding that, you understand so much more about why we do as we do. You do not have to like it, but you must understand it.

          3. Kiki says:

            Hmmm good questions but all the situations here have a moral dilemma .
            Re Hitler situation that was very very different and the sufferings utterly pointless .None of the above involve torture or cruelty of the sadistic kind , they are all reactive towards a moral dilemma

            Ok punching someone occurs when the lizard brain is activated and fight /flight the rational logical part of the brain is overridden.

            Hence my question about people with no moral compass / violent people maybe having a damaged cerebral cortex.

            Is this wrong , yes , but it is the action of the primitive brain , a reaction usually not premeditated but driven by instinct.

            Shooting a man in the leg or something to protect yourself in grave danger is not evil .Its self defence and your choice is removed so again instinct

            Taking an innocent child ,family stripping them , starving them and gassing them to death after God only knows what that is evil HG .I cannot accept it is anything less.

            All the above situations start with someone doing wrong , and it has a domino effect which creates further grief , dilemma , guilt etc that’s the way bad energy works .


          4. HG Tudor says:

            What is a moral dilemma? A matter of perspective. Some people see a dilemma, others do not.
            What is a moral compass based on? Perspective.

            You reference instinct as meaning the choice is taken away and therefore you state that is not evil. Lesser and Mid-Range Narcissists operate through instinct all of the time, therefore they have no choice, according to your hypothesis, therefore they are not evil.

            I have explained it repeatedly and you have not been able to understand it. As I offered earlier, if you want to be be able to understand the way the narcissist functions, it is necessary to understand that there are differing perspectives functioning – your view is not THE view, your view is not objectively the right or good one, it is right by your perspective.

          5. Kiki says:

            I get it HG , one perspective differs from another even our perspective changing all the time .

            I never said my view was the only one or the right one .

            Basically for me alone I cannot accept that Hitler was anything other than driven by evil if his perspective saw differently so be it but thankfully I don’t see his perspective and never want to .
            I’ll drop this now and we can agree to disagree 😀


          6. HG Tudor says:

            “I get it HG , one perspective differs from another even our perspective changing all the time .” – Good

            “I never said my view was the only one or the right one .” – noted.

            “Basically for me alone I cannot accept that Hitler was anything other than driven by evil if his perspective saw differently so be it but thankfully I don’t see his perspective and never want to .” That is fair enough, you are not being asked to approve of his perspective, but understand that he had a differing perspective which was behind his actions. As I have explained before “evil (based on a perspective) always believes that it is doing good (based on a different perspective). I am not asking you to approve of Hitler´s perspective, you do not even have to understand his perspective, instead it is important to understand he had a different perspective and that from HIS perspective he did not see what he was doing as evil in the sense of the word used by his opponents.

            It is important for readers to understand that there are different perspectives and the concept of right and wrong is not fixed. By grasping this concept, it will help you with your understanding of narcissism. In consultation, I repeatedly come across people who do not realise the narcissist is operating from a different perspective and that there is not one all-encompassing perspective. Through consultation I explain the concept of this differing perspective and they always explain that once they grasp it, it is very liberating and really helps them with their understanding of narcissism and achieving freedom. It is a crucial component and that is why I have endeavoured repeatedly to help people by getting them to understand this. It has been advanced to help you. I have other matters which need my attention and therefore I am not going to explain any further.

          7. WokeAF says:

            From Here:

            Right vs Wrong:
            No right or wrong, no good or evil. Only differing levels of awareness as The Whole , and Separation
            Empaths at one end of the scale (those with high Contagion percentage likely right at the end) are acutely aware of being The Whole, – and experience The Whole’s pain.
            Normals in the Middle experience some awareness of The Whole, and HG at the far end acutely experiences awareness of Separation, no awareness of The Whole.
            Empaths who haven’t disidentified from the illusion of being a single person, feel this awareness of The Whole -and the desire to nurture the Whole- as “right” , and the awareness of separation as pain,and causing pain to the Whole , as “wrong”.

            God/ Religion:
            HG, much like the various Gods, would cease to exist without acknowledgement (His body might live on, but not HG)

            I prayed ferociously to the I AM to guide me to who would help my boy.
            I also caused quite a ruckus advocating for him.
            Nobody was much helping until a particular mental health worker recognized the severity of the situation and encouraged the doctor to admit him to a hospital in the city.
            We were sent to ppl who helped him.
            My prayers were answered. A miracle , surely because I prayed?
            Had that mental health worker not been on shift, would that have been Gods will? Was it Gods will the child who was denied a bed bc my boy got one, is still suffering or perhaps has killed himself?
            Was my miracle more important that his mom’s?
            Was it because I prayed, or because I took action?
            Am I evil if I took action that denied another child a bed to save my own , even unwittingly? What if I did it on purpose?

            It’s either all a Miracle, or none of it is.
            It’s either All Gods will, or none of it.
            Empaths do harm, Narcs do good works.

            It’s all perception, context.


            Thoughts exist in the mental realm and our brains translate them.
            Some ppl’s brains perceive and translate more info that others.
            Most truly clairvoyant ppl are reluctant to share much of what they pick up bc there is a quality of not wanting to interfere.
            Most wont charge $ for it.
            There’s also an understanding that OF COURSE you were a princess in your last life- bc what you really are has lived and is living every life that ever existed or ever will.

            Anything you have to believe in isn’t Truth. Truth is obvious , but it’s easier to believe in concepts than to find out experientially bc of cognitive dissonance it can cause.

          8. Bibi says:

            I think the main reason empathic people have a hard time grasping this perspective is it is so opposing to their own personal sense of right and wrong that they feel that if they do consider it, then that means they’re being sympathetic to it or giving credibility to it.

            No empathic person is going to sympathize with Josef Mengele and want to come away with, ‘Well, that was just his perspective, la-de-da,’ even if understanding that perspective is hallmark to understanding narcissism.

            In my case, Mid Ranger doesn’t think withholding his name for 2+ yrs is dishonest because he sees it as his right to do so. Remaining in touch with him for as long as I did was a mistake, but also was an example of me sympathizing with that perspective b/c I wasn’t willing to pull myself away. Clearly it wasn’t bad enough for me to end it yet.

            Empathic people naturally want to see another’s pov. When that pov is so repugnant, they can’t fathom understanding it.

            My ET was rationalizing his behaviour, (and it didn’t help when I would get told what I wanted to hear) and as much as I might have complained and challenged him, I was still entertaining his perspective by interacting with him.

            How I know he is wrong and that I am right is that I listened to my feelings. I decide, not him. How does this make me feel? What do I get from this relationship? What good is coming from this? When the answers were negative, I listened to my own perspective and rejected his once I went no contact.

            I know that he would regard what transpired b/t us as some unfortunate luck that befell unto him and he would never question if any of his actions played a part–of course they didn’t. From his perspective, I was trying to control him, too needy, wanting to know too much about him.

            From my perspective, he was dishonest, manipulative, disingenuous. I know I am right b/c I make the call when it comes to me, not him. I don’t care what he thinks.

            But back to my point–understanding this perspective WAS crucial to me no longer undergoing endless frustration at his evasiveness and his devaluation that from my perspective came out of nowhere, but from his, was likely boiling for some time.

            Understanding the other side–not sympathizing or giving credence to it–but understanding it can help in that endless quest of why? Why why? Which is such a colossal waste of energy and time.

          9. Ren says:

            The problem with this entire argument is that we are being asked to understand how narcs think whilst simultaneously operating in our own moral paradigm.

            This is cognitive dissonance in action.

          10. K says:

            I read the book Enigma by Robert Harris (fiction) and I no idea that the Luftwaffe air raid on Coventry was called Operation Moonlight Sonata.

      2. lickemtomorrow says:

        I feel like we are equivocating between right and wrong, unless it’s purely to provide Hitler as an example of a narcissistic personality which sees no equivocation as he has no morals, no empathy, no conscience, no guilt and no remorse. Just wondering if that is the upshot of this discussion. Hitler was a narcissistic psychopath so therefore don’t bother to have any expectations of him as from his worldview he was right. There’s something up with this argument as this leaves the world in general open to the whims of such people with no recourse to justice. He killed himself, so he did us all a favour, but he wasn’t the only one responsible. So, others jumped on his narcissistic bandwagon being led a sheep who had been perhaps looking for a shepherd who could tell them what they wanted to hear. They were not seen to be blameless and some of them were tried. The general populace was ‘re-educated’ in order to stamp out the thinking Hitler had engendered. I think I’ve lost the point of the argument here.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          There is no objective standard of right and wrong, good and evil.

          Those who keep stating that there is, fail to understand that there is a concept of good and evil only from THEIR perspective. It is all about perspective.

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree, HG.

            But, no doubt, that is from my perspective (and also based on what I’ve already shared).

          2. Witch says:

            There’s a song by a punk band called crass about perspective and leadership:

            Where next Columbus?

            “Jesus had an idea from the confusion of his soul,
            Then there were a thousand more waiting to take control.
            The guilt is sold, forgiveness bought,
            The cross is there as your reward.
            Anothers love, anothers pain,
            Anothers pride, anothers shame.
            Do you watch at a distance from the side you have chosen?
            Whose answers serve you best? Who’ll save you from confusion?
            Who will leave you an exit and a comfortable cover?
            Who will take you so near their edge, but never drop you over?
            Who do you watch? Who do you watch?
            Who do you watch? Who do you watch?”

          3. Kiki says:

            Hg there is such a thing as moral compass.
            To think there is no right or wrong just perspective is very weird to me .
            All emotion aside , imagine saying to a serial killer , ahh ‘it’s only all your perspective.
            It is the perspective of a TWISTED MIND , I think that is the difference that I can somewhat understand.
            These people know what they are doing is wrong but don’t care or the urge to kill torture takes over.
            That’s the product of a warped mind soul.
            So I think it might be clearer to say the perspective of a healthy well rounded person or the perspective of a severely mentally fucked up mind .
            One perspective is skewed and twisted the other is not .

          4. Eternity says:

            HG , I am beginning to understand that since obviously the N and the Empaths do see things from.a different perspective. It’s not a right or wrong situation. They cant help who they are just like we cant help who we are.

        2. NarcAngel says:


          There is a MAJORITY perspective on what is considered right and wrong, good and evil, and even that shifts over time (remember slavery?), but there is no OBJECTIVE standard. There will always be those who do not accept the majority perspective because they have their own.

          Does that help?

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hi NA, it actually doesn’t help because I don’t agree. It does not come down to the majority, but revealed truth in my opinion. People can either accept it or reject it, that is their prerogative and based on free will, but as far as I’m concerned it exists.

            Slavery was a ‘perceived’ good according to some. In the end it could not be justified according to a ‘truth’ that was held to be ‘self evident’ – that all men are created equal. Where did that come from? Did someone just pull that out of their hat one day? Why would they do that? Slavery was certainly working for the South and their economy. There was no reason to free the slaves unless we go down the road of conscience being an instigator of that. Was slavery a moral right or wrong? Who said so?

            I do agree that people will continue to have their own perspectives and as I said that is their prerogative. I do not agree that a majority opinion makes a ‘moral’ right or wrong. The ‘self evident’ truth of all men being created equal is an indicator that our society must rest on such pillars in order to function.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            All men being created equal is again a matter of perspective. There will be those who subscribe to such a view and others who do not. Look at so many conflicts and how the enemy was seen as something less, something monstrous, something despicable yet both sides had that view of the other. Why? Perspective.

            You could go to Planet X in another galaxy where the prevailing perspective is that there is a hierarchy based on hair colour, just for the sake of example. They would find the proposition of all people being born equal is laughable, the correct (from their perspective) system is a hierarchical one. That is what the majority subscribes to and thus it becomes the common perspective on which a moral framework and then a legal framework are founded.

            Take for example schizophrenia. 1% of the world’s population is diagnosed with schizophrenia. The schizophrenia’s symptoms, hearing voices, seeing messages in car registration plates etc are genuine and real to them, they are not fabricating them. However, those who suffer from schizophrenia are labelled as having a serious disorder because the majority does not have schizophrenia, therefore the schizophrenia is disordered by reference to the majority. If 80% of the population heard voices, saw messages in car registration plates etc, NOT experiencing those things would become the disorder, because from the majority perspective of the 80%, their failure to hear voices etc means they are the disordered ones. The status of schizophrenia as a disorder (i.e. outside of the majority norm) is decided by that majority. However, what the schizophrenic experiences is THEIR reality (remember they are not inventing it, it is real to them hence why it is often so distressing) and what the non-schizophrenic is THEIR reality, based on different perspectives. The non- schizophrenic experience is called reality or the norm, but only because this is what the majority experience, but because it IS reality in an objective way because there is no objective reality, it is all a matter of perspective.

          3. NarcAngel says:

            Well who then IS this Grand Poobah or Arbiter that decides what is the truth and what is right and wrong. Can anyone name them? Point to the office they occupy?

            Some might answer God, but we have established that is not accepted by everyone and not even religions agree with all others on many matters. Supreme court? Elected officials? All determined by the majority and AT THAT TIME and subject to change due to a shift by the MAJORITY.

            No one is asking people to adopt a different perspective – just to acknowledge that there are differing perspectives that propel people to do different things. Understanding that (more specifically here) is so important because it helps people to understand why the narcissist does and says what they do. People continually ask why? why? why?. The answer is because they have a different perspective that suits their needs. No one is asking that theirs be adopted. Just to understand that their differing perspective propels their behaviour, and once you get that, it takes the why out of the equation and frees you from any responsibility you felt to continue on trying to “fix” them or get them to change or adopt a “better” perspective (ie:yours). Their perspective will never match yours. Understanding that helps in all kinds of situations, but more specifically here because it is key to release from the entanglement with a narcissist. That is why it is repeated. HG is not trying to “win” or defend narcissists. He is explaining the “why” for our benefit.

          4. HG Tudor says:


          5. NarcAngel says:


            Question: who is it that reveals the truth? How and from who is this information collated to form the opinion of what is the truth?

            A collective of shared opinion? A majority? Or does truth fall from the sky?

            I agree with you that majority opinion does not make a moral right or wrong. That’s the whole point. It creates laws that are used as a guideline but not everyone accepts them because of their differing perspective.

            Also, not everything is as it appears. Slavery was/is wrong on every level (sad I have to clarify that lest people take my point the wrong way). Someone had to take that on politically and that is not always for the “truth” but for political and personal gain. A narcissistic President could just as easily be responsible for abolishing slavery as an empath in that case.

          6. K says:

            Anubis, Egyptian god of the dead, is the Grand Poobah of course.

          7. Violetta says:

            Which is why I am very glad the Allies took a Charles James Napier approach to the Nazi perspective during WWII, and had the people and technology to win.

            Much of that technology, btw, produced by people who had left Nazi Germany, either by choice or because the Nazis regarded them as inferior races.

          8. NarcAngel says:

            Is that a Star Wars reference. You KNOW I don’t get those!

          9. fox says:

            What, NA? No Star Wars for you?! Now THAT is blasphemous. You really are going to hell. 😉

          10. k says:

            Hahahahaha….get with the program! Anubis was a bounty hunter in The Clone Wars.

          11. blackcoffee30 says:

            LOL My first thought was that Anubis was most certainly not the Grand Poobah, but I don’t get Star Wars references either.

          12. Bibi says:

            One thing though. I firmly believe in an objective reality when it comes to science. There are certain fundamental proofs. Gravity exists. Life forms consist of carbon. We need oxygen to breathe. The earth is a circle, not a flat canvas. We can’t drink salt water without an adverse reaction.

            None of this is based in morality but actual study. We don’t survive on helium, our bones are not made of cotton candy, the earth is not shaped like a triangle. We know this because we have studied it and acquired data.

            If aliens came to earth and thought otherwise, they would have a perspective, but it would not be based in fact. ‘Ah, humans are so dumb because they have cotton candy between their ears and they shit marshmallows!’

            Morality, I get it, because that is something human based. But humans are the dipshits who came along trying to figure out what was already working just fine.

        3. Fiddleress says:

          “There can be no equivocation around the destructive nature of Hitler’s regime. To imagine that from his perspective it was justified and that he could convince others to believe that while suspending their own moral judgement (which was what was required) continues to be unbelievable to many.”

          Finding out about what Hitler’s regime had done was unspeakably horrifying to me, a shock that made the world seem like a very scary place to live in. No doubt about that.

          It is unbelievable to us today, that he should have managed to convince other people, because we forget the context in which nazism thrived: post-WWI Germany.
          First, the Versailles Treaty was a major backlash against defeated Germany, it could be (and indeed was) construed as hugely humiliating for Germany. And the biggest conceivable criticism for narcissist Hitler, one which ignited his fury alright.
          Second, the economic state of Germany (partly due to the demands of the Versailles Treaty) was derelict. It didn’t start with the 1929 Crash like in other countries. People were starving right from the outset of the 1920’s, in Germany. I remember reading an account dated 1923 of helpless parents (mothers) watching their children starve to death in their arms. We have a saying that goes something like “a starving belly has no ears”, meaning that all moral judgement flies out of the window, at least for most people, when you are simply trying to survive.
          And then along came Hitler, who was offering ‘solutions’ for a better economic situation – for the Germans only, granted – and the possibility to have enough to eat, including for your kids. And the finding of a scapegoat (or several), as happened in Germany, is a well-known trick to rally people around a project. Now, with the Jews, they were an easy target because let’s not forget Europe and the US were extremely antisemitic at the beginning of the 20th century, and it was nothing new. (The Jews were seen as the people that had killed God. The Catholic Church got rid of that notion in 1965 only.)

          Now, I might have thought I could sacrifice my life for an ideal I believed in, when younger, but sacrificing my kids’ lives to save my moral judgement? I honestly don’t know. Thankfully, I haven’t been in a situation to ask myself that question.

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Constructive post Fiddleress and you have embraced the fluidity of perspective and also how emotional empathy is eroded/not extended towards others allowing Hitler to harness power through populism.

          2. Fiddleress says:

            Looks like I had the best teacher for this, HG, no doubt about this.

          3. Fiddleress says:

            I have a feeling that my previous post wants rephrasing, by erasing “looks like” (not the intended tone).
            The rest conveyed what I meant to say. Which really is: thank you.

          4. NarcAngel says:


            I really enjoy the commentary you provide to support your views. Your last paragraph especially important. We all like to think we know what we would do, but often that is based on the view we have of ourselves and not on any concrete or past evidence. Facing reality can be quite different I’m sure. Being with a narcissist has driven people to be other than they would normally. Try being denied food or having your loved ones compromised as you point out and we would likely find our morals and view of ourselves change.

          5. Fiddleress says:

            Thank you, NarcAngel. What you wrote means a lot to me.

          6. WokeAF says:

            “ Try being denied food or having your loved ones compromised as you point out and we would likely find our morals and view of ourselves change.”

            Excellent point.
            Survival instinct , self preservation, not to mention parental instinct for those that did what they had to do to protect THEIR kin. When it’s crunch time, our beloved “believies” may not withstand these other instincts

          7. lickemtomorrow says:

            My mother is German. I have lived experience of a Nazi past. She never defended Hitler’s regime and nor will I. Populist thinking may be a factor in the rise of that regime, but how exactly did Hitler achieve that? One way was by suppressing the Church. This appears to be a common denominator between both Communist and Fascist ideology. If you can suppress the Church, deny God, then there is nothing standing in the way of an earthly ‘utopia’.

            The Final Solution becomes a reality.

            As to all the other questions asked and responses given, I can only say that my beliefs are predicated on my Christian faith. I do not apologize for it and it has held me steadfast through many a trial and will continue to do so.

          8. Violetta says:

            Erika Mann’s book School.for Barbarians gives a contemporary view of the brainwashing kids got during the Nazi era. I also recommend Alfonse Heck’s memoirs of being in the Hitler Youth, and Ilse Kuhn’s book about being in the BDM (she was part Jewish, and the “Aryan” side of the family basically hid her in plain sight). The youth groups were attractive because they did typical scouting activities like camping, hikes, and folksongs, but it was all part of their indoctrination. (Being told you’re a member of the Master Race is pretty attractive when you may be just old enough to remember the devalued currency post WWI, when people wheeled a barrow full of marks to buy a loaf of bread, and Germany was something of an international punchline.)

            They encouraged kids to spy on their parents and take notes on the neighbors. You have to wonder how many kids got a family member incarcerated or killed. Many kids were sickened when they grew up enough to realize how they’d been exploited, but the ones with narcy genetics probably shut down permanently.

            Mind you, Hitler may have been a true believer, but Goebbels was utterly cynical. He had a party trick where he would defend, with equal passion and skill, communism, capitalism, Democracy, and finally National Socialism. His listeners didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Of course he only did this in front of high-ranking members of the Reich and their wives.

          9. Fiddleress says:

            That Goebbels was certainly one of the worst. I didn’t know that about him (that he could defend any system with equal passion), but it does fit with the character. Interesting.
            Thanks for the book references, Violetta, I really like that you share them. Erika’s brother, Klaus Mann, also opposed Hitler’s regime. I read a collection of essays by him (1925-1948), but I don’t know the English title (Against Barbarianism?).

            Lickemtomorrow: of course not all Germans defended Hitler’s regime! My daughter’s father is German, and his father was in the Hitlerjungend and the Wehrmacht (no real choice), but still married a Jew after the war.
            I won’t repeat the point I was trying to make, but you may know this book: “If This Is a Man”, by Primo Levi, about how being in a concentration camp strips you of your humanity (or it can do)- which may account for the subsequent guilt of survivors.

      3. Empath007 says:

        This may have already been stated somewhere else but I haven’t read through all the comments, but when discussing Hitler, it may be helpful for some to know there is more the Malgniant Narcissim at play, according to persaonality theorist Fromm, Hitler exhibited 3 personality disorders :

        -Malgnint Narcissim
        -Incestuous Symbiosis ( being inseparable from their “host” person, personalities are blended and their own identity is lost) while that’s often referred to as the Mother, in Hitlers case… it was Germany, he believed it was being polluted by the blood of Jews.

        That adds some new perspective and dynamic on his thinking, his decisions and why he acted how he did .it is said that not only the loss of the war, but the reactions of revolutionaries within Germany had attacked everything that was sacred to his reactionary nationilsm, and they were successful, the victory of these revolutionaries gave Hitlers destructiveness its “final and ineradicable form”….

        Hitler really did believe what he was doing was “right”.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Thank you Empath007, that is precisely the point, from his perspective, he believed what he was doing was right.
          Plenty of people believed what he was doing was wrong.
          Why the difference? Perspective.

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            Here is where I’m going to agree. No one is going to act unless from their perspective they believe their actions to be right.

            This does not discount the fact their actions may in fact be wrong (i.e. morally reprehensible).

            While the difference may be perspective, ultimately a judgement needs to be applied for the good of society. And no, I’m not talking about a majority, but the moral good.

            Hitler was a destructive force and, regardless of his perspective, that destructive force needed to be brought to an end. Much like the destructive force of any dictator. Why? Because it was destructive. How do we know that? Because he killed millions of people in an attempt at world domination. There can be no equivocation around the destructive nature of Hitler’s regime. To imagine that from his perspective it was justified and that he could convince others to believe that while suspending their own moral judgement (which was what was required) continues to be unbelievable to many.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            You are correct in your first sentence and that is a very important understanding to acquire, on both sides of the divide.

            You fall into the error again when you refer to “This does not discount the fact their actions may in fact be wrong (i.e. morally reprehensible).” – wrong and morally reprehensible by reference to what? An objective standard? No. The perspective of others, i.e. a majority perspective? Yes. Further, why are some behaviours encouraged, tolerated and then rejected if there is a fixed notion of good and evil? Take slavery or homosexuality as examples. Take universal suffrage. It is because the perspective and the number behind it alter.

            You talk about a moral good? Tell me, where does that come from? Who decides that the moral good is? It is the majority perspective. If one person decrees “this is good” but nobody else agrees and they say “this is the moral good” and nobody else agrees, that moral good they espouse is ignored and not adhered to.

            Now ask yourself this, since Hitler´s behaviour was judged as morally reprehensible and needed to be brought to an end why did so many nations either do nothing or delayed in doing something about him?

          3. Empath007 says:

            Yes, I can understand that now. I do think there are plenty of narcissist out there as well that would agree Hitler went too far though haha. Whether it is for the facade or not there are still a lot of “do gooder” narcs who fight for social justices etc.

            What I’ve learnt is. I need to be confident in my own persecptive.
            Depsite what others think of it.

            It’s interesting because I remember a specific argument with my narc where he said “ you know…
            Not everyone has to see it YOUR way !! Just because you do things a certain way doesn’t mean I have too”

            To which my response was “ you’re absolutely right, you don’t have to do it my way… but I also don’t have to put up with your way either”

            But his words stuck with me, I felt bad for
            Trying to stick to my own principles. As if I was being unreasonable.

            But the thing is… I was right. I let my ET fuck up my logic once again. BecUse I don’t have to accept anyone else’s definition of “right”. I can only have my own. And it’s not selfish or rude or condescending to stick with what I think is right.

          4. lickemtomorrow says:

            Thank you for confirming my first comment, HG.

            I want to respond thoughtfully and many others have done the same. I appreciate reading all the different perspectives and having the opportunity to do so as well as being able to offer my own.

            Rather than continue to argue the point I decided I wanted to bring this back to narcissism.

            First of all let me agree that perspective is important. It drives our thoughts and actions.

            How we develop our perspectives is dependent on many things. I had no perspective on narcissists until the ‘truth’ of narcissism was revealed to me. Underlying my new found understanding is that truth. I will now make decisions based on that. So, truth is revealed to us and we either stand or fall on the basis of that. That doesn’t mean there isn’t ‘redemption’. We can always come back from the edge. But having this knowledge is what keeps us safe.

  20. Kim e says:

    If you are going to Catholic heaven then I guess I am too. See you at the bar.

    1. Violetta says:

      There will be mead. And cordials, sizers, melomels. Plus hypocras. Both the 2nd-century hypocras recipe and the Menagier de Paris’ 14th-century version.

      1. Kim says:

        Not sure what any of those things are. Just as long as rum and tequila tacos are there I am good

        1. Violetta says:


          Medieval alky. I have friends who are brewers.

          Per Wikipedia:

          Mead – fermented honey

          Cyser (I misspelled above) – A blend of honey and apple juice fermented together

          Melomel – mead that contains fruit (such as raspberry, blackberry or strawberry)

          Pyment – A mead fermented with grape juice

          Hypocras – drink made with wine and herbs/spices, sometimes heated. The spices are not part of the fermenting process, as with mead.

          Metheglin: mead that also contains spices (such as cloves, cinnamon or nutmeg), or herbs (such as meadowsweet, hops, or even lavender or chamomile). Mead made with cinnamon and apples may be referred to as either a cinnamon cyser or an apple metheglin

          Per one brewing reenactor’s page, medieval cordials were used as medicine and required distilling wine, which is against the law in the U.S. Some brewers approximate the recipe by steeping the flavoring agents in water or alcohol and then mixing them as desired. (In the original process, the herbs would have been added during fermentation.)

          These are just the ones I’ve encountered at reenactments, but there are mead variants in Finland and Ethiopia. The Wikipedia article mentioned a whole bunch I never heard of. They sound delicious, although they may not show up at reenactments if they’re modern recipes.

          And then there are the people who say eff that, and chug whatever cutely-named noxious brew containing grain alcohol is popular that year, but that’s another story.

      2. Ren says:


        Sometimes I just want to give you a big, smootchy kiss!

        Can we add Umberto Eco’s ‘The Name of the Rose?’ A vexatious piece of literature! On the go for, 28 years?

        I’ve managed to drop it in the bath. Leave it outside in a thunderstorm. Still not read the fucker.

        ITNOTR for those that dont know, is a murder mystery set in a medieval monastery in Italy. It centres around the theft of a very important copy of a book, the only extant one, of a work by a think Aristotle. The topic? Comedy.

        As we all know, Catholicism is no.laughing matter.

        I cant help but wonder if it would be helped my reading if Eco had dropped Aristotle’s book in the bath.

        1. Another Cat says:

          “I’ve managed to drop it in the bath. Leave it outside in a thunderstorm. Still not read the fucker.”

          Your phrasing me smile. : -)

        2. Violetta says:


          If you think Catholicism is no laughing matter, you haven’t seen a medieval mystery play.

          Noah and his wife bash each other like Punch and Judy. The bereaved mothers in Slaughter of the Innocents plays beat Herod’s soldiers with their distaffs. The Pagan Priest’s boy in a miracle play chants parody Latinate liturgies like “Sniggle-snaggle-snoggle-CO-rum” and “Vart-um-FART-um.”

          You need to read Saints Behaving Badly. Instead of euphemistically noting that saint so-and-so “was a great sinner” before conversion, there are chapter headings like “St. Olga, Mass Murderer” and “Venerable Matt Talbot, Chronic Alcoholic.”

    2. Ren says:


      He he! Make mine a


      1. njfilly says:

        Apparently you ladies are not aware that although there is a bar, they only serve red wine in Catholic Heaven.

        1. Violetta says:

          Nonsense. See the Simpsons on Catholic and Protestant heaven. Papists know how to PARTY.

          1. njfilly says:

            Ha ha! Funny, Violetta. Many truths were revealed to us through the Simpsons. It should be mandatory viewing.

        2. Kim says:

          Not the catholic heaven I am going to. It is on the wrong side of the pearly gates

          1. njfilly says:

            Oh I see. I guess I misunderstood. That explains why you thought you could get spicy tacos!

        3. NarcAngel says:

          The Catholics may serve red wine, but beware – the crackers are shit. No taste.

          1. blackcoffee30 says:

            NA – Are you saying Jesus has no taste or it not tasty?

          2. NarcAngel says:

            I’m saying they’re just shit crackers. Anything else is just fantasy haha.

          3. blackcoffee30 says:

            Confession: I enjoyed the Communion wafers.

          4. NarcAngel says:

            It was quite a day when I tasted the wafer. I met some kids out and about and they took me to their house. Their mom was a complete hippie and out of her mind on something looking back. She got the idea to take us all to the beach (her oldest hippie son drove us in an old van where we sat on the floor). I called my mother to ask permission and she spoke to the other mother and consented (one less kid to keep track of I suppose as keep in mind that neither I nor my mother had never met this family before). Off we go to the beach and at some point she gets the idea to stop at a church. We all pile in. I have no idea what is going on. Then I see a guy giving out juice and crackers. I’m hungry, so I go up and I hear laughter after me (none of them followed) but I don’t care – I’m hungry.

            In summary: The crackers were shit and I was kidnapped by the Manson Family. Good times.

          5. njfilly says:

            Ha ha! Yes! Very true. Like unsalted saltines which are useless and shouldn’t even exist.

          6. Another Cat says:


            Me too, but I got obsessed with that simple Host taste so nowadays I ask for that type of cone if the icecream stand has it. Unless chocolate dipped, I don’t really care for the sweet waffle cones of my country.

          7. blackcoffee30 says:

            That’s an awesome story.

            Jesus would’ve fed you. He was actually a pretty cool dude. His bread would probably been better than the wafers tho.

      2. Kim e says:

        Ren….that sounds good too.

  21. NarcAngel says:

    Thank you for allowing all views for this discussion and for your patience in moderating.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      You are welcome NA, several minions have been roasted and toasted in the moderation of this thread.

      1. Violetta says:

        Fortunately, these days eating meat on Fridays is only forbidden during Lent.

    2. Ren says:

      Agreed NA.

      Fair point. Thanks Hg

    3. Bibi says:


      I appreciate your direct, no-nonsense type of approach, as I find it refreshing and comforting amid a world where many misread, misconstrue, imbue insult or attack when there is none. You have a strong sense of justice, and you won’t hesitate to defend the vulnerable when needed.

      1. NarcAngel says:

        Thank you Bibi. I appreciate the honesty in your comments also your wicked sense of humour.

  22. Fiddleress says:

    Interesting thoughts from all sides around the topic of religion. I just wanted to respond to a thing or two that I have read in some comments.
    Just my two cents.
    Sorry this post is so long, but the topic is worth it, to my mind.

    I had no religious education, so over the past decade and a bit, I thought I would venture into unchartered territory (for me), and I have read some of the Bible’s stories and more to the point, read about those stories and their several possible interpretations – yes: several; no clear objective truth there, it would seem. So how the Church (that is, the authorities of said Church) can claim it refers to objective truth for its teachings, and rejects relativism, is a wonder.

    I must say that I felt the need to know more about the Bible’s stories and characters in order to enjoy more fully various works of art filled with Christian references. I felt I was missing out on quite a bit. Just like when I watched David Lynch’s “Wild at Heart” when it came out and realised, from talking with the English friend I had just seen it with, that I’d missed most of the fun because I’d never seen The Wizard of Oz, and Lynch’s film is filled with references to that story.

    Seriously, though.

    Where does the objective truth of the Church lie? In the Bible? Why then does it do its shopping, selecting some items as relevant in its view, but not others? This looks very much like a relative approach.

    For instance, the Old Testament says that if a woman is found to be no longer a virgin when she gets married, she should be stoned in public. Thankfully, this is no longer practised nor advocated. Probably because the Old Testament was completely grounded in its historical context. Relevant then, no longer so today. No objective truth in it.
    Slavery is accepted, if not downright advocated, in the OT. The Church took its time over it, but eventually condemned slavery. No objective truth there either.

    On the other hand, other things from the Old Testament that were relevant to the society it was written in, are selectively seen as still relevant by some Churches today; for instance, the so-called condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible. Yes, ‘so-called’, because some scholars say that the relevant passage in the Bible (Sodom and Gomorrah – spelling?) can be interpreted as condemnation of the lack of hospitality, and not of the homosexual acts per se.
    The condemnation of homosexuality was a necessity for the Hebrews who wrote that, to counter the Greek culture, and to make sure their own numbers would not dwindle by ensuring that every drop of semen was put to ‘good’ use, i.e. breeding. It was a necessity relative to that people and that time, not an objective truth.

    Note that only MALE homosexuality is ever condemned, if you take the relevant passages as condemnation of homosexuality. The Church seems to have single-handedly decided it should apply to females who are homosexual too.
    Note also that the common reference of all Christians is Jesus, and he never uttered a word, according to the New Testament, against or even about homosexuality, male or female.
    It seems that this ‘objective truth’ – homosexuality as disorderly, worthy of moral condemnation – is indeed a very relative concern.

    In a nutshell, even those (religious authorities) who warn against relativism and claim to ground their doctrine in objective truth soon find that there is no such thing. Relativism may sound very uncomfortable, but it is a fact of human life.

    As for religion being a means of controlling the masses: Voltaire, a major philosopher of the Enlightenment, who was no atheist, agreed that it was the case – he even deemed it necessary for the masses to be kept in check, and thought religion was the best means to that end. Hence why even Stalin soon called back the Church to help him control the masses, too.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Well reasoned, Fiddleress.

      1. lickemtomorrow says:

        Here’s some more food for thought on the same topic:

    2. fox says:

      Absolutely to all of this. I grew up with a lot of exposure to the stories of the Bible. I spent many summer afternoons reading the Bible as a child, and found some of the stuff that the Pastor would skip over, and I think that may be at least partly what makes me atheist/agnostic today. But I don’t want to pick any religious fights, so that’s why I leave it at “It’s not for me.”

    3. NarcAngel says:

      I enjoyed reading your carefully considered and laid out thoughts.

      1. Ren says:

        Me too.

        1. Violetta says:

          Me three. I’m a believer, but I wouldn’t argue for one second that people haven’t used religion as a means of control throughout history. The first thing the Romans did when they took over a place was replace the local gods with their own. They had an uneasy compromise with Judea and Galilee, because the religious leaders said the people would cooperate with Roman rule only if they were allowed to worship the God of their fathers, and there was always some rebellion rocking the precarious balance.

      2. Fiddleress says:

        Thank you NarcAngel, kind of you to say so.

        And NA, I think I beat you hands down at the ‘evil’ game: you were only thought to defend Hitler, whereas I was viewed as doing the same as Satan apparently did, in my post.
        I win.

        (For all: this is said lightheartedly, no offence taken at the Satan comparison. NOT because I’m some satanist, as I am not even that.)

    4. Kel says:

      Satan could pick things out of the scriptures too, and Jesus could counter with other scripture. The Old Testament was written in an ancient time. The New Testament wasn’t referenced, as well as many things. Obviously we don’t believe in slavery or being homophobic. Jews were slaves in the Old Testament by the way, and God freed them.

      You will never be able to explain Gods existence or discover Him that way. “For my eyes were closed, and now I can see”. And the song, Amazing Grace, “I once was blind and now I see, I once was lost and now I’m found”.

      Before I found God, I tried reading the Bible and got nothing out of it. But when I found Him, it’s like something came over me, I was a senior in high school, I went to my room and kept the light off so it was dark and I locked the door behind me, and I kneeled by my bed and just prayed, “Teach me”. I got up, turned on the light, picked up my Bible, and for the first time, understood what it was saying. I was like a sponge absorbing it, I couldn’t put it down for a week. I was reading the New Testament, and I couldn’t wait to get home from school to read it, and I’d have it in my lap, reading at the dinner table.

      1. fox says:

        Serious question. Do Christians these days ONLY care about the New Testament? It was my understanding that the Bible is THE Word of God and so I would think everything in it would be relevant to the beliefs of Christians and taken as truth, but I often see where people only refer to the New Testament as if the Old one doesn’t mean anything now, but then they still reference things like Creation and homosexuality being a sin (some do, some don’t). I would like to understand how people choose what to use from the Bible to support their beliefs. Is it simply what speaks to you or do you have some method by which you choose what parts of God’s Word to follow?

        1. Violetta says:

          Catholics believe that the events of the Old Testament are answered and fulfilled in the New. Abraham almost sacrifices his beloved son; in the New, God the Father does allow his Son to be sacrificed. Jacob’s son Joseph saves his family from famine by bringing them to Egypt; Joseph the Carpenter saves his family from Herod’s massacre by bringing them to Egypt. Typology isn’t emphasized now as much now as it was in the Middle Ages, but it’s actually pretty cool.

          1. fox says:

            Thanks Violetta! Hmm, that is interesting. The Catholics I’ve known seem to take the Bible much less literally and therefore their views seem to be more flexible and adjust with the ages, but that may be because they have a physical representative of God in the Pope and he has ultimate say until the next Pope is named. Would you say that is accurate?

          2. Violetta says:


            I’m aware that some of the popes have contradicted each other. Papal Infallibity refers to doctrine, not science; Popes can be wrong about the solar system, for instance. At least one pope excommunicated the one preceding him, and was himself excommunicated by the one following him.

            The way I see it, God does advise the Pope–but Popes are sometimes hard of hearing. Or stubborn. Or narcs– the Borgias were almost certainly chock full of sociopaths.

            I don’t see these as a sign we should all interpret scripture for ourselves and dispense with human intermediaries before God. Sure, I can pray to God directly, but he’s perfect, and someone good and flawed is easier for me to relate to. All the apostles were messed up: Peter liked a tavern brawl, but wilted when moral courage rather than physical was required; James and John were ambitious (or at least their Mom was); Matthew the Levite was a collaborator with the Romans when Jesus recruited him.

            I think Jesus’ point was “if 11 out of 12 of this collection of misfits can become saints, you can do it too.”

          3. Violetta says:

            Oh, and the Bible was read on at least 4 levels in the middle ages: the literal meaning, moral, allegorical, and anagogical.

            Britannica has an article, “Hermeneutics: Principles of biblical interpretation,” that explains these approaches.

        2. NarcAngel says:

          Great question. I have wondered that also but never thought to ask. Thank you.

          1. Another Cat says:

            It seems like The New Testament and The Book of Psalms is agreed upon to be the most suitable. But many Catholics use the daily prayer from prophet’s books in the Old Testament. Also mentioned in sermons (OT).

            The prayer songs is my best memory from church/religion. Meditative.

      2. Fiddleress says:

        Given that enquiring minds have never been encouraged in the Catholic Church, and having one has been likened to Satan’s work, I can see why you would compare what I wrote to what that character called Satan did.
        My aim was to show that even the Church, which says there is such a thing as truth (immovable truth) and rejects relativism, has itself shifted its stances throughout history and moved from what is in the Bible (on top of there being differing interpretations). So it depended on its perspective at different periods in history, and I actually think it has been a good thing.

        I am not Jewish, but I have read that the Jews have a long tradition of Rabbis giving new interpretations of the scriptures throughout history, refuting what previous Rabbis said the Scriptures meant. They engage in arguments/disagreement, study – real study, with an enquiring mind – and I respect them for this. It shows that you can keep questioning interpretations – doing a truth-seeking job, in fact – and still be (very) religious. Which I am not, but anyway. Just wanted to reply to your observations, not launch a new debate 🙂

    5. Ren says:


      I used to get terribly bored in church. So I’d read what was in front of me. The Book of Commen Prayer.

      In there, was a service for ‘females that were still virgins and how we had to.pray for them’. Honestly? It made the turgid sermon pass faster.

      Oh and by the way. S&G featured very heavily in late Victorian literature. Homosexuality was called the ‘Sins of the Planes’.

      Check it.

    6. Violetta says:

      Although he loved satirizing Jesuits, Voltaire did acknowledge they gave him a first-class education.

      Btw, on his deathbed, Voltaire was screaming for a priest. His “friends” ignored his request and tried to cover it up so as not to think his image.

      1. Violetta says:

        RUIN or WRECK his image. Not sure how autocorrect got “think” out of whatever I typed.

      2. Ren says:

        Priceless! Voltaire. He was a card!

        I’ve just been pondering now that much like The Summer of Love zipped right over the heads of my parents, that the Enlightenment did over The Church?

        Still, Galileo was eventually ‘pardoned’.

  23. Kel says:

    So when’s the last time anyone has been to Church? How much personal experience do any experts here have with God?

    I believe the Romans created the Catholic Church with priests and bishops when they allowed Christianity, as a way of keeping control over the people. The very thing the crucifixion was meant to tear down, bringing the Holy Spirit to people so that they could pray directly to God and not have to go through a priest. Catholicism kind of breaks some rules: having graven images and even bowing to them; the New Testament says not to call anyone on earth [besides your dad] ‘father’ as God is our Father as we are children of God. I don’t get the Catholic Church, and it does end up turning so many people away from God I’ve noticed from people I’ve talked to. And I’m not knocking it down, I know there’s a lot of good people in the Catholic Church, but it is man made.

    Most churches are not that strict, you can go without ever tithing a cent, and you’ll be as welcomed as anyone who can manage a whole 10%, which I suspect most people can’t.

    I don’t know about different churches or synagogues or Muslims and how they work, Protestant Churches are usually pretty casual, especially these days with people wearing blue jeans even, and there’s acceptance of everyone without bias or prejudice.

    1. mommypino says:

      Hello Kel,

      Personally for me, as I have said earlier, my religion is in my heart. I am not the most dutiful religious person and I skip church when one or some of our family oversleeps on Sunday. I keep forgetting to teach my kids church songs because weekends end up getting spent on fun activities. I was baptized Catholic as a baby and grew up Catholic in a predominantly Catholic country which still hasn’t legalized divorce. My mom was a holy narcissist and she has taught me belief in God centered on guilt and obedience and told me that she is my second God because she is my mom. I have read the Bible as a child and enjoyed watching Protestant shows on TV and ended up forming my personal views on religion. I am not interested to be baptized in any other religion as I have an attachment with the Catholic church regarding its traditions, artworks and architecture. I do not take a lot of their canonical beliefs seriously though. But I am still satisfied with my faith. I have only been to the Catholic and Mormon churches and I do not subscribe to all of the beliefs of both. Many of their teachings make me go hmmm. But I love going to both churches because of the people that go there.

      1. HG Tudor says:

        You skip church because someone oversleeps? Surely that’s you going to hell!!!

        1. lickemtomorrow says:

          Haha, HG.

          You’ll only go to hell if you don’t go to Confession 😛

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Or if you meet a narcissist. In church.

          2. Eternity says:

            I hope lighting wont strike me tonight.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            Why? Have you dodgy light fittings in your house?!

          4. Violetta says:

            Confession at least once a year during Lent, Mass at least once a year during Easter season, I believe.

            Except Covid. There are live and recorded masses for people to make a Spiritual Communion, although technically, they can make one at any time, as many times as they want.

            Catholicism is all about the spiritual intersecting with the physical, even to the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, so basically Lockdown sux.

          5. MommyPino says:

            I haven’t gone to confession in years! I’m really going to hell! 🤭

        2. Eternity says:

          Oh please no HG, we have already gone there and back dont want to revisit.

        3. mommypino says:

          Haha HG probably so! 😈

        4. Ren says:

          Aww Boss.

          She will be OK if she says seven ‘Hail Mary’s’ and eleventy-billion ‘Our Father’s’

      2. Ren says:


        I was last FORCED into Church on Remembetance Day, 2016 by virtue of my own ,professional duties which I was required by the terms of my employment to discharge.

        I remember actually praying to the Goddess (and Jesus), that I and my Boss (Hindu) would be duely smote. As Heathens. (He was praying to Shiva).

        We were not. Smitten? Smoted? Smited? Turned into Pillars of Salt?

        A sad day.

        Remember Kel. ‘Every sperm is sacred’.

    2. lickemtomorrow says:

      Wow, so many thoughts, and personal experience with God is an interesting question!

      The way I see it is that God is a personal God, so on that basis I’d say plenty. Expert is harder to define.

      Church every Sunday (only there is a necessity at the moment to access online options).

      I’m going to disagree on the Catholic Church being man made and pretty sure the Romans crucified both St. Peter and St. Paul, so not too keen on the Christian faith is my understanding. In fact, I think they even fed them to the lions! This was not a religion that was ever meant to get off the ground by all accounts, or if the Romans had anything to do with it. Nobody was a fan of the Christians, including the Jews.

      I thought Catholics were weird, too, before I became one. Now I understand a lot better. Some things still irk me occasionally as a former Protestant. And the other things to note is that no other Christian denomination appeared until the Catholic Church had held it’s ground for over a millenia and a half.

      That’s just a little bit more insight that I can provide. Hope it helps.

      1. Violetta says:

        Lions were the least of it. People were crucified, mauled by dogs or hyenas (took longer than a lion), took part in “battles at sea” (many arenas had areas that could be filled with water or drained) and so on.

        According to Those About to Die, the Romans preferred common criminals, barbarian captives, and Jews from rebellious regions to Christians because they amused the crowd by running around and screaming. Christians often had this boring habit of standing there praying.

        1. lickemtomorrow says:

          I’ve never heard of the ‘battles at sea’ or the hyenas, but it couldn’t have got any more gruesome! It’s a miracle the Church survived, and in many instances it also had to go underground to do that. LOL to the ‘boring habit of standing there and praying’. It was a hallmark of Christian Saints and Martyrs. An element of serenity which probably led a few people to wonder and more to convert.

          There is also the story of St. Thomas More who was martyred for committing treason against Henry VIII after refusing to sign an oath going against his Catholic faith. After finishing his prayers prior to execution, the executioner ‘begged his pardon’ and it is said More rose, kissed him and offered him forgiveness. His final words – that he was “the king’s good servant, and God’s first.” I do believe he has a connection to the House of Tudor.

        2. NarcAngel says:

          The Christians would be more tender then. The runners being more sinewy and stringy. I’d run – fuck them enjoying me as a last meal. Plus – those are apparently more my people.

    3. Bubbles 🍾 says:

      Dear Kel,
      The ‘closest’ I’ve been to ‘ God ‘ (apart from Mr Tudor, hahahahaha) was ……….
      in the Vatican City in an audience with Pope John Paul and was blessed by him, he was 3 feet away from me
      Luv Bubbles xx 😘

      1. MommyPino says:

        Bubbles you are so lucky. I’m jealous (in a positive way) of your experience being that close to Pope John Paul.

        When he went to my home country I had a Seventh Day Adventist best friend who kept telling me that Catholic popes are anti Christs so she doesn’t like him. But as soon as he arrived to our country and he got out of the plane with the sweetest smile and he was interacting with the crowd in a playful and generous manner etc. my friend was so annoyed that she can’t stop herself from liking him!

        1. Bubbles 🍾 says:

          Dearest MommyPino,
          I just happened to be in the right place at the right time, a once in a lifetime opportunity I guess
          He was friendly and pleasantly warming
          My Catholic girlfriends are pea green with envy
          It was a truly treasured memory for me
          Luv Bubbles xx 😘

          1. Ren says:

            Hmm Hg. The Seventh Day Advent Hoppists. Curious.

            If I said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times.

            They are praying for YOUR soul Boss.

            I’ve been already saved. I’m going to Catholic Heaven. Which is a somewhat contradiction in terms because I was the fruit of my over-active Father’s loins.

      2. lickemtomorrow says:

        You are lucky indeed, Bubbles! His empathy just shone out of him. Definitely a man of the people and he reminds me a bit of Princess Diana in that sense. The outpouring of grief when she died …

        Mother Theresa got the least likely funeral of them all compared to the life she led.

        1. Bubbles 🍾 says:

          Dearest lickemtomorrow,
          Yes, I think Pope John Paul II was everyone’s favourite
          Mother Theresa unfortunately lacked that ‘natural warmth’ and with all the surrounding
          controversy it’s understandable

          I too, grieved when Princess Di died, we watched the whole coverage
          I wonder what Mr Tudor was doing at the time 🤔
          Luv Bubbles xx 😘

          1. Ren says:


            Studying for his finals.

          2. Bubbles 🍾 says:

            Dearest Ren,
            Quite so lovely one, along with being a naughty narc and sowing his wild oats no doubt hehe
            Luv Bubbles xx

      3. blackcoffee30 says:

        Me too, but I was touched, and I was two. I had no say in the matter. I was pretty cute tho.

    4. blackcoffee30 says:

      I was raised Roman Catholic, but left the church at 13. I’m Buddhist now. But when I do go to church with family or for tourism, I’ll still light a candle and kneel and bless myself. I figure, why not? It’s positive energy and usually the person I light if for was Catholic, so I know they’d appreciate it.

  24. lickemtomorrow says:

    Here’s another thought.

    Logic is based on objectivity.

    Objectivity is based on truth.

    HG offers us the ‘truth’ of the narcissist, therefore is able to apply logic through objectivity.

    I am reminded of Pontius Pilate and his question “what is truth?”

    It is an age old question.

    Without the answer we have no basis for objectivity and therefore logic.

    One more point I would like to make relates to the idea of happiness. A belief in God does not presuppose ‘happiness’. The Christian faith is predicated on the notion of suffering being redemptive. Therefore happiness does not equate with being a believer in that context. Happiness is not the purpose of religion/Christian faith. Salvation is.

    1. MommyPino says:

      Hi lickemtomorrow,

      I totally agree that a belief in God does not presuppose happiness. And as I have said it isn’t the only source of happiness. I am aware that many nonbelievers such as my own brother who is an atheist are also happy and thriving. But in my experience my belief in God is able to give me a way to achieve happiness in the midst of terrible situations I experienced in life.

      Like I have said here, I also believe that there is no guarantee that we will get what we want even if we believe in God. It doesn’t guarantee success because it’s always up to God and not us. That is my personal belief anyway.

      And I also don’t think that a believer is more susceptible to being ensnared by a narcissist than a nonbeliever. It has more to do with the traits of a person and a predisposition to be attracted to narcissists than the person’s religious or non religious beliefs.

      1. lickemtomorrow says:

        I have to say I agree with everything you said.

        I don’t think the Christian faith has anything to do with ensnarement, but accept others may not see it that way.

        And I don’t think anyone was necessarily saying that religious believers are more likely to be ensnared by narcissists. Our empathic natures are likely what often draws us to both.

        Some may see it as helpful, others not so much. What is worth acknowledging is that believer or not we are all here to heal from the narcissistic relationships which have impacted our lives. We’re going to find different ways of doing that, but HG has provided a cornerstone for our healing here. I will always be grateful.

        1. mommypino says:

          I agree! 💕

          1. lickemtomorrow says:


  25. NarcAngel says:

    NA said
    “ I see religion as another form of ensnarement.”

    Yes, “I” being the important distinction there. A response more conducive to conversation would be something along the lines of: “I do not and here’s why….”

    Instead you offer NA is wrong as if your opinion is the last word. You really can’t see it for your emotional thinking taking over. You have previously relayed that when your husband does not want to hear any more that he ends the conversation with people and you admire him for it. When you disagree, do you persist and repeat and tell him he is wrong like you do here? Or do you accept that your opinions differ and let it be? Honest question not provocation. I’m trying to get to the bottom of why you become so emotional about having your point accepted here over others and are unable to grasp they are just differing opinions. Your answer to my question might have bearing.

    1. mommypino says:

      I was not emotional at all.

    2. mommypino says:

      NA, it doesn’t matter. Let’s just drop this. ✌️

  26. NarcAngel says:

    Hitler wasn’t a lone Nazi. There were many who subscribed to the same beliefs and some might say religion, but the word “Party” is/was used instead.

    Now had Hitler insisted on “religion” the majority perspective would not be defending that now would we? Which is what has been missed in this whole discussion. Not all religion is deemed as being “good”. I’m sure there were many Nazi’s who deemed themselves to be religious, good, and upstanding people. We call them insane. Different perspective. Had Hitler succeeded would we still be arguing that the majority perspective is right?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Indeed NA there are writers such as Heer and Voegelin amongst others who say Nazism as a political religion.

      1. Ren says:


        Yeah, thsts intrestimg. I can see why too.

    2. Kel says:

      I’m sure you and we would find something to argue about for the sheer sake of arguing, and feeling superior.

    3. Kel says:

      What do you believe in? I’m not sure how to read you as you have a kind of tough superior tone that’s cynical so often, and seems to be criticizing. So I am really wondering, do you have another side to you, and if so, what’s it like?

      1. NarcAngel says:

        You appear to have formed an opinion of me based on things you do not agree with me about. There are many people here and some share your opinion – others don’t, so it is definitely an individual thing.

        Let me ask you this: why is all the focus on me? Have you considered conversely that you may have a sensitivity where people do not agree with you based on previous experiences and that causes you to see it as criticism? I do not feel superior. Again, conversely, might you have feelings of inferiority that cause you to see me (or others) as feeling superior?

        I have loads of empathy Kel, and many people in my life would attest to that, but they would also tell you that I do not wear my heart on my sleeve for all to see. That I appear more logical than emotional but the emotion is deep and I will throw everything I have at what I deem to be an injustice. I can understand concepts that may be abhorrent to others and that can make me suspect to some, but if they listen (read) carefully and without jacked ET, they might see that doesn’t mean I necessarily accept or subscribe to them. Living with an abuser from an early age contributed to my being an observer of people. I continue to be interested in all kinds of human behaviour and that leads me to discussion with others where we hopefully all learn something. I don’t think that makes me superior – just interested.

        Tell me – why do you think I am here?

        1. Kel says:

          I have no problem with your opposing viewpoints and I’m not criticizing. I was noting though that your replies seem to be a bit condescending and with a tone of superiority to those that oppose your thoughts. You say you are more logical than emotional for example, sort of implies others are emotional and not logical like you.

          No to answer your question if I have an inferiority complex. Obviously I don’t if I’m confident and comfortable enough to ask you if there’s a softer side to you.

          You actually are the one who brought up the subject about church on this thread. I know because my comments began in replies to yours- and not to oppose you actually, but to represent the other side of them. I just wanted those who have faith to know there are others on this site that do too. I respect others viewpoints without judging them inferior.

          I had only asked if there was another side to you than the one on the blog and if so, what was it like. Had nothing to do with your viewpoints, but just with your superior tone. I suppose that tone is just you being strong.

          It was just a question I put out there and was just curious to know, as to how to read your comments and the tone in them.

          1. NarcAngel says:

            ”I was noting though that your replies seem to be a bit condescending and with a tone of superiority to those that oppose your thoughts”

            I do not think I am superior. I give my opinion and others give theirs. You supply the tone in reading and not everyone reads me as you do. You appear to apply a different narrative to me than others.

            ”You say you are more logical than emotional for example, sort of implies others are emotional and not logical like you.”

            I’m not implying it. I am more logical than emotional in my approach to things. Others are more emotional in their responses to things. I never said my way of being is better – that just appears your take and I have no control over that.

            “No to answer your question if I have an inferiority complex. Obviously I don’t if I’m confident and comfortable enough to ask you if there’s a softer side to you.’

            I did not say you have an inferiority complex. I asked if you had considered the focus on you in the same way that you applied it to me in saying that I come across as superior. You don’t have to have confidence to ask a question of someone on the internet.

            “I just wanted those who have faith to know there are others on this site that do too. I respect others viewpoints without judging them inferior.”

            I had no issue with others expressing their view. I gave mine and just like you – if others who do not subscribe to religion agreed then that’s ok too. No one was leading anyone away from good as you stated, and I did not say, nor did I think, that other viewpoints were inferior. You are supplying that narrative yourself Kel.

            “Had nothing to do with your viewpoints, but just with your superior tone.”

            Again – your take. You are supplying the tone in your reading.

            “It was just a question I put out there and was just curious to know, as to how to read your comments and the tone in them.”

            How about just the same as everyone else’s? There were people here who both agreed and disagreed. Some even said they did not agree with a particular view but were willing to investigate the thoughts behind it and still respected the other person’s right to give it. That is what I consider discussion – not judgement.

          2. Kel says:

            Your logic in your reply is just a bit askew, and a little heated and defensive. But let me explain that you’ve misunderstood my question.

            In my original question I said there’s a tone of superiority in your comments, and that was why I was asking you about it – because I wasn’t sure how to read them.

            You can’t always tell the tone of what someone’s saying when it’s in written form. I was asking if there was a softer way of reading them than the way they were coming off as.

            Thank you for answering that you are not superior. And that you are logical and others are emotional.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            It occurs to me that NA answered your question and also logically demonstrated that you are interpreting it as having a tone of superiority, in the same way you have interpreted it as a “little heated and defensive”. I read it as you asked a question and NA replied by reference to what you wrote and then explaining herself, she did so in a straight forward and logical manner.

            Plus, you should all know by now, that the superiority belongs to me.

          4. Kel says:

            As always you feel the need to defend your NA.
            Even when I explain it’s misunderstood.

            Logic is a matter of perspective here.

            To each his own, I will leave you to yours.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            1. “Always feel the need to defend your NA.” No, I do not need to and nor do I. You will find repeated instances of NA expressing a view and people disagreeing with her and I say nothing. Further, you will find instances where someone opposes her/conmments adversely and I offer not comment.
            2. What I did was reply to your comment. Once again and you have provided repeated examples of this, you make a comment and when someone disagrees with you, rather than understand that people have their own views and opinions and they have every right to express them, you demonstrate an inability to accept the expression of a contrary view. This then prompts you to respond with a petulant remark or flounce.
            3. Logic is a matter of perspective. Indeed it is, just like the concept of good and evil, right and wrong. Interesting how something is a matter of perspective when it suits you, but not a matter of perspective when it does not suit you.

          6. NarcAngel says:


            Now you’re supplying heated and defensiveness where there is none. We all get that you don’t like me and I’m fine with that, but you’re only making yourself look bad by pursuing it and have now moved on to insulting HG. Continue to dislike me and pray for me. That will be a better use of your time and everyone else’s. Good day.

          7. Violetta says:


            I will never agree with NA about religion (or with our Esteemed Host and Moderator, for that matter), but her bluntness doesn’t scare me as much as the false encouragement of the Mid-Rangers I grew up with. We are shaped by our experiences, and I never grasped WHY I resented people blowing sunshine up my porthole until I heard “Popular” from Wicked, and realized that others had also been damaged by the smug perkiness of the “I’m going to make you my new project” do-gooders.

            Just as people have different allergies or different addictions, they can feel comfortable with different ways of relating to people.

          8. Kel says:

            I never said I didn’t like you. You have put those words in my mouth. You are seeing things from a different perspective than they were meant.

            If my words are twisted from what I’ve said, then there’s no use in speaking.

          9. Kel says:

            Thank you Violetta,

            I appreciate your words of wisdom.

            I know I’m a sucker to be drawn into a religious ‘discussion’ here. I just wanted anyone who was new to know others here have faith.

            The church comments were brought up negatively from the start, no one had been trying to push goody-two-shoes onto anyone prior or after.

          10. HG Tudor says:

            Why is discussion in inverted commas? Was it not a discussion? If not, what was it and based on what?

          11. FYC says:

            NA, I am a logical girl with deep emotions as well. Although I may be more demonstrative at times than you would be comfortable with, I know you understand. I so appreciate your depth of empathy, coupled with your natural ability to remain logical. It is always appreciated and a breath of fresh air. I find your comments well considered, insightful and interesting (and love your humor). Please ignore the provocations. I know I will. The principle you illustrate was sound. It is all perspective, and sometimes, even the majority can even lack perspective. It is interesting to ponder. Thank you for your contributions.

          12. Ren says:


            Now, NA is a big-bad ass. She doesn’t need me to defend her but in this case I will.

            I see nothing in her words which do not come from.a place of logic.


            This from you.

            “Thank you for answering that you are not superior. And that you are logical and others are emotional.”

            This is just more that a tad PA.

            And actually, my own comments are far more provocative when hers simply arent.

            That strikes me as odd.

            I dont think anyone is pileing on. I do think there are issues around the statement, ‘When where you last in Church?’

            I find that logical stance incongruent to the argument.

          13. HG Tudor says:

            Fair comment.

          14. Kiki says:

            Hi Kel

            I’ve read here and really NarcAngel is fine .
            I fully agree with your points of view on religion and faith though .
            Sometimes topics such as politics and religion will bring about heated responses even if unintentionally,

            Big Hugs


          15. NarcAngel says:

            Thank you FYC. I am unbothered by provocation. I respond to allow for reconsideration and clarification where that is genuinely sought, but as we know – that is not always the case and is usually demonstrated by their subsequent posts. I am enjoying the view of my garden and newly built garden shed with a drink in hand (it is a holiday for some in Canada). I hope you are also enjoying a lovely day where you are. I must get back to the Knowing HG forum – many things have been uncovered and it is getting more and more interesting. Btw – there are very few differences in our summaries to this point. See you there!

          16. mommypino says:

            “ I am unbothered by provocation. I respond to allow for reconsideration and clarification where that is genuinely sought, but as we know – that is not always the case and is usually demonstrated by their subsequent posts.“

            Could you please clarify who the ‘their’ you were referring to?

            If I happened to be included in the ‘their’ I just want to state that I was not provoking anybody. I responded to your posts about religion and I offered my opinion. HG happened to disagree with me and we had a back and forth. You stated that I was emotional and even told me to relax. You were wrong as I was not emotional although I was a little frustrated with HG but not emotional in a manner where I am not able to think logically. It was not an accurate assumption on your part and I just want to correct that for the record to be fair to myself. I’m not emotional as well while I was writing this just in case someone is making that assumption again. I hope that we can all move on. There’s more to life than judging each other online. 💁‍♀️

          17. Sweetest Perfection says:

            NA, I’m trying to find your comment assessing the quality of Catholic wafers and I can’t now. I won’t talk about religion, I’m with Marx on that topic. But I wanted to add that where I am originally from, kids used to be able to go to convents and get the leftovers of the wafers after they cut them into circles, as a snack. I always wondered why because they suck. They taste absolutely like nothing and have the texture of styrofoam.

          18. mommypino says:

            Hi Kel, I’m surprised to see this thread get blown up again! 🙀

            It’s definitely time to move on to other topics about narcissism. Religion is such a sensitive subject and I have decided for myself that it is something special that I should only discuss with people that I choose and not necessarily in a blog for everybody to see and comment on. I admire my atheist brother for being able to have conversations about this with me and he would chuckle at times about some of my beliefs but he appreciates that I am not a zealot or someone who is coming from a place of superiority (or inferiority) as I am just a believer that there is a God who loves me and watches over me. As long as we are happy about who we are and the lives that we live it doesn’t really matter what other people think or say. I agree that it is hard to tell from written words where the other person is really coming from. I was told that I was emotional by NA but I was not. I was actually at a park with my kids and we even played ten frame dominoes at a picnic table. I responded here and there but after I sent my responses it did not occupy my mind anymore and I was able to enjoy a nice day with my kids. It’s easy to make assumptions about someone we have never met and also easy to be judged by people we have never met. In the end it doesn’t really matter. Take care Kel.

          19. Kel says:

            That’s what she said.

          20. Kel says:

            Thank you Kiki,

            I agree with your comments too about putting money into fixing Earth before we sink it all into another planet. Everyone’s competing instead of working together- more political than scientific.

            Big hugs to you too and take care!

          21. FYC says:

            NA, It brings me joy to think of you serene in your garden. I enjoy a beautiful garden as well. (Have you visited Butchart Gardens?) Did you build the shed yourself? I think I’ll have a drink in your honor. Cheers to you! I look forward to seeing you in the forum. Much more to come there. After I get through the summaries, I will be posting some very interesting findings from my research. I look forward to your comments. Enjoy the rest of your evening.

          22. MommyPino says:


            “ I do think there are issues around the statement, ‘When where you last in Church?’

            I find that logical stance incongruent to the argument.”

            It didn’t strike me as offensive or malicious. If it did I wouldn’t have answered it and shared my own lameness at attending church. It’s funny how we all interpret things differently.

          23. Whitney says:

            HG I love that word flounce!
            Your vocabulary is incredible. It helps me understand behaviour to have the accurate word.

          24. NarcAngel says:

            Gardens are such a place of peace and beauty, so I’m glad you enjoy one also. I have not been to Butchart, but my brother lives in B.C so it is on the list when I visit. My husband and I built the shed which looks more like a miniature cottage, and of course you being a gardener, will understand it was more of a vehicle for the window box and planters full of colour out front.

            Ooohh! I look forward to your findings. It is fascinating learning more about HG and his life in the forum than you can read here. Keeping the brain cells busy is also a plus.

            Chin chin (although it’s tea presently haha).

          25. FYC says:

            NA, I’d love to see your garden, it sounds like a masterpiece of charm and serenity. How clever of you both to use your shed in this way. I know you will enjoy Butchart. It is amazing that Jennie Butchart envisioned such a lovely scene from the spent limestone quarry they had used for their cement business. Just the vastness of the project would deter most people, even if they had the vision and passion. Since you enjoy tea, while visiting Victoria Island, I recommend high tea at the Empress Hotel. I wish HG would share photos of his garden and the fountain. Hmmm I wonder if I can request this for an HG 20 minutes? A tour of his garden? If I use two of the 20 minutes, perhaps you can join me as my guest? That would be all the more enjoyable.

          26. Kel says:

            Hi Mommypino,

            I fully agree with you that it’s really not worth bothering with discussing my faith and point of view here. The full fledged chain of comments it becomes is an exhausting attempt to try to clarify, and it never gets there. It hurts me and doesn’t dent them. Too much of that in my life, and I feel like a sucker for letting myself go there.

            Take care Mommypino!

        2. Empath007 says:

          It didn’t sound to me like Kel has an inferiority complex, she was asking a genuine question which could perhaps make you reflect, much the same you often do with others on the blog. And I always appreciate your questions that make me reflect.

          In all fairness NA, religion is a very touchy subject… to bring it up and not expect that it would open up into a debate is a tad naive. People are generally very passionate and bull headed about topics such as religion and politics. These are topics that literally create Wars.

          The issue is when the debate becomes an Ad homeian (which is more your point – and a valid one) and in this age of internet from what I can witness, that unfortunately happens all the time. It’s obvious (at least to me) that you were not trying to attack anyone’s views and you were expecting the same curiosity in return. But when it comes to religion and politics… if they’re going to be discussed, emotion is to be expected.

          I for one agree with your view about the church and share the same perspective, but when it comes to religion… it will be never be a topic discussed without emotion involved.

          1. NarcAngel says:


            I did not say Kel has an inferiority complex. I asked if conversely she had considered that that might be the case in the same way that she assigned me superiority. Big difference.

            I am not naive. I gave my opinion on an article titled Holy Narcissist. I knew others would have opinions and they would not all agree. A discussion/debate was possible (I say possible because it has not always when this article appears). The ability to read the view of others and not turn it into a personal assessment of the person giving it is the goal for constructive discussion.

            It’s helpful to read carefully. You misunderstood for instance that I said Kel had an inferiority complex when I did not. I’m pretty clear. If I thought she did I would have said: Kel, you appear to have an inferiority complex. I asked a question. I did not assess her in the way that she did me (stating I was superior or that I would argue just for the sake of assertIng that I was for instance). That was a shift from the original discussion to making it personal.

            HG allows everyone a voice and has repeatedly stated that if you give yours you should expect others will also and that not everyone will agree. That you do not have to accept an opposing view. I am very clear on that. It appears not everyone is able to accept that.

            I appreciate the intention in your approach.

          2. Empath007 says:

            Hi NA, thanks for your response. I can see now re reading it and also in your other answers to Kel that the inferiority portion was not meant how we interpreted it.

            I found it helpful to point out that you yourself often ask others personal questions that make others reflect on their own behaviour on For example, the other day I answered a question of yours when you had noted you saw a change in me, and asked me what I thought promted that change. I did not see it as a question that was insinuating anything other then an observation you made. In turn, Kels question is very similar. She was looking for clarification on your tone. From my perspective it was not meant to challenge you,
            But rather to point out that (to some) your tone may be hard to interpret.

            As soon as I hit send I knew my naive comment was not worded properly lol ! So to clarify, I have never thought you personally were anything close to naive, quite the opposite as I often really appreciate your insight an experience on the blog. But rather… the notion of anyone bringing up the topics of religion and politics and not expecting a debate may break out would be naive. Since religion has caused so many wars between nations in history. It’s always been a subject of debate… and heated emotion. Expecting someone not to react to a religion debate is akin to being aware someone is a narcissist and expecting them to act “fairly”

            But I definitely did not mean it in a personal way towards yourself. Honestly I whole heartedly agree with your stance on religion. I was also raised to never discuss that opinion with others to avoid the backlash it would present. And I admire that you have no qualms standing up for what you think is right.

          3. NarcAngel says:

            I understand and appreciate you reading again to clarify. Also your attempt to interpret Kel’s comments in a positive light. You may mistakenly be assuming that this is the first time she has asserted such claims about me and that is not the case. It has been discussed previously so this is not new to her – just a continuation of what she has stated previously for a newer audience.

          4. Empath007 says:

            “ I am an unbothered by provocation “ meaning you considered her question provocation? … interesting.

            But the questions you ask others in contrast are not provocation? It’s OK for you to pose tough questions to others….
            For example you asked MP about her responses to her husband and whether she forces issues with him. Was that provocation or to understand ?

            Kel was only trying to understand.

            You can’t dish it out if you can’t also take it NA.

          5. Empath007 says:

            NA I just posed a question but did not have an opportunity to read that this has been an ongoing thing between you and Kel.

            While I’m on no ones side. I wouldn’t have posed my question to you should I have been aware of the history. As yes, I interpreted it as innocent and a wilingness to understand. I wanted to point out that we are all allowed to try and understand.

            Anyways. All good on my end !

          6. Kel says:


            You have taken a simple paragraph:

            What do you believe in? I’m not sure how to read you as you have a kind of tough superior tone that’s cynical so often, and seems to be criticizing. So I am really wondering, do you have another side to you, and if so, what’s it like?“

            And turned into something completely different. In your last comment above you have repeated Kel and inferiority complex three times. Your first response was that. A later response was “Everybody knows you don’t like me”. You are reading things that aren’t there and then stating how logical and unemotional you are. Your responses are defensive. Instead of answering it in a friendly logical straightforward way, you have turned it on me in all kinds of distorted accusations. Now I’m negative according to your last paragraph.

            Basically I’m smeared all over the place, when my question was quite honest, wondering actually a positive way to read your comments. From your responses I don’t see any other way to interpret them, as you have reinforced the negative and superior tone, and then some- of stating all sorts of things about me.

            I’ve tried explaining it after each response to no avail. I wouldn’t bother further trying except I see that now you’ve come up with how negative I am about you. That’s not so.

            You seem to come up with comments that mention things in my comments in a cynical and superior tone – like your comment on this thread about Hitler, and you mentioned what if he’d won the war, what would we argue about. My first response seeing that was to say ‘I’m sure we’d find something to argue about’ and basically for the sake of feeling superior. Then I decided to ask you actually about your negativity towards my comments and that Hitler one in particular, which is the one that stirred all of these accusations at me. My original comment:
            What do you believe in? I’m not sure how to read you as you have a kind of tough superior tone that’s cynical so often, and seems to be criticizing. So I am really wondering, do you have another side to you, and if so, what’s it like?

            That is where that question came from – your comment about Hitler that seemed to come from my comment further down on this thread. I was asking what do you believe in too, in light of your comments about Hitler.

            That is all it was about.

            It was not about the host of accusations you have hurled against me. From an inferiority complex to everyone knows you don’t like me to I’m negative.

            I’d like to just clear that up, one last attempt anyway.

          7. NarcAngel says:

            You are acting like your questioning of my intentions, and insinuations about me being superior and being special to HG (which is a particularly desperate reach) has never come up before when we know that is not the case. You have also previously thrown in veiled references to me being a narc. The innocent “I’m just asking to understand” will only work on those who have not witnessed it before. The jig is up and the only damage has been to yourself.

          8. Kel says:


            Wrong. It was a question in response to your comment about Hitler.

            Your Hitler comment seemed to be referencing my comments regarding right and wrong with HG that had Hitler in them.

            So I wanted to know what you believed in. Instead of you just knocking down everything I said, I wanted to know what Do you believe In? Were you defending Hitler/ are you a fan of the Natzi party as you had referenced them?

            I was curious to know what you Weren’t negative about.

            You made condescending and cynical remarks that mention things that were in my comments.

            You have goaded me on to a conflict on this thread and on others in the past.

            You have implied things about yourself in that goading in the past, the same as you have here with all the accusations against me.

            It was a simple comment regarding your Hitler comment that seemed to be referencing my comments.

            That is the truth. If you see a hint of sarcasm from my replies, it’s probably because I don’t appreciate your negativity and condescending tone in your comments to me. But I was attempting to ask you about it in a positive and productive way as to what you believed in. Like in the past, you goad things on.

            It’s that simple, and that is all there was to it.

          9. NarcAngel says:


            I’ll let your comment asking me if I’m a fan of the Nazi party stand as the last word. It is a glaring demonstration of your lack of general comprehension and also your bias toward me for everyone to see. To respond to it would be undignified and the equivalent of slapping a baby.

            Add merciful to your descriptive list of me.

          10. Kel says:

            There’s no getting through to you.

            There’s no finding out something positive that you believe in.

            There’s no getting past the negativity you have towards me, the goading on of conflicts with me, or your never ending smearing of me.

            I’m not a negative or malicious person, and I did not say anything to you that was. You have streamed quite a lot of character flaws against me though – I can’t imagine if I had said the same things to you.

            You continue being superior and condescending stating it would be like slapping a baby. You never get it. You are not interested in understanding. What you’re interested in is fighting, accusing, being superior.

            I did not relish sending the original comment to you asking you for some positive side to you, and I did not look forward to your reply. I thought it should be addressed how you’re so obviously referring to someone’s comment and answering it so condescendingly as if you are right and everyone else is wrong.

            I do not appreciate you smearing me. I did not do that with you.

            But I guess that’s what you’ve got to do to feel better. As you condescendingly said, if praying and believing in God makes you feel better, then go ahead. However, you’re feeling better, is at the cost of my character.

            Being in empath, having dealt with narcissists and putting up with their insults and devaluation, I definitely do not appreciate receiving the same treatment here on this site and from you.

          11. HG Tudor says:

            I regularly advise individuals to examine the evidence. I recommend you do so and look at NarcAngel´s comments during her time on this blog and you will find plenty of positive things she believes in. Please do so and then you can provide an informed observation. Take your time, you will have over 7 500 comments to review.

          12. Violetta says:


            As other have pointed out NA doesn’t need defending, but it’s worth mentioning that if you want a Nazi, there was a probable one on this site for a few months back. Can’t remember her name, but she had all the standard conspiracy theories about George Soros, a few ex-presidents, etc. (Forget if she believed in adrenochrome.) She kept trying to get HG to agree with her, and he rarely answered, except to ask her if she could support her claims with evidence. Most of the time, he just let her posts go up without comment, so the rest of us could learn to identify what we were seeing.

          13. Kel says:


            I don’t want a Nazi.

            And I wasn’t even stating it negatively.

            I wrote that original comment at work. When I first read NA’s comment, I did so quickly, and wasn’t sure if she was defending Hitler. Glad to know she wasn’t. But honestly I was not being negative about it or judging. I was only trying to find out what does she believe in as opposed to always not believing in things.

          14. Witch says:

            Sssooo.., I guess this would be the wrong time to say I found the slapping a baby comment kinda funny?

          15. Kel says:

            I need look no further than this thread and my own past experiences from her.

            I have come back to narcsite at times when I’ve run into new narcissists. This time around I was on it just to fill up extra time. Happily I don’t have extra time now that we’re into August, to pore through the site, and shouldn’t be on here now. I was trying to save my character from the beating it’s taken, but no matter.

            I’m having a positive outlook in my real life, and as I’ve said before, practicing smiling, and being happy. I don’t want to fight – it doesn’t give me fuel – it just rains on my parade.

          16. Kel says:

            Not at all Witch, laugh away at , er , slapping a baby.

            When they go low, we go high. I’m just not broken up about it.

          17. NarcAngel says:

            You are completely entitled to your opinion of what you find funny. No one can decide that for you. I’m all for funny. That’s a positive. Someone get that down.

            NarcAngel positive traits: 1

            I’m on the board.

        3. fox says:

          NA, personally I always like it when you share your opinions, even if I disagree with them (which is admittedly rare). I think you and I view the world in a similar way. I never read your posts as condescending or superior, just calm, rational and thoughtful. I think it’s important to note that empaths aren’t always overtly emotional people and we don’t always let our emotions rule us, even if we feel them deeply.

          1. NarcAngel says:

            Thank you. I appreciate your ability to understand and recognize that people process emotion differently and for being able to determine intention (especially where you may not agree).

          2. Kiki says:


            I have to be honest and say , you told Kel that she was only making herself look bad here with her posts .Shaming her.You cannot judge wether she is making herself look bad good or adored here
            You don’t own that power .
            I think that remark was a tad arrogant of you

            Just my take .

          3. HG Tudor says:

            Er, so Kiki, what did you just do? Make a judgement.

            See Rule 6.

          4. Kel says:

            No Kiki didn’t make a judgment, she said it was just her take

          5. HG Tudor says:

            That is a judgement. She passed comment, opinion, view, take, judgement – they amount to the same thing. Kiki is entitled to do so and anybody is entitled to respond to what she writes so long as they abide by the rules. Just in the same way as when you express your comment, opinion, view, take, judgement then others have just as much right to respond to it.

          6. NarcAngel says:

            Ok. That is your opinion. Just curious though – when you gave it, had to read yet where I was asked if I was a fan of the Nazi party?

          7. Kiki says:

            Hg and NA

            I am not here to judge anyone , or get into a snarky exchange I just felt reading the comments that what NA said about Kel making herself look bad on here with her responses to NA was not NAs call and to me at least seemed presumptuous a tad arrogant for one poster to do.
            It was the tone of the response maybe I’m the only one picking up on that .


          8. Kiki says:

            Hi NA

            Firstly to say I have nothing against you at all
            However I did note a bit of a tone esp on the post about Kel looking bad here.Thst was my take I could be misinterpreting

            No I did not read about the Nazi party , just the posts between HG and Kel about Hitler and evil etc that I can’t get my head around .
            Look maybe Kel has been misunderstood that’s all., certain topics can bring out very strong emotions in posters and Kel sounds to me like a sweet sensitive soul but got overwhelmed .That is understandable with such sensitive topics like religion , faith and Hitler .
            All the big No No’s for dinner table talk .


          9. Kel says:

            Regarding your views on Nazi’s, it was misconstrued and slanted to fit the smear of me.

            My comment regarding my asking you:


            I don’t want a Nazi.

            And I wasn’t even stating it negatively.

            I wrote that original comment at work. When I first read NA’s comment, I did so quickly, and wasn’t sure if she was defending Hitler. Glad to know she wasn’t. But honestly I was not being negative about it or judging. I was only trying to find out what does she believe in as opposed to always not believing in things.

            It was regarding your comment:

            Hitler wasn’t a lone Nazi. There were many who subscribed to the same beliefs and some might say religion, but the word “Party” is/was used instead.

            Now had Hitler insisted on “religion” the majority perspective would not be defending that now would we? Which is what has been missed in this whole discussion. Not all religion is deemed as being “good”. I’m sure there were many Nazi’s who deemed themselves to be religious, good, and upstanding people. We call them insane. Different perspective. Had Hitler succeeded would we still be arguing that the majority perspective is right?

            And that’s where all this started. I wasn’t sure when I first read it, how to take it, and it was definitely referencing one of my comments on this thread about right and wrong.

            Thank you so much for beating me up for it, your so wise and wonderful, how could I ever have wanted to ask you what you do believe in since most of your comments were about what you don’t believe in.

            Anyway, there’s no explaining.

          10. HG Tudor says:

            You are not being smeared and you are not being beaten up. You have played this card previously, I suggest you refrain from doing so as it detracts from discussion and has a tendency to dilute good points you may make. Stick to the discussion. See Rule 6. Express your opinion and understand you may be disagreed with.

            “Now had Hitler insisted on “religion” the majority perspective would not be defending that now would we? Which is what has been missed in this whole discussion. Not all religion is deemed as being “good”. I’m sure there were many Nazi’s who deemed themselves to be religious, good, and upstanding people. We call them insane. Different perspective. Had Hitler succeeded would we still be arguing that the majority perspective is right?”

            You are correct.

          11. Kel says:


            It’s unfortunate that my comments weren’t taken in a more positive tone, or that I haven’t been able to see a positive tone in your comments.

            I do stand by my observation that you are a bit condescending with a tone of superiority, however maybe you don’t mean it that way. That’s what I was trying to find out.

            If you want to make like a good empath and go on hating me and criticizing me, then so be it. Frankly I have you pegged more as a Normal than an empath, but that’s just me.

          12. Kel says:


            I’m not playing any cards.

            I’m not playing period.

          13. HG Tudor says:


          14. Kel says:

            Yes, it is good

          15. Witch says:

            An empath can still appear to be arrogant and sometimes we are.
            Empaths are multi faceted. Not everyone is comfortable with showing certain sides of themselves, especially to strangers on the internet and you’re not entitled to see those sides either.
            There’s a difference between someone challenging your views and someone attacking you.
            Sometimes people do feel threatened by people who don’t automatically suck their arse. I’ve had it happen to me whereby people think I’m rude because I’m not automatically the most cheerful and friendly person. simply not saying “good morning” to everyone in the room had gotten me into trouble. But from my perspective the cultural expectation of small talk is a waste of everyone’s time. I’ve had to adapt to the expectation in order to get by. So what I’m trying to say is, maybe there’s also an issue with the expectations you have of how an empath is meant to act?

          16. HG Tudor says:

            Sensible and measured observation.

          17. NarcAngel says:


            “Now had Hitler insisted on “religion” the majority perspective would not be defending that now would we? Which is what has been missed in this whole discussion. Not all religion is deemed as being “good”. I’m sure there were many Nazi’s who deemed themselves to be religious, good, and upstanding people. We call them insane. Different perspective. Had Hitler succeeded would we still be arguing that the majority perspective is right?”

            You are correct.

            That was actually my quote. Thank you for the confirmation.

          18. HG Tudor says:

            Thank you for the clarification. I thought it was somebody else’s, nevertheless, no matter who wrote it, it is correct.

          19. NarcAngel says:

            Quite alright. That you thought it to be Kel’s and it was actually mine is evidence of your impartiality (which btw I do not question).

          20. HG Tudor says:


        4. NarcAngel says:

          But you must find it. I told the story of how I came to taste the horrid crackers. If that’s what the body of Christ tastes like, Imma say that’s the reason I didn’t read anything about him getting any action haha.

    4. Whitney says:

      Hi NA, I use the word ‘cult’ or ‘culture’ to describe any group of humans, and their developed belief system.

      Examples of ‘cultures’: Nazism, Christianity, this blog, my sport club, the Left, the Right, Western society as a whole, my particular university.

      Humans form ‘cultures’ with particular accepted beliefs, phrases, ways of speaking, etc. On large or small scales. Everywhere.

      1. Whitney says:

        By the way NA, you come across as calm and level headed. Humble even! Rational.
        Very empathetic. A great person. For someone to be great they need to be brave like you. To have empathy, and also stick up for what’s right!

        1. NarcAngel says:

          Thank you for your kind words.

          1. Ren says:

            But at the end of the day, several questions haven’t really been answered.

            1 -Did anyone observe a baby being slapped? Maybe it just didnt happen.

            2 – If NA is superior then ipso factor, shes a Narc. Discuss.

            3 – where can I get a NAZI from? I hear they are getting quite now. I tried NAZIsRUS but they’d sold out due to the pandemic.

            What I will say is that I’ve seen several GLARING failures to accurately disseminate posts. Including one of mine concerning this.

            ‘When were you last in Church?’

            There are quite a few logical fallacies here.

            1 – I was under the impression that the main topic is ‘The Holy Narc’. Not church attendence.

            2 – Would attending a Church help me to understand NPD?

            3- Why is the assumption that I have been a Christian? I might be a Jew, a Hindu, Sikh or a…Pagan! Being made. I’m not a Jew so it would be really quite strange to to the Temple.

            I.mislike ot when people make assumptions about me.

            Also in addition, in my view there is no inherent good or bad Faith’s. In fact to bring this back on proper topic, you could argue any organised, top down structure is inherently flawed because of NPD.

          2. Violetta says:


            I did not slap the child; I bit him. On the toes. He thought it was terribly funny and Turned the Other Foot to me to have that one bitten too.

            Naturally, I got consent of parent or legal guardian first. Cannibalism permitted, as long as it was done sustainably, and I left the meat on the baby.

        2. WokeAF says:

          NA, I meant to add this but couldn’t find the right spot.
          From my perspective you don’t sound superior.
          You speak with authority, and it comes through.
          You speak with authority bc you know what the fuck you’re talking about.
          Big difference.

          1. NarcAngel says:

            Thank you, but I honestly don’t feel I have any more authority than anyone else here. HG is the only authority. My approach may be different and it’s not always appreciated, but my intention is always good and that’s easy enough to see if you’ve been here more than a hot minute and really want to see. I’m not for everyone, but I’m not trying to be.

            I like gardening and animals, but know what really warms me? That you and your son are now receiving the help you needed and I got to witness that by being here.

            That’s one of the main reasons I stay.

  27. NarcAngel says:

    “Not everybody who is ensnared by a narcissist is miserable because of the ensnarement”

    Thank you!

    1. Eternity says:

      Gee Weez , this thread is getting longer than Sex And The Narcissist once upon a time .

      1. Ren says:

        Indeed Eternity

        Or the infamous ‘cock pix’ thread. That one ran and fucking ran.

        At the end, no bugger knew who they were replying to and why!

        1. Eternity says:

          I agree Ren, I remember that one got pretty steamy! Ha ha. HG really keeps us going .

          1. Ren says:


            Yes her certainly keeps us going.

        2. blackcoffee30 says:

          Oooh I missed that one. I just learned about DicPicLocator a couple weeks ago!

          1. Eternity says:

            Blackcoffee, you missed out on that one.
            Now my question is why some religious get their sons circumcised.
            Which one is better?
            I cant believe I am commenting this on thread. I hope lightening doesn’t strike me twice.

          2. blackcoffee30 says:

            Eternity — IMHO, it boils down to tribalism, but for believers it is an expression of faith.

            Within the Abrahamic religions, it’s compulsory in Judaism, there was argument in early Christianity about whether or not it was required. Today, some Christian cultures do and some do not, but of course, JC would have been circumcised. Mohammad spoke of it, but it is not prescribed in the Quran, so it is part of oral and attendant written tradition, Hadith and Sunnah. However, the practice existed long before the Abrahamic traditions, so there was also an absorption of existing (pagan) practice.

            Modern day opinions vary with regard to “cleanliness,” as it does affect transmission of STD/STIs, but there doesn’t seem to be much more benefit. Disclaimer: I am not a doctor.

            Obviously, this is a very sensitive subject, but I will say my opinion on it changed after I began working with survivors of female genital mutilation (female “circumcision”). I personally think circumcision should be an informed choice made by a consenting adult of sound mind.

          3. Ren says:


            Don’t even get me on the topic of FGM! In certain, African countries, it’s running at 98%.

            No. I’m not even going there.

            No. I am going to go there and I’m paraphrasing Hg. I hate all organised religions equally.

            No person should be circumcised. Not one. No female nerds to be circumcised for medical reasons.

            Unfortunately, some males have to undergo this for medical reasons. My own brother was one. Very painful. Indeed

            This is one of the few topics where I will COMPLETELY lose my rag.

            The complete removal of female sexuality just, frankly astounds me. It makes it even worse that females do it to each other!

            There are certain Abrahamic religions, who cannot COPE with the concept that;

            1 – Females have agency

            2 – They have brains

            3 – And gosh! They may masturbate!

            4 – That either gender may be homosexual

            I once had the extreme misfortune to sleep with a man from that particular faith. Just the once mind because rubbish wouldnt even enter the paradigm of was THAT bad.

            I talked to him on the concept of being demure.

            Oh yes, you must be. Otherwise other men will ‘steal you’.

            Steal me from what? Precisely? They are obsessed with others taking from them. Does not matter if the woman refuses. It will happen anyway. Coz men.

            Great work fella! And I thought you were educated. (And he was).

            Wanted me to be ‘The Great White Whore of Babylon’. He thought could randomly knock on my door for fun times.

            He was of the notion. Prostitute for free? Give over.

            Any female who CHOOSES to give their agency over to an organised religion which pulls up one gender of the expense of another is, frankly, a fucking idiot.

            Most of the utter abhorrence in this world is caused by ‘The Holy Narcasssit ‘

            Time to become free-thinkers…

          4. blackcoffee30 says:


            As HG has mentioned so many times, it’s all about perspective. Some women think FGM is in the best interest of the female child/woman. I can see their perspective, but I do not agree with it and it’s my job to help women find escape it and/or find refuge.

            Surely, a narc started this practice. It’s about control and ownership, not only of the female body, but within the tribe’s hierarchy. .

            To some extent all Abrahamic religions take issue with female autonomy and sexuality. However, I found Islam to be the most “liberal” and encouraging of healthy female sexuality HOWEVER that did not translate into a large portion of cultures, tribes, and non-Abrahamic religions. I was surprised when I took courses on women in Islam. One of my ex-husbands is also Muslim.

            Some Buddhists believe a woman cannot attain enlightenment, one must be born a man. My sect does not believe that. We are all possessed of Buddha Nature.

            Anyhow, I agree wholeheartedly with you in that I am against FGM of any kind. But you know some types are more severe than others. It’s a matter of perspective. An informed, consenting adult who is of sound mind can choose it.

        3. K says:

          FGM is all about the control (woman and children are property) and herd mentality/conformity may play a role, as well.

          1. Violetta says:

            It’s nasty. Some of the male leaders have claimed it is necessary because men could not keep up with women’s sexual demands without it, and then of course the wives would be unfaithful, because women=no self-control.

            Then they are indignant when women don’t want to have sex because, um, it hurts.

            As can just walking around the room, bending over or squatting to pick up something, etc. One woman said she was basically in constant pain.

          2. K says:

            From my POV, FGM is barbaric and Foot binding is horrific, too.

      2. Violetta says:


        We’ll have to do something about that….

        1. Eternity says:

          Ha ha V only HG can do someone about that.

  28. NarcAngel says:

    NA is not “wrong” just because she has a different opinion. Why is it not possible for you to just say “I don’t agree and here’s why”. It is called a discussion where people exchange thoughts and ideas and often they learn from one another. Instead, you arbitrarily assign right and wrong to the thoughts of others (wow) and turn it into some kind of contest (that you must win). You do this in Trump discussions also.

    God does not approve.

  29. Oracle says:

    It is funny that i run across this post right off the bat. I thought to come check on everyone and as I am going thru a spiritual awakening it made me wonder about you Mr. Tudor. I see you still hold true to what you always have. I suppose something can be said for consistency. My narc has been honest on a few occasions. He once told me that he could never allow himself to show emotion. Not truly. He can never allow himself to risk being hurt. Not one time ever. With this in mind, I have always felt you are not psychopath. Narcissist to be sure, but not Psychopath. Of course you disagree, but I just can’t help but wonder if you have chosen to have no feelings voluntarily. The past taught you what happens when you do and have chosen the path of no or little emotion. That being said, it would apply to magical thinking as well.. One would not allow themselves to think such things exist such as life after death etc. We delve into emotion again. Faith is not something a narcissist seems to put stock in. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems they must have guarantees. They create those guarantees. They do not put stock into others to do what they themselves believe only they can do? To believe in an after life and even a God a person would have to believe there is something more powerful than themselves and beyond their understanding. Many narcs or maybe all of them do not believe there is anything more powerful than they are. What if, Mr. Tudor one could prove life after death? I am working on a couple of theories. Both involved quantum physics and some quantum mechanics. I have to side track here for a moment so you will understand what I am speaking about. When I was child my heart stopped. I left my body and aw how the universe was threaded together. Via inverse quantum gravity looping via mirror worm holes each spawning another and another and so on. it is like holding a mirror up in a mirror. each spawning another universe as it were. To travel to a point in the universe is to a when not a where to get a to a where one needs portal. so, i am working on a theory that takes quantum entanglement. of course two objects spinning at the same speed in opposite directions. then bending this to form a bridge or doorway. If i could establish this as true… well if one can open doorways such as these the consciousness can live on in another form. energy is changed not destroyed. We just do not remember and we are not the same as we were. We are new each time. If someone was able to proof such a thing Mr. Tudor. Do you think it would change any of your views?
    good to see your doing well of course.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Oracle, ask me again if you prove it.

      1. Eternity says:

        HG , arent you diagnosed as Pyscopath as well by mental health professionals based on certain behavioral criteria? I dont think you can go against that right ? Plus you are self aware which helps too.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          I am.

        2. Violetta says:


          No, no, that was a cycle path. Didn’t you see the other thread?

          1. Eternity says:

            Ha ha V , I know all about Steve Cycle Path

    2. Kiki says:

      Yes oracle , that Law of conservation of energy/ mass.

      I often think about that , energy cannot be created or destroyed but only changed from one form into another.

      We are technically recycled by the universe over and over again.
      we are all simply stardust .


      1. Ren says:

        Mass isn’t always conserved.

        Momentum and energy are.

    3. Ren says:


      By working on, do you mean the derivation, the maths.

      Can you explain what ‘inverse quantum gravity’ is please?

  30. NarcAngel says:

    Speaking for myself, I can say that I am neither attempting to steer people to or away from goodness (nor do I think others here have). There have merely been different opinions expressed, and how they are received or interpreted is up to the recipient. My comments were in relation to the mindset and conditioning I believe we absorb from external sources that allow manipulation and have us believe that we must always be deflecting credit away from ourselves and direct it toward another source. Doing that keeps you dependent on external validation and puts us at greater risk. They could have been regarding the school or judicial system, but the article we are commenting on is after all titled The Holy Narcissist is it not?

    People are here on the blog getting the information they need to take action. Presumably because praying, hoping, and having faith, while comforting to some, just isn’t getting it done as far as getting and remaining free from the effects of narcissism. Although I should not presume, just as others should not presume that those whose opinions differ or are seen as dark might once have embraced their way of thinking and found it lacking and ineffective for themselves and they are expressing that. For instance: I have never felt the “breeze” despite asking for help. Yes, I did ask for help.

    Indeed, pray away. I am not discouraging that. I am encouraging that while you do, that you take concrete steps to achieve the outcome you want, and when you do, it’s okay not to have to deflect the total credit, but to acknowledge and celebrate your own hard work and success. My belief is that a miracle did not happen – you were just ready to accept better for yourself and YOU did.

    1. Eternity says:

      NA, Its really ok everyone is entitled to their have an opinion. You had made some interesting points. Take care

    2. Eternity says:

      NA, Sorry what I meant to say is everyone is entitled to their own opinion, there is not a wrong or a right with peoples religions beliefs and it is a very touchy subject for some.
      You have made some really good points though. Take care!

    3. Kel says:

      I have often commented to HG that he was a godsend to me. I meant it literally as an answer to my prayers for help.

      1. HG Tudor says:

        That is kind of you to refer to me in that way, Kel and if you wish to believe that, you are entitled to do so. The important fact is you have access to my work and me to help you, so ultimately, whoever may have sent me or did not do so, is secondary to the beneficial impact it has had upon you.

  31. MommyPino says:

    HG I hope that the Narc Hunter consult will still be available by the time I complete my list of twenty. Pope Benedict XVI is number one in my list. I just have a hard time deciding on the rest of the list. I know that you have confirmed to me that Pope John Paul II was a true empath which I totally agree based on his affect. There’s something about Pope Benedict’s eyes that make me suspicious of him.

    1. lickemtomorrow says:

      I hope that consult will still be available, too, as I’m ratcheting up my list as we speak.

      Personally, I don’t see Pope Benedict XVI as a narcissist and it’s the greatest shame for the Church that he stepped aside to let Francis take over. I’m pegging him as a narcissist of the highest order. Not a fan.

      1. mommypino says:

        lickemtomorrow, Pope Francis is not on my list yet but I have been thinking about it back and forth. There was an unfortunate picture of Pope Francis where he lost his temper when a woman from the crows yanked his hand and he slapped the woman. I was so shocked when I saw it. I have a really bad temper as in totally explosive but I have never gotten to a point of slapping anyone, not even my husband or kids. At my very worst moments with my mom I screamed like a crazy lunatic. Even my Normie husband has never slapped me, not even gesture or be tempted to do it in our worst arguments. I was so shocked to see Pope Francis’ facial expression and that he actually slapped the woman when he is supposed to be super empathic and not just a regular empath like me or a normal like my husband. But he may have been under so much stress that I will never be able to imagine. Pope John Paul even forgave the guy who shot him. I haven’t seen Pope JP2 lose the love in his eyes when he looked at people.

        1. lickemtomorrow says:

          Yes, I had that exact image of Pope Francis with that woman in my mind as I was typing and, although he later apologised, it was written all over his face that he despised the physical contact she made with him and probably despised her as well. I haven’t liked him from the start and that just helped to seal my impression of him being the opposite of what he is meant to be. His fury came to the fore! Don’t want to go into a rant there, though, as I’ll seek to get HGs impressions at some stage 😉

        2. Another Cat says:

          Pope Francis is a classic empath acc to earlier comments on Narcsite.

          Just like you Mommypino, I have thought about Benedictus Ratzinger.

          Unpopular opinion: I think it’s a bit narcissistic to stay on the Pope throne all the way until you die.

          Benedictus at least had the decency to step down and retire.

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hi AnotherCat, looks like we have very different opinions when it comes to Pope Francis. I wonder where you got your impressions here that he is an empath? Going back to my earlier comment, I believe we saw the mask slip in the incident that was recorded. I don’t believe Benedict’s stepping down was an act of decency. It was devastating to many faithful Catholics and not in line with usual practice. I’ve no doubt there was more to his ‘retirement’ considering he was/is a stalwart of Catholic faith and tradition.

            Francis will be top of my list when I ask for HGs opinion.

          2. Another Cat says:

            Hi Lickemtomorrow
            I don’t want to give away HG’s Narc detections before you order, but pope Francis I read in an old comment, is empathic.

            Benedictus I have no idea, actually. His body language seemed a little harsh, but maybe his accomplishments as pope were, in total, decent. Idk. Wasn’t there an interview with his brother Georg Ratzinger claiming that this was really bad, electing Joseph for pope?

          3. mommypino says:

            Another Cat, was it HG who said in the comments that Pope Francis is an empath or was it one of the commenters?

            The reason I am wondering about Pope Benedict is because of his mysterious stepping down and because he was extremely close to Pope John Paul 2 and advised Pope JP2 on many things. I tend to see that narcissists tend to befriend powerful empaths in a way to control situations. It was a dynamic that I have seen in my former work. And aso there is something about his eyes but it could just be a really bad case of eye bags. 🤷‍♀️

          4. mommypino says:

            Hi Another Cat, It can indeed seem narcissistic to stay in one’s leadership position until death but it can also be motivated by a deep sense of duty. I believe this sense of duty might be the same case with Queen Elizabeth and US Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg (even though I disagree with her).

          5. Violetta says:

            Maybe Benedict has something like Alzheimer’s and wanted to step down while he was still capable of making the decision.

            As for Francis, he’s a classic Marxist Misanthrope. Lurves “The People,” but hates people.

          6. lickemtomorrow says:

            HI Another Cat, thanks for your response re: Pope Francis and what I would say in response to that is narcissist’s have the ability to fake empathy. While his actions may appear empathetic on the surface, I am doubtful they are sincere. That’s from my own personal and Catholic perspective.

            I agree Benedict XVI could appear or come across as harsh at times, but in saying that I believe he was sincere.

            And there is no suggestion, in response to Violetta, that he was or is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. So I don’t believe that is the reason he stepped aside.

          7. Another Cat says:

            Mommypino, Lickemtomorrow

            It was said by HG in an old comment 2019. (of pope Francis)
            Nothing about Benedictus, though.

          8. mommypino says:

            Thank you Another Cat! It is possible that Pope Francis’ reaction was not necessary fury. I know a lot of elderly people with aches and pains and maybe the woman just yanked his hand too roughly and in the wrong way and he may have felt pain that caused him to react that way. Just a guess.

          9. Another Cat says:

            Lickemtomorrow wrote:

            “I tend to see that narcissists tend to befriend powerful empaths in a way to control situations”

            Yep, I’ve seen this a lot in marriage.

          10. lickemtomorrow says:

            “I tend to see that narcissists tend to befriend powerful empaths in a way to control situations”

            Yep, I’ve seen this a lot in marriage.

            Hi Another Cat, I actually didn’t say this, but this is definitely possible.

          11. Another Cat says:


            Did I just quote Mommypino and thought it was you. Sorry!! 😳

          12. Ren says:

            Benedict was an effective Pope but he wasn’t called ‘Gods’ Rottweiler’ for nowt.

            I’d exercise caution on the treating of Benny Boy and Francis.

          13. blackcoffee30 says:

            Just want to say I love RBG. I have RBG and SCOTUS COVID masks. LOL My love is that serious. 🙂

          14. Violetta says:

            Saw some Boomer ladies wearing t-shirts with Ginsburg’s face and the words “The Notorious RBG.”

          15. Another Cat says:

            I like her too (Ginsburg).

          16. lickemtomorrow says:

            I’d like to come back to some thoughts around Pope Francis and the incident that was recorded. The suggestion was made that the incident may just be an occasion where the Pope may have been feeling tired/stressed/in pain. This is a valid observation. It also allies with excuses we apply to narcissists in terms of their behaviour.

            My perception is that it is a moment where Francis momentarily lost control. As a narcissist he needs to have control and this woman grabbed him unexpectedly. He was not in control in the moment. We saw the mask slip and the fury ignite in his response. Rarely designed to occur in public where there is a possibility of others seeing past the facade, it was a monumental slip on his part. This may also go to his sense of superiority which includes reprimanding and slapping the woman at the time. How dare you touch me/grab me when I am superior to you?! She needed to know her place and his apology was reluctant, in my opinion, only given in order to maintain the facade. Interestingly he spoke on violence against women the following day. Concerning.

            The touching is also an act of intimacy which was not invited and is not welcome when it comes to the narcissist. He will decide who he will touch and vice versa and when. It’s not the first time it’s happened and check out this video for more:


            That’s my take on a couple of incidents as it relates to possible narcissism.

            The ability to apply word salad, plus sow seeds of doubt and confusion in a manner of gaslighting faithful Catholics is another. He has spoken about narcissism in his recent Easter homily. My belief is that is a projection – “no, you’re the narcississt”

          17. mommypino says:

            Hi lickemtomorrow, your observations are very valid about Pope Francis. I agree with everything that you have said. That is why I tried to compare his reaction of slapping the woman’s face to my reactions and my husband’s reactions which has never reached that point of slapping anyone. There were times that someone has accidentally hurt me and I would exclaim and my focus was on the pain and not to get back at the person who has hurt me. His reaction to slap her immediately was indeed very suspicious. It is a violation of someone’s boundaries to touch them without permission or invitation (implied or outright) and even more so to hurt someone. It is also a very weird behavior for someone who is supposed to be a man of very high virtue.

          18. mommypino says:

            Lickemtomorrow, however AC said that HG identified Pope Francis as an empath so that is why I came up with that possible reasoning behind his behavior. But like I have said the slapping of someone’s face is weird. At my worst I have displaced my anger into objects, especially when I was a teenager. In fact I have shared a story here where I slashed the screen door of the guy that I caught watching me while I was taking a shower through the exhaust window of the shower. He shut the door on me so I picked up all of their flip flops and threw them outside the fence. Haha good times! 😎

          19. lickemtomorrow says:

            No one likes to be inadvertently grabbed, Mommypino, so such a thing is likely to create a reaction, but I think it’s his role as Pope combined with his OTT reaction that stands out to me. He slapped her hand (the one she grabbed him with) and not her face, as well as reprimanding her, but it was that ‘knee jerk’ response which raised a red flag for me. His fury was ignited, in my opinion.

            And it might be possible to dismiss on other accounts, but if you watch the video I also linked then it appears it was not a one off event in terms of him disliking touch and also needing control. It’s a question I asked early on here about narcs and touching because I noticed all the narcs I knew (male and female) didn’t like to be touched, hugged and were quite germophobic. This appears to be the case with Francis.

            Only once in my life have I ever slapped someone across the face. It was a man who assaulted me on a dance floor. I didn’t think twice and it was an automatic reaction. That was because it was a physical assault and required a physical response. I never apologized because he was asking for it. I hope he was embarrassed. Although with that kind of ignoramus you never know.

          20. mommypino says:

            Hi lickemtomorrow,

            Thank you for the correction that he slapped her hand only and not her face. It has been a while ago since I last saw the video and I only saw it once.

            I agree that people don’t like to be grabbed but I would think that as a Pope he would know that it could happen a lot as part of his status just like celebrities and I would think that he would have developed some acceptance or tolerance for it. I have not seen that behavior in the two other popes in my lifetime prior to him.

            I watched the video that you shared and that was in my opinion very unempathic of him to do. Kissing the Pope’s ring is an act of humility and deference and he just shamed and embarrassed all of those people with what he did. It was so weird looking at his face as he smiled watching them get rejected by him as if he was amused and entertained by seeing them get embarrassed. Why didn’t he just announced prior to that that kissing his ring will not be allowed? That is just really weird and vicious in my opinion.

          21. Ren says:


            I’m sure you can grasp the unbelievable hilarity in ‘Kissing the Popes’ Ring’

            Goodness! Has it become really that devient in RC? Oh wait. It always was.

            Now maybe Pope Francis is a good guy. Maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury is a good guy. Possibly The Queen. Actually, almost certainly. 0

            Two of these individuals are saying Fuck.All the Queen, now 94, has said more about spiritual matters as opposed to temporal ones in the last 5 months. At her age too!

          22. MommyPino says:

            Ren, yes I can grasp that humor of that phrase. But you didn’t understand the point of what I said. Anyway, I’m sure lickemtomorrow understood what I was saying. My comment was meant for her and it was my point of view as a Catholic to another Catholic.

          23. Another Cat says:

            Ah, @Lickemtomorrow, @Mommypino

            That old comment on the post “A very prime ministerial narcissist” (about Boris Johnson),
            where HG wrote pope Francis may not be a narcissist,
            doesn’t seem to hold.

            In a recent video with Chuck Bastie he says Francis might be a narc after all, a greater.

            HG might not quite have settled this question yet, as this point.

          24. HG Tudor says:

            Simple, further evidence arose between the original comment and the observation made to Chuck Bastie.

          25. Another Cat says:

            Got it, HG, thank you for examining! He is a narc.

    2. WokeAF says:

      Also firming up my list.
      HG for an extra $ amount, can we get the school, sub school & cadre of the 20 Famous Narcissists you provided?

  32. Kel says:

    Narcissists clad as clergy or even as themselves – create a loyal following – where people can be manipulated. But hopefully that doesn’t mean ALL narcissist blogs and all churches do that.

    It is amazing how easily people are led – anywhere and everywhere. Leading people away from religion for example. I don’t let a church tell me what to think, who to vote for or any of that narcissistic crap, I would not go to a church that did that – and I have walked out on churches for that reason. The Bible even warns you against letting others think for you.

    If you really read what the Bible says, it’s about love. Isn’t brotherly love the idea behind helping each other out here. Jesus didn’t get along with holier-than-thou narcissist priests, and he didn’t fall for their manipulations.

    Hope is not faith. I wasted my life around narcissists, but I’m grateful I am an empath and not a manipulator. I’m glad I can love, I can hope if I feel like it, and I don’t have an emptiness or a creature dwelling within me.

    I don’t have any worry about people who don’t believe in God, I think God loves them too. None of us is above the other, we all do things we shouldn’t, whether we have faith or we don’t. I imagine all the different religions are probably the same one in the end. There’s a lot of narcs who preach what they think is gospel, but they don’t walk it, they mostly judge everyone, and a lot of people who are atheists who don’t preach but do live a life of brotherly love. It’s what’s in your heart.

    I was not a kisser upper to the last narc, I’m not a star-struck blind supporter of anyone. I know what’s right and wrong in my heart. I don’t belong to a fake church full of facades. I go to one that practices what it preaches in their thoughts, their words, and their actions.

    Love is not weak – Corinthians. Being a manipulative bully is, because being evil is easy.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      However, most narcissists do not recognise that they are “being evil”. You are the viewed as the evil one, not they.

      1. lickemtomorrow says:

        HG, I don’t know why I’ve never asked this before, but do narcissists have any concept of morality?

        If they have no empathy, no conscience, no sense of guilt or remorse, it’s to be assumed all religious affiliations are null and void. While it might contribute to their facade, it’s an illusion like everything else.

        The black and white thinking might get them there in certain instances, but that’s not really about morality. It’s about fuel. What gets them fuel and what doesn’t get them fuel.

        I’m a bit cut up for narcissist’s in this respect. Even though they have hurt me.

        And it’s a Catch 22 if we both see eachother as evil.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Yes, it is learned through the observation of others and is used as apart of the facade.

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            Oh, of course. Silly me!

            So while these other factors are lacking, the narcissist makes use of their powers of observation in the understanding of what is wrong and right (in a general context).

            Still cut up that you can’t experience certain things and we view eachother as evil.

            Though greater insight is helping to ameliorate some of my angst.

          2. blackcoffee30 says:

            But do Ns have their own morality? I mean, who’s to say what’s moral or immoral anyhow?

            The majority doesn’t make it so.

          3. Violetta says:

            Soap, eh?

            For if a preest be foul, on whom we truste,
            No wonder is a lewed man to ruste;
            And shame it is, if a preest take keep,
            A shiten shepherde and a clene sheep.

        2. Another Cat says:


          What’s moral and unmoral might be just an academic question to be philosophic about on different forums. Accordingly to some people. But let’s say the sign

          “There is no absolute good or evil”

          would be written on the concentration camp of Auschwitz. The victims there might not agree that there is no evil.

          1. HG Tudor says:

            However, BC, as I recall, did not state “There is no absolute good or evil”, she stated that “I mean, who’s to say what’s moral or immoral anyhow?”

            That observation is correct. There is no objective standard for what is good and what is evil. It is a matter of perspective.

            Your emotive example only reinforces that, those taken to Auschwitz would indeed regard it as a place when evil acts where committed, which of course, is from their perspective.

          2. Kel says:

            My narc bosses father was in a concentration camp- his life was spared as he was a taylor and he was put to work. The rest of his family died in the gas chambers. My narc boss used the story of his family being in the camps when he was wooing victims as telling us about himself. I heard him retelling it to someone else, so I asked him what had happened with his family, and he blurted out so uncaringly that they had been gassed that I literally gasped in shock from it, and said, what I would ask many times from him, ‘What is wrong with you’.

            There is right and wrong, and for those who have no conscience to tell them the difference, they are written down as laws and for good reasons from past bad occurrences.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            Wrong again.

            Good and bad are a matter of perspective and not only are they are a matter of perspective, how they become the moral and legal framework is shaped by the fluid nature of those perspectives.
            The concept of what is good and what is bad is not written on a stone table at the end of the universe. They are concepts arising from perspective.

            “There is right and wrong, and for those who have no conscience to tell them the difference, they are written down as laws and for good reasons from past bad occurrences.”
            So, section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code is the law. It states that men found guilty of homosexual acts in public or private can be jailed for up to two years. That is the law, therefore adopting your proposition, since this is the law, it must mean it is good. Do you agree that this amounts to being good?

          4. Kel says:

            I only wonder how old that particular law is, as there are so many that are outdated and no longer enforced.

            I do believe gassing Jews in the concentration camp is monstrously wrong. Murdering people, except in defense, is wrong.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            Wonder no longer, it is a law which is applicable and current. Indeed, there was a legal challenge to this law which was dismissed by Singapore’s High Court on or about the 30th March 2020. The law was deemed constitutional.
            So, I will ask you again, since you dodged the question. Do you agree, this law is good, since your hypothesis is that if it is a law it is equates to being good.

            Indeed you do believe gassing Jews in the concentration camp is monstrously wrong. That is YOUR perspective. Do you think Hitler sat in his study and said to himself “Well Adolf, aren’t you a total cunt for gassing all those innocent individuals, moving them from their homes, separating children and parents and then exterminating them. Aren’t I an absolute evil, twisted and depraved person?” No, he did not. He regarded this as entirely necessary with regard to the ideological principle of lebensraum. He believed, from his perspective, that such action of expulsion or extermination of the indigenous races and peoples was necessary, appropriate and justified for lebensraum. The Generalplan Ost was based on lebensraum with the expansion into central and eastern Europe. Hitler undoubtedly knew that people regarded such action as wrong and evil, but he dismissed such views because from HIS PERSPECTIVE they were wrong and he was right.

            There is no objective standard of right and wrong. It is a matter of perspective.

          6. lickemtomorrow says:

            Rather than disagree, here is some thinking from a Catholic perspective.

            The thinking being expressed relates to what is called ‘relativism’ and the dangers associated with this has been put forward by the last two Popes (John Paul II and Benedict XVI:

            “Freedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.” John Paul II – Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life)

            The Church relies on objective truth to formulate its doctrine.

            In other words, the truth is not subjective and malleable according to one’s perspective.

          7. Whitney says:

            HG, the God. I agree with you. There is no such thing as right or wrong, objectively. It is arbitrary. It is a matter of perspective.

            We are tiny specs in an infinite time and space.

            This is my personal perspective on right and wrong. I believe nature is right. I believe that anything subversive to nature is wrong and sickening. For example, how people treat babies in our Western culture, I believe is subversive to nature, and wrong.

            Just like there is no right and wrong, nothing matters. There is no meaning to life. Our lives are a spec in time and space. I told the one who choked me that, and he said that on the other hand, our lives are all we have, so they are everything to us.

            All that is real to me, is the feeling of love. Without love, there is no point to life.

          8. HG Tudor says:

            Thank you for sharing your perspective.

          9. Kel says:

            Narcissists do not think in terms of what’s right and what’s wrong. There’s nothing that is wrong to them unless it’s something that’s done against them- at least their perception of something that was done against them.

            Rules don’t apply to narcissists.

            I think there are narcissists that do a lot of horrible stuff from abuse to murder to psycho epic events.

            And there are other narcissists that actually do some good things for the world.

            Maybe there are good and bad narcissists, all with the same core but with different outlooks from each other.

          10. HG Tudor says:

            Narcissists do think in terms of what is right and wrong, we do so by reference to our perspective of control.

            1. You give me control. All is good/right.
            2. You threaten control. All is bad/wrong.

            Within 1, a narcissist could readily agree that tax evasion is wrong, because by doing so, it affords him control.
            Within 2, a narcissist could really state that tax evasion is not wrong, because by doing so it enables him to respond to a threat to that control.

            There are not good and bad narcissists. There are narcissists. In order to achieve the Prime Aims, a narcissist will do and say things which are “good” as per the majority perspective. In order to achieve the Prime Aims, a narcissist will do say thing which are “bad” as per the majority perspective. The narcissist will see both of these as “good” from his perspective, because they achieve the Prime Aims.

          11. Ren says:

            Apologies if I’ve missed people or comments.

            I’ve read some of comments in train and and are reminded of a very great philosophical discussion at the ‘Synod of Sutri’. Approx 400 AD.

            ‘How many angels dance on the head of a pin?’

            Of course, the question is nonsensical in and if of itself.

            It’s not the question parsee but how we view the answer from the prism and perhaps paradigm of our own perspective. Too much alliteration there. Apologies.

            We on NS are being asked to place out trust in the Arch-Nemisis of our own abusers. To gain insight. And of course knowledge.

            It’s a somewhat pleasing paradox. Intellectually. But can it function as an axiom? A way to live ones truth by ‘The Work’?

            That is for the gentle reader to decide. As everything we read must he parsed through the ‘little grey cells”.

            Not easy for the reader to determine.

            This is Tudors’ great misfortune. And one I’m sure he is very well aware of.

            I do.not mean to denigrate Hg at all. I merely point out, that he and I are certainly aware of the fact.These are difficult matters.

          12. njfilly says:

            Wow. This is such an interesting debate. I have one question to add, for Mr HG Tudor; Why would Hitler consider himself a “cunt” rather than a “dick”?

            Also, one statement to add. Everybody who follows a religion believes in God, but not everybody who believes in God follows a religion. Religion is a man made institution and all man-made institutions are corrupt, including religion. (IMHO).

          13. HG Tudor says:

            Because cunt is a stronger insult than dick. Thanks for focussing on that central issue!

          14. njfilly says:

            Ha ha! Well I can’t help what stands out to me from my perspective.

          15. HG Tudor says:

            Well, I suppose a dick would stand out to you.

          16. njfilly says:

            OMG! Yes, I must agree. Certain dicks are more magnificent than others. Wouldn’t you agree?

          17. HG Tudor says:

            Dick Turpin certainly was. Dickie Attenborough had his moments. Dick Cheney was pretty effective. Dick Van Dyke was fleet of foot, although shit of Cockney accent.

          18. njfilly says:

            Ha ha!! I can’t speak about all those Dicks, but yes, I agree about Dick Van Dyke.

          19. Kel says:

            I did not dodge your question. I thought it did not require answering as it was obvious that I wouldn’t agree with it. I knew nothing about that law to comment on it.

            But citing it takes my point out of context. The point was there’s a reason for majority rule of right and wrong In a Democratic Country at least, not in dictatorships or communist nations obviously. Right and wrong democratically is based on the safety of the public.

            Hitler was a dictator, and he was insane. Experimenting on people in the cruelest ways, starving, humiliating them was done in the most unnecessary and evil way, no matter the purpose of it. And it was also based on his anti-semitism and hate filled emotions and feelings of racial superiority.

          20. HG Tudor says:

            No, you are evading it again by writing “I knew nothing about that law to comment on it.” I have told you what the law is. If you do not believe me, fair enough, go and look it up yourself, it would take a few seconds to find and a minute or two to read.

            No, it is not taking your point out of context. You stated “There is right and wrong, and for those who have no conscience to tell them the difference, they are written down as laws and for good reasons from past bad occurrences.” I gave you an example of a law and invited you to confirm if that law was good based on YOUR hypothesis and you have repeatedly failed to do so. You have now stated that “I thought it did not require answering as it was obvious that I wouldn’t agree with it” which leads to the conclusion that your hypothesis is wrong, since you cannot agree with your own hypothesis.

            “The point was there’s a reason for majority rule of right and wrong In a Democratic Country at least, not in dictatorships or communist nations obviously. Right and wrong democratically is based on the safety of the public.”
            Right and wrong is based on the safety of the public? It is not, but let us say that this is the case. Tell me, who decides what is the safe or unsafe with regard to the public? How do they decide that? From their perspective.

            The Conservative Government in the UK in the late 1980s, early 1990s introduced the Community Charge, aka the Poll Tax. This was a taxation levied by law, from a democratically elected government. This tax was repeatedly criticised, protested against, regarded by many voters as unfair and led to rioting. Was that law good? Was it imposed on the basis of public safety (if so, it singularly failed because people were injured, imprisoned and property damaged because of it)
            I will refer you again to s. 377A of the Singapore Penal Code. That law was passed by a representative democratic government. You (albeit slowly) have accepted you regard that law as wrong/unfair. But how can that be? It has been passed as a law by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship.
            Racial segregation in the United States occurred through the Jim Crow laws. Notice that word again? These were state and local laws. They were upheld by the Supreme Court. Do you see those laws as good? They came about in a democracy, so presumably they must be good, according to your hypothesis.
            I could give you hundreds of examples.

            There is no objective standard of right and wrong. It is a matter of perspective, whether dictatorship or democracy. I have provided you with repeated cogent examples of how it is a matter of perspective to help you understand and how this impacts on the dynamic between narcissist and victim (this is an absolutely crucial aspect of gaining understanding) however you are unable to understand it. It is important, however, that you take the time to do so, because it is a central aspect of understanding the narcissistic dynamic and without such understanding you are placing yourself in a position of weakness and vulnerability. I am concluding this as I have given it more than enough time already.

          21. Ren says:

            “So, section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code is the law. It states that men found guilty of homosexual acts in public or private can be jailed for up to two years. That is the law, therefore adopting your proposition, since this is the law, it must mean it is good. Do you agree that this amounts to being good?:

            Yes Hg. This is a very good point. Society views itself through the over-riding morality of what the current societal mores are. At that point.

            In the words of PN, ‘There’s nothing new under the sun’.

            At this point, we feel that we are moving towards this movement, towards an egalitarian society. That is wrong. We just percieve it that way. The prism of perception. And maybe we are. But extremely slowly.

            Intresting philosophical points.

            Order of out chaos.

          22. HG Tudor says:

            Yes, I know it is a very good point. That was why I made it.

          23. NarcAngel says:

            “In other words, the truth is not subjective and malleable according to one’s perspective.”

            Well that would be what the Church has decided now wouldn’t it?Convenient that.

          24. Violetta says:

            The gradations of body part insults can be fascinating. Calling a man a pussy means he’s a coward; calling him a cunt means total lack of any redeeming qualities. Calling him an asshole is like calling him a cunt, although the parts in question serve very different purposes. In Spanish, calling someone a carajo or a coño has about the same level of insult, but calling someone a pollo isn’t insulting at all, and pendejo is insulting to everyone.

            In Yiddish, a putz has two uses, a schmuck has only one. In British usage, knob or bellend can be affectionately disparaging, twat is milder than cunt, and fanny (mildly vulgar term for rear in U.S.) is in Britain considered an thoroughly rude term for the lady-parts. You can say crap on primetime broadcast TV in the U.S., but you can’t say shit. Daytime doctor shows will use poop.

            Btw, I highly recommend Ciara Knight’s “A Definitive Ranking of Every Swear Word From Worst to Best,” a (hilarious) rebuttal to an Ofcom study.

          25. HG Tudor says:

            Soap in the mouth time for you Violetta!

          26. Violetta says:


            I accept the Church’s teachings on moral relativism, but I don’t expect narcs to give a flying fornication what I believe or what the Church believes. So the real issue is whether something is a personal matter, where you have the option of turning the other cheek, or where there is a moral imperative to act to protect someone else. Is a child in danger? You may need to report the matter, or if the child is yours, end a relationship and move far away to protect that child. Is a population being oppressed by the Commies or the Nazis or the Normans (remember Robin Hood)? You might protest, you might hide people or smuggle them out, you might retaliate.

            There were people who thought the U.S. shouldn’t get involved in WWII, and even more who thought that about Vietnam or Iraq. There were others who thought it was their duty to help the oppressed as they would hope to be helped. The argument about whether people (or entire countries) should take a stand or just mind their own business is still going.

            I’m neither a great sinner nor a great saint, and I would probably be influenced by the people around me. I try to surround myself with good influences, but who knows? The troops in Iraq thought they were liberating a nation from a dictator, but it just threw the region into chaos and opened the path to extremists.

          27. Ren says:

            Wading in.

            The concept of ‘Living Room’ Hg is unnecessary and it removes from the point you are making, which is a good one And one which I agree with.

            Lets talk about the gays. For millennia, males love males. So. Fucking. What. Thousands of years they did their thing. Then all of a sudden and especially in Victorian England, it was driven underground.

            I remind you of what Oxbridge studied in the Tripos.

            You couldnt MOVE in Victorian society without one nipper telling all. Rife? Just a bi!

            Again, the prism. What was acceptable once was no longer acceptable. But then again, we look at the disparate gap between the East and West end of London. Sexuality on all sides is therein into sharp focus.

            And still I read about the hypocrisy..

            I’m in utter agreement with you. We live, as we always have done, in a society defined as ‘what is acceptable’

            One of the worst moral crimes we can commit, in my view, is to be a hypocrite.

            The very worst is to commit an act on another without Informed Consent.

          28. HG Tudor says:

            No it does not remove from it, it explains the rationale behind his decision, i.e. he regarded it as justified. This is the basis for much of the way that a narcissist operates, through the different perspective and therefore is highly pertinent.

          29. Kel says:


            Ugh! Narcissists do not have a conscience the way non-narcs do, and so for them, they don’t necessarily see anything wrong with what Hitler did, or murdering if it’s a convenient solution for them. Murdering is wrong, for obvious reasons, and it’s a law. So for those who don’t have a conscience who don’t see anything wrong with murdering someone in particular, I’m saying there’s a law for that to give them a good reason not to do it, lest they get caught. Murdering is a safety issue for the public.
            I’m not saying every law everywhere is good. My point was for people who don’t have a conscience to help them to know what’s good and bad
            —-and I mean in the simplest forms —-
            it’s helpful that there are laws to guide them.

            No I don’t think anyone should be punished for being gay or performing a same sex act or having a relationship.

          30. HG Tudor says:

            Wrong again.

            I recognise what Hitler did is seen as wrong, I also understand why he and man within that regime did not see it as wrong. That is because I understand it is a matter of perspective and you do not.

            I have no conscience but I understand what is regarded as right and wrong from the majority perspective. Indeed, I will condemn acts of wrong behaviour, why? Not because I have emotional empathy, not because I have a conscience, but because the condemnation suits my purposes in order to assert control and gain fuel.

            It is the perspective which exists in order to assert control. Know this :-

            1. A narcissist is in a conversation with other people. One individual remarks “Isn’t it awful about that woman who was killed last night in the city centre.” The narcissist then states “Absolutely terrible, so awful that a young woman’s life has been cut short in such terrible circumstances. The police need to catch this wrongdoer soon and get them locked up.” The group murmurs in agreement. The narcissist is able to assert control and obtain fuel from this remark. The narcissist recognises it is an act deemed as wrong so he DOES see it as wrong (contrary to what you have written). This exhibits cognitive empathy. There is no emotional empathy.
            2. (Same opening scenario as above). The narcissist then states “Well, you have to ask why on earth she was wandering alone through that part of the city centre that late at night. Everybody knows you do not do that, she brought it on herself.” The group is split. Some nod others are aghast at the remark. The narcissist is able to assert control over some and obtain fuel from all, in the group, with this remark. The narcissist still recognises it is an act which is deemed as wrong, BUT in order to get what he requires, his narcissism results in a provocative comment. Absence of cognitive and emotional empathy.
            3. (Same opening scenario). The narcissist then states “Shit happens. People die. Who wants another drink?” The narcissist recognises the person has been murdered and that is regarded as wrong. The narcissist pushes the issue of the dead woman to one side and makes it about him asking if people want a drink. No cognitive empathy displayed and no emotional empathy.They respond placing their orders. He obtains fuel and control. While he is at the bar a couple in the group remark about his glib response unfavourably. The narcissist does not hear, therefore there is no threat to his control.
            4. A man is arrested and is accused of murdering the woman referred to above. He is the killer. He is a narcissist. He denies killing her. The allegation of murder is a threat to his control. He knows that murder is viewed as wrong. His denial is the first line of the narcissistic twin lines of defence, because the accusation threatens his control, so his narcissism must reject it, thus the denial.

            “it’s helpful that there are laws to guide them.”
            “No I don’t think anyone should be punished for being gay or performing a same sex act or having a relationship.”
            You do realise that you are contradicting yourself.

            You need to read and understand, because what you continue to write evidences that you have not grasped the concept and if you want to understand how narcissism works and how it impacts on people, you need to Understand this important concept.

          31. Whitney says:

            Hi Violetta 🌸
            Cunt is a compliment here in Australia. “You’re a sick cunt”, “He’s a funny cunt”, or a greeting “Hey Cunt”, or a form of endearment “haha you absolute cunt”.

          32. Violetta says:


            Had a temp job in a publishing house where another temp routinely greeted co-workers with “iHola, coños!” I think it sounds friendlier in Spanish.

          33. Kel says:

            I would like to whack you on the noggin with your “wrong again” like a rolled newspaper, Chewdor.

            If a narc sees Hitler as right and as wrong and understands both points of view, then you are proving my point. That is what I said.

            If you think what Hitler did and tried to accomplish wasn’t wrong, then how do you feel about Kim Jong-Un? How would you feel about going to N Korea to live there and be a citizen? I’m sure you can see Kim from a perspective of admiration for what he has accomplished. Maybe you too would leave his country as a vegetable in a coma like Otto Warmbier did – for stealing a poster as a souvenir.

            We had a world war over Hitler because what he was doing and wanted to accomplish didn’t jive well with the rest of humanity.

            Try looking at it from a non-narc point of view, and there is a right and wrong.

            Look at it from a narc point of view and there isn’t a right and wrong, you understand both sides, and right and wrong for you is whichever side brings you your prime aims.

          34. HG Tudor says:

            I have repeatedly explained the issue of perspective to you and you keep falling into the trap of responding with emotional comments. I have explained it fully and I am now concluding the matter.

          35. Enthralled says:

            Fascinating discussion, shame I missed it.

            I actually feel for Kel. I will not go into my own thoughts – irrelevant now.

            I would like to say citing a law from another culture and country – does not impact her assertion that what is right and wrong can be ascertained by the law. Ones society, upbringing and experiences do dictate our understanding – thus our laws are derived from these things. As an extension of this – our understanding of right and wrong is established. It is also a reflection of the collective thinking within ones own birth place.

            The Poll Tax was dropped when the collective rose up to challenge it.

            It also does not impact your thoughts that right and wrong can be seen as ones perspective. To which I would argue – yes and no – but that is a discussion for another time and place 😉

          36. Contagious says:

            I think it’s a matter of Faith. If you have none and rely on the laws of man then those laws shift in time. Look at Roe V Wade. If you are Christian the 10 Commandments are clear ( mine) and most majority religions have laws. I always tell others to read Christs words as the Bible itself includes laws from 100 years ago. But if Christ was God as I believe then his words matter. Christ washed the feet of a prostitute and said sin no more. Christ threw over the tax collector tables as to make the point money and God aren’t to be in the san house. He loved the poor, the meek, the lepers, etc… Christ stopped the stoning of an adulterer and pointed out the stoners were not sin free ( and I am not talking about the good herb) and when crucified next to a murderer and thief Christ told him to seek God. Most of all when crucified he asked God to “ forgive them.” Some say he had to be crazy or True. HG is an atheist. To me, it is ludicrous not to know right from wrong or to define it on the shifting moral compass of humanity. Christ was a revolutionary at the time. If a man/God washed a prostitutes feet who knows if he has lived what he would have said on homosexuality… or as Kendrick Symbolized at Glastonbury… dare I say some abortions? If you are not a believer look at man made laws or collective conscience or your conscience. But as a 100% believer, it is nonsense to argue right and wrong does not exist. Also it is interesting that Buddha other major religions speak of love. The law of love is not easy to follow but a goal to achieve. Imagine.

      2. Empath007 says:

        HG. This is sort of a broad question :

        1A) why do you think so many narcissits will reject the label ? Because it’s highly misundertood, or because they do not wish to be viewed as “evil”. 1B) do you think there is a stigma attached with the label (I’m speaking on a majority perspective level. Not implying the narcissist themselves feel a stigma or shame attached to the label…. but that society has put one there which plays a role in the narcissist rejecting it)

        Or is the rejection of the label purely based out of the need to remain in control ?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          1A. Rejection of the label of narcissist? Because it is a threat to the narcissist´s control. See No! You are the Narcissist and The 3 Assertions of Control. I make this point again, not just directed to you Empath007 but to the readers as a whole, you MUST as part of your education and understanding read The 3 Key Interactions With the Narcissist and The 3 Assertions of Control. They are foundation pieces and it is remiss not to do so for the purposes of achieving understanding. I may well, when people ask questions which are answered by those two articles, just refer to them and provide nothing more because by reading and digesting that material you will increase your understanding.
          1B. The label of narcissist is stigmatic because of the majority perspective as you have identified.

          1. Empath007 says:

            Thanks HG. Definitely I appreciate being referred to the articles if the answer is there.

            I genuinely notice that you do more then your part around here answering our questions and engaging in conversation. Even my empathetic patience would feel a tipping point whilst answering a lot of (often) similar questions.

            Thanks for the answer to 1B. My suspicion is a lot of unaware narcs who truly believe they are good people would be aghast with anger if labeled because It would threaten their control and also give them a “negative” label. I wonder then, if this is a part of the reason why psychologist don’t bother with the label… perhaps they view it as futile. The larger reason is because 99% are not nearly educated enough on the subject… and they don’t understand it beyond “look at trump, that’s a narcissist”.

            I think it’s comendable that you took your label and you accepted your label. That’s the mark of intelligence. When someone can recognize themselves and understand themselves and use that to their advantage.

          2. blackcoffee30 says:

            You should. It’s a waste of everyone’s time not to do so. Had I known, 3 Key Interactions With the Narcissist and The 3 Assertions of Control were the most important, I’d have started my KV collection with them.

          3. Another Cat says:


            Though one would think psychiatrists are aware for centuries that there is such a thing as manipulative personalities and manipulative personality disorder.

      3. Kel says:

        Narcissists are like an alternate universe, they’re the other side of the mirror, and kind of like the closest thing we have to AI. How did we ever end up in the same world with each other

        There’s so much good in them, and too much bad in them.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Actually there is nothing in us. The need for the Prime Aims means the production of “good” and the production of “bad” to achieve them.

          1. Violetta says:

            Maybe it’s just a different survival strategy. Baby humans are dependent for years, but baby sharks and crocodiles are pretty much on their own almost immediately. If they felt compassion or looked for it in other creatures, they wouldn’t survive long enough to reproduce, and the trait would die out.

          2. blackcoffee30 says:

            “Actually there is nothing in us.” is the actual fucking struggle in my life at the moment. The struggle is real.

        2. Contagious says:

          The “warrior” gene has been there since homosapiens began. Do you know the greatest percent wise statistical genocide was Homo sapiens against Neanderthals? Imagine the amount of land they could have shared ( ok not women) ….

    2. WokeAF says:

      “ The Bible even warns you against letting others think for you”

      The Bible IS “others”.

      1. MommyPino says:

        Hi WokeAF! I haven’t seen you in a while. I just want to say hi. Take care! 💕

        1. WokeAF says:

          Hi MP ❤️. My son was in hospital for almost a month, I was staying at a nearby hotel the whole time (care of a Foundation) . He’s finally ok – really ok- now.
          So I had zero time to participate or read the comments , just checked in on the articles sometimes. Now that things are settled and stable, I hope to be able to be here more often xx

          1. fox says:

            So sorry about your son, WokeAF! I’m glad he’s finally okay now. Make sure you take care of yourself too <3

          2. WhoCares says:


            “My son was in hospital for almost a month, I was staying at a nearby hotel the whole time (care of a Foundation) . He’s finally ok – really ok- now.”

            That must have been super worrisome and draining for you.
            Glad to hear that your son is better and that you’re back home.

          3. NarcAngel says:

            Glad you have checked in and that things are okay. Your absence was noted.