The Holy Narcissist

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.

422 thoughts on “The Holy Narcissist

  1. Kim e says:

    Ren,
    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:

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

        1. Violetta says:

          Kim:

          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:

      Kim

      He he! Make mine a

      WHITE. WINE. SPRITZER!

      1. njfilly says:

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

  2. NarcAngel says:

    HG
    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. 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:

        https://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/Truth2/

    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:

      Fiddleress
      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.

    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:

            Fox:

            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:

          Fox
          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.

    5. Ren says:

      Fiddleress

      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’.

  4. 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:

            LET:
            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:

        Kel

        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.

    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:

            Madame

            Studying for his finals.

      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.

  5. 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:

            <3

  6. 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. ✌️

  7. 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:

        Hg

        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:

      NA
      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:

        Kel
        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:

          NA
          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:

            NA,
            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:

            Kel

            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:

            Kel:

            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:

            NA
            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:

            Kel

            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.

            However…

            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

            Kiki

          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!

        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:

            Empath007

            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 this.blog. 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:

            Empath007
            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.

        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:

            Fox
            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).

  8. 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!

      2. Violetta says:

        Eternity:

        We’ll have to do something about that….

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
    M.

    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:

          Eternity:

          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 .

      Kiki

  11. 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:

      NA
      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.

  12. 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:

            Lickemtomorrow

            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:

            https://youtu.be/X2xOelUd6Zo

            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”

  13. 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:

          Blackcoffee30

          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:

            Hg
            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:

            HG
            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:

            Lickemtomorrow:

            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:

            Hg

            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:

            Whitney:

            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.

      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:

            Empath007

            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.

  14. NarcAngel says:

    My observation has been that God and religion represent hope to those who embrace them, but my view is that hope has never accomplished anything. It merely provides comfort in the face of inaction. I see the danger in religion as it conditioning you to have faith and to hope, and that leaves you ripe for the manipulations of a narcissist and their illusions, and then to wait and hope for them to change. Nothing changes until you take action.

    I see religion as another form of ensnarement.

    1. Witch says:

      I also feel religion was invented to mask the fact that human life is meaningless and we are a cancer to this planet. A bumble bee has more relevance than any of us. 99.9% of us will have a mediocre existence in which we live to pay rent and bills and very little happens beyond that.
      Sorry to be depressing but that’s my real feelings

      1. Alexissmith2016 says:

        Goodness witch I know you’re right but for the most part I avoid thinking about it. I think that coupled with my terrible memory is Actually one of my biggest assets. Dont question it and forget you ever did. It’s fun over – I’ll show you the way x

        1. Witch says:

          I think it’s actually helped me to accept things for what they are.
          There’s no grand scheme that I or you or they can come up with to save the world. So I should accept that and be like a normal by focusing on myself and doing what I can to get by, do just enough to pass the test and stop worrying about anything extra because it’s pointless.

          1. blackcoffee30 says:

            This is basically why I am Nichiren Buddhist.

    2. fox says:

      Absolutely, NA. I have said this exact same thing. I think religion has always been a tool to control people. Sometimes it’s relatively benign, such as telling you to “love thy neighbor”, but often it is used as a way to get people to comply with another human being’s wishes, because a deity says so. It often leads to vilifying non-believers simply because they are not part of the same tribe. I have often thought the God of the Old Testament seems like a narcissist himself, being a jealous god, always wanting you to prove your loyalty, punishing you for for not having faith, etc. It’s conditioning you to take abuse from the priests who He supposedly speaks through (yeah, right). If it makes a person feel better to have faith in a higher being, then I’m not going to argue. To each their own, but it is not for me. Jesus doesn’t need to take the wheel because I am comfortable being responsible for my own actions and I accept that existence doesn’t have to have a narrative for my life to feel meaningful.

      1. Eternity says:

        Fox, I am not a very religious person, but I do believe in a higher power(other than HG) haha . I was raised by my family to have morals and values more than religion which did include being baptized,saying a prayer before a meal, having manners saying please and thank you etc.
        Even if you dont have a religion doesnt make you a bad oerson either. You can just try your best and be a good person if thank includes to love thy neighboor than thats ok too..

        1. fox says:

          Eternity, I appreciate that kind of attitude, I think that’s the way people should be.

          I was also raised in Christian beliefs from my grandparents and extended family. I was taught from them to never to even question it. That atheists were evil and will lead you astray. That I should follow the rules and fear God’s wrath. But as an adult, I am just trying to do good for the sake of a better society. I don’t need fear of a god to be a good person. I’ve been told many times that “This is a Christian Nation and get out of OUR country if you don’t like it.” That is the attitude I’m talking about. I think more religious people should accept good for good and stop demonizing or trying to convert people like me for not buying into their brand of beliefs. But that’s what a lot of them are taught to do.

          1. NarcAngel says:

            Fox
            Yes, and none of those who act in that way think they are or have been manipulated by religion. In the same way that people are manipulated by narcissists – slowly conditioned over time to accept. I don’t understand how some people can eventually come to the realization that they have been ensnared by a narcissist when they would not have thought that previously possible, but think they are impervious to other forms of manipulation such as religion (my view). Well actually I think I can. The majority perspective files narcissism under evil and religion under good. Those things accepted as good and as love would never be used to deceive surely?

            I understand people taking comfort in having a god or religion. It’s the level they take it to that I see as problematic.

          2. Kel says:

            There’s a lot of narcissists pretending to be religious. They are fakes, they judge people, and pretend to be good.

            They are a false misrepresentation of religion, and since they are narcissists, they are manipulative.

            They do not represent real religion.

            There is true religion that is based on love.

            Narcissists do not love.
            Empaths love.

            When I was ensnared by a narcissist, I was trying to find out the truth about him, I was trying to keep him from doing bad things, I felt like his conscience. It was like Jiminy Cricket with Pinocchio. I was not blinded to him, I just didn’t know the phenomenon of narcissism existed.

            God is in our hearts.
            Either you believe in the same things he does, love, and you marvel at the beauty around you, or you don’t. He has performed miracles for me, quietly, he’s very much alive.

            He kept me from committing suicide once, I was so depressed, I thought my kids would be better off without me. I’d had to pay an old debt and didn’t have money for Christmas for toys, and I just thought why am I struggling, I can never get ahead. I didn’t mention what I was thinking, but on a phone call, my mother could tell something was off with me, which I denied, but she told me to just pray. And so I did, I prayed and went on like normal. There was this customer at work who had a crush on me, he was married, always harmless, but he asked me to go to lunch, so I did. He pulled out these flowers with three one-hundred dollar bills folded accordion style between the flowers. It was exactly how much money I had needed. I never mentioned it to him or anyone at all. He gave it insisting, no strings attached, it’s Christmas and he wanted to do it, he was rich. That was a miracle, it came after I prayed, it was exactly the amount I had secretly needed, and no one knew that.

            That is only one thing that happened, there are many more.

            I wouldn’t try to steer people away from God, away from goodness, away from fellowship, ever.

            Narcissists ruin everything and they are not religion. They might be here and there, and everywhere, but they are not religion.

          3. mommypino says:

            Hi Kel,

            I totally agree with you that those were miracles that happened to you. I have had many miracles like that happen to me. I have even shared here the story of how I got my US citizenship. I did all of the hard work gathering and organizing evidence but the guy at the US Embassy would not even look at my binder of evidence. It was something that was out of my control. My efforts meant nothing. Then a lady felt bad for me and told the guy something while pointing at me and then the guy called me back in and said to give him my evidence and he will look at it. He did and told me that I did a great job compiling everything and gave me the US citizenship. Many people in my home country were shocked that I got the US citizenship in a matter of months (of compiling evidence and going back and forth to ask what they need me to prove) when it usually takes over a decade to get a US citizenship although it is because I discovered a different law that can apply to me because my dad was a natural American and not an immigrant but still I felt that there was a spirit that guided me to the right direction when I was doing all of that research. To me it was a miracle and it truly felt like a miracle. But if I tell that story to a nonbeliever they will not feel the same connection that I felt and would see it in their perspective which is that it was just a coincidence and sheer luck that there was a very brave and assertive lady who stood up for me. To me she was meant to be there. It was all part of a plan. Faith is not something that we can ever prove with logic. It is a personal choice. And I am totally fine that they cannot see it the way that I do.

            But I just wanted to give my opinion that religion doesn’t make one more susceptible to being susceptible to being ensnared by a narcissist because of that was the case then how come there are many atheists here who got ensnared?

          4. fox says:

            Kel, your story sounds like magical thinking (to me). I’m glad that such thoughts were able to help you through hard times, but I think you got yourself through them. I believe in love and good for the sake of humankind, it just makes the world a better place to live in. I do marvel at beauty around me. I think it’s super cool that we came to be, that we are all made of ‘star stuff’ as Carl Sagan would say. I just don’t attribute it to an omnipotent being that works through the actions of other people. To me that’s not logical and I think it opens you up to manipulation. But as I said, whatever works for you is fine, but understand that what you see as your truth is not mine.

          5. Eternity says:

            Fox , thank you and I agree. Trying to convert someone is,wrong . You believe in what you want to believe or you dont have to believe at all. It all your choice in the end and we cant judge others take care

          6. Kel says:

            No Fox
            It was not magical thinking.
            It is fact that it happened.

            If you don’t want to acknowledge it as a blessing, that’s up to you. It doesn’t change the fact that it happened. As have many other things.

            God is a spirit that’s alive. He’s not a lucky charm. He’s like a breeze that you can’t see, but you can feel.

            My point though, is don’t steer people away from what little goodness there still is in this world. There is love, there is kindness, there is fellowship. There’s more to this world than narcissism and being manipulated and hate.

            Why else is anyone on the blog, if not to find their way out of the muck of narcissism. If you want to see the world the same as a narc, then I’m not trying to stop you, I’m just stating not everyone on this site shares that dark point of view.

            I hope that anyone who needs God will pray to Him, and not be discouraged from doing so.

            Do not ever say I have magical thinking. I’m not a narcissist. I can see past black and white. I can see clearly.

          7. HG Tudor says:

            Magical thinking is not the preserve of narcissists, Kel. For instance, children indulge in magical thinking. An example might be they think if they wish for something it will appear or that if something has died they can bring it back to life. There are different types of magical thinking, some of which is applicable to narcissists.

          8. Kel says:

            I see, HG, understood, but for the record, I was still bent on suicide after I said a prayer. I wasn’t expecting anything to come from it.

          9. fox says:

            Kel, it’s not the things that happened to you, but the meaning you are attributing to them that I see as magical thinking. You see it as God’s intervention and I see it as happenstance. You were probably looking for some sign from God, and therefore you saw one. I’m not asking you to change or stop praying. Do what works for you. I won’t change my view, just like you won’t change yours. I’m just calling it like I see it, which differs from how you see it. And I’m not trying to steer anyone away from good. I really don’t know where you got that. People can do good with or without religion.

          10. Ren says:

            Kel

            Fox and Eternity are correct from my perspective. You are proletising.

            I completely get why you are doing this. I try very hard not to be caught in this trap, and it is a trap, myself. But yet I still do and moreover, I’ve been warned against it.

            I wouldn’t go as far as saying that i loathe and despise organised, and largely Abrahamic religions but moreover, I’m with Marx on this.

            Anything which advocates ‘power over structures’ must be suspect to question. Be it politics, religion, the workplace to an extent, clubs, societies, internet fora must now surely be drawn into question.

            Kel, really glad spirituality has helped you. Truly am. But its horses for courses.

            But tbh, I do find it very hard that especially women follow Abraham when it completely denogates and sometimes thoroughly despises 51% of Homo Sapiens.

            I just wish someone could explain this to me.

            Pretty sure that wasn’t what Jesus was about.

          11. Violetta says:

            For instance, Donald Trump, Meghan Markle, et al think what they do will make people like them. Several people who murdered their families have tried to claim that the spouse killed the kids and then the poor shocked accused killed the spouse (instead of like, summoning the police). Celebrities regularly pose for “papped” photos that are easily discredited by details in the picture.

            The fact they all expect people to believe this shit definitely shows a reliance on magic.

          12. Kel says:

            Thank you very much Mommypino for your comment and understanding. It’s amazing to me on so many levels that I have to explain myself and it still fails to register. That I was at a suicidal level and it’s attributed to magical thinking is preposterous for anyone who knows the deep despair of depression. If they had at least said it was coincidental, I could’ve respected that. On a site where so many Empaths are supposed to be, you would think they would understand, as one quality of an empath is having a sixth sense. But they would rather quibble about they are right and I am wrong- and actually tell me what I was thinking!!! It’s too amazing. And on top of it all, the point I was making was completely lost, which was don’t discourage other people from seeking God, even if it’s not your thing.

            Very simply – I would’ve killed myself without that prayer being answered. Whether they think it’s inconsequential that a practical stranger hands me $300, the exact amount I needed, without being asked, out of the clear blue, boggles my mind. But hey, they know best – pfft. But I would hope anyone else that’s depressed to the point of suicide, will not be swayed from prayer because of them.

            Lots of red flags, and when you can’t talk or reason or explain or ever get your point to register, then it’s time to stop trying.

            To me narcissism is bizarre, yet we know it exists. Why would you think other things don’t exist too. On a site with Empaths. Anyway I hope this has aided someone, as we all have different beliefs, and we should all respect each other’s ways.

          13. HG Tudor says:

            “and we should all respect each other’s ways.” which also includes respecting someone having a different view to yours and be allowed to express it.

            You assumed that the individual was labelling you a narcissist by the use of magical thinking. I pointed out, to help you, that magical thinking is not the sole preserve of narcissists, therefore the individual probably was not labelling you as a narcissist. You do not appear to have responded to my observation.

          14. MommyPino says:

            NA, you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing religion which is a safe sanctuary for some people which helps them thrive, cope and heal with narcissists who destroys people. Your perspective on religion is not accurate for most people who really practice religion. The effect of religion on people is not the same as the effect on people from being entangled with a narcissist. Religious people who are happy and thriving are not ensnared or abused and they continue to stay religious not because of an unhealthy attachment like addiction but because it is beneficial to them.

            “ Actively religious people are more likely than their less-religious peers to describe themselves as “very happy” in about half of the countries surveyed. Sometimes the gaps are striking: In the U.S., for instance, 36% of the actively religious describe themselves as “very happy,” compared with 25% of the inactively religious and 25% of the unaffiliated. Notable happiness gaps among these groups also exist in Japan, Australia and Germany.”

            https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/

          15. HG Tudor says:

            Two points arise from what you have offered. The first relates to the concept of religious people being happier than less religious peers. The second relates to those classes of people within religion.

            1. a. Religious people are more likely to describe themselves as happy. Perhaps they have been indoctrinated to do so? After all, religion is used as a mass means of control.
            b. You quoted that in the US 36% of the actively religious describe themselves as very happy, that means 64% (nearly double) do NOT describe themselves as very happy.
            c. You quoted that in the US the gap is 11% between the religious and inactive religious and between religious and unaffiliated. It is a gap, indeed, but not as large as the gap between those who are religious who describe themselves as very happy, and those who do not.
            d. The UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network – World Happiness Report 2020 details the world’s happiest nations according to a a range of criteria (https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/#read), the Eurobarometer Poll, the Pew Research Centre and a poll undertaken by Maskina in Iceland provide information about levels of religious belief in the top 5 ranked happiest countries in the world (see below)

            Number One – Finland – 33% of people believe there is a god
            Number Two – Denmark – 28% of people believe there is a god
            Number Three – Switzerland – 48% of people believe there is a god
            Number Four – Iceland. -less than half claim to be religious and 0% of Icelanders understanding 25 believe God created the world
            Number Five – Norway -22% of people believe there is a god

            This suggests that more people are happy outside of believing in a religion.

            2. Religion is a mechanism which can be used in different ways. For some, it brings personal happiness, for some it is a means of controlling populaces, for some it results in a range of unhappy and miserable outcomes, for others they find it boring and unhelpful. Narcissists use it for a variety of reasons, expanded on in the accompanying article, which generates good outcomes for some and and outcomes for others. Misguided Normals driven by herd mentality (see American : You Are Being Conned) get swept up in certain practices which are abusive, discriminatory and prejudicial. It is not just the narcissists who can use religion in such a way.

            If you find solace, support and happiness by practising your particular religion then that is an excellent outcome for you. Others may well disagree, hence they do not subscribe to or practise a religion.

          16. mommypino says:

            HG,
            My main point was that NA was wrong when she said that religion is a form of ensnarement. To me it isn’t. To the 36% of people surveyed it isn’t a form of ensnarement. I actually don’t fall in the category of ‘actively religious’ as my religion is really in my heart and although I remain a Catholic but attend my husband’s church which I still refused to be baptized in, I do not participate in about 80% of their activities. Am I unhappy? Absolutely not! And yet I would be part of that whopping majority represented as not actively religious. Does religion control me? Absolutely not. I do what I want to do. But do I have a desire to steal? No I don’t. Do I have a desire to kill? No I don’t. So I don’t do those things not because my religion controls me but because I have no desire to do it. Do I have a desire to drink? Sometimes I do. My husband’s religion prohibits drinking so I rarely drink in front of my husband out of respect for him and because it’s not that fun for me to be the only one who has a drink when we eat. But I drink when I’m with people who do and it is fun. The point is I am still the one making choices for myself. I am not a mindless person being controlled by a religion that ensnared me. So that is not an accurate depiction of me and people like me who are religious. And that is why I wrote my opinion. NA is free to keep believing that wrong opinion on religious people. It doesn’t bother me. But when she writes it here, I am entitled to disagree with it and offer my personal experience.

            When I shared the poll, I understand that it gave a rating on who is happier but competition on who is happier was not my goal. I just want to show some statistical proof other than my personal opinion that there are many religious people who are thriving and happy in their lives unlike someone who is ensnared by a narcissist because that was the comparison that NA made, she likened a religious person to someone ensnared by a narcissist and I know for a fact that someone ensnared by a narcissist is usually miserable after the golden period whereas many (I’m not saying all) religious people are happy and not miserable regardless of their personal circumstances.

            The many criteria that the UN came up with is ‘their’ subjective criteria on happiness and it’s not true for everybody. In my home country people can be living under the bridge eating rice and salt for breakfast, lunch and dinner and they still have the most genuine smile of happiness. I’m not making this up. Many people visiting from wealthy nations have made that observation about the people in my home country and found that remarkable including Pope JP2. But according to the UN criteria, the people in my home country should be incredibly miserable and yet they are not. Far from it in fact.

          17. HG Tudor says:

            Religion is a form of ensnarement. NA is correct. That does not mean EVERYBODY is ensnared by it, but many people are because religion is used to control people (it is also used for other purposes also) but it is a formidable method of control “You had better do this, otherwise you will burn in hell.” tended to focus the mind. Do you think people gave so much money to the church because they were feeling generous? Of course not, they did so because they were buying a place in heaven, they were paying off their sins, they did it for themselves and they were coerced into doing so by the mechanism of religion which controlled them.

            “The many criteria that the UN came up with is ‘their’ subjective criteria on happiness and it’s not true for everybody. In my home country people can be living under the bridge eating rice and salt for breakfast, lunch and dinner and they still have the most genuine smile of happiness. I’m not making this up. Many people visiting from wealthy nations have made that observation about the people in my home country and found that remarkable including Pope JP2. But according to the UN criteria, the people in my home country should be incredibly miserable and yet they are not. Far from it in fact.” Again, you have proved my point. I explained how there are many other factors which make people happy and they are nothing to do with religion.

            You have a habit of reading certain things and if they offend certain matters which are important to you, for instance Trump and religion, you have to respond to them but you do so within a narrow band and you fail to appreciate the wider picture that is advanced by the observations that are made. Of course, you may express your view, but you may find it liberating to pause and reflect.

          18. mommypino says:

            I never stated that religion is the only source of happiness HG, if I did can you please quote me on that. Religion is not a form of ensnarement for everyone and that was the point that I was trying to make. The assertion that religion is a form of ensnarement was made with a narrow band and I tried to explain that it is not always the case. There’s no point for me to explain it further as I can see that you are dead set on making sure that I was wrong for disagreeing with NA.

          19. HG Tudor says:

            Incorrect.

            I am not dead set on making sure that you are wrong for disagreeing with NA. Making such an assertion is a cop-out.

            I am disagreeing with you for the reasons I have stated. You completely misunderstood what NA had stated because of your Pavlovian (and I have told you this before) reaction to any situation where it offends something that you believe in, Trump and your religion being prime examples of this.

          20. mommypino says:

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

            I say it’s not always the case and I have given examples of people that are actually happy unlike victims of narcissists.

          21. HG Tudor says:

            Yes we know what you say, you keep repeating it.

          22. mommypino says:

            And yet you keep misrepresenting it.

          23. HG Tudor says:

            I have actually pointed out how you have made my points for me but you misunderstand that believing it to be misrepresentation, yet I am using what you write.

          24. mommypino says:

            A few more points HG,

            “ If you find solace, support and happiness by practising your particular religion then that is an excellent outcome for you. Others may well disagree, hence they do not subscribe to or practise a religion.”

            It doesn’t bother me that they don’t practice religion or disagree with me. I was responding to a comment that made an inaccurate ‘generalized’ depiction of religion. I commented to share my perspective and not to sway her. She is of course entitled to her own perspective and commenters who disagree with her are also entitled to respond. I did not make an original post that generalizes atheists or criticize atheists or infer that they are ensnared or whatever. I was responding to an assertion about religious people like myself that I find to be inaccurate. I think that the people who criticize religion should also accept that some people will disagree with them.

            Regarding Finland being the happiest nation. I found this article that talks about depression and suicides in their country. It proves my point that even though in some criteria someone ‘should’ be happy, happiness is a very subjective feeling or emotion and very personal.

            “ But many experts argue that this image of Finland as a happy nation glosses over ongoing challenges when it comes to mental health – especially when it comes to young people. Some believe it may even be making it harder for Finns to recognise and acknowledge depressive symptoms and seek treatment.

            Suicide rates in Finland are half what they were in the 1990s and have reduced across all age groups – a shift which has been linked to a nationwide suicide prevention campaign when things were at their worst, alongside improved treatment for depression.

            But they remain well above the European average. One third of all deaths among 15- to 24-year-olds are caused by suicide. According to a 2018 report, In the Shadow of Happiness, authored by the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Happiness Research Institute in Copenhagen, some 16% of Finnish women aged 18 to 23 and 11% of young men define themselves as “struggling” or “suffering” in life. This level is only worse in the age bracket of 80 or above.”
            https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190924-being-depressed-in-the-worlds-happiest-country

          25. HG Tudor says:

            “Regarding Finland being the happiest nation. I found this article that talks about depression and suicides in their country. It proves my point that even though in some criteria someone ‘should’ be happy, happiness is a very subjective feeling or emotion and very personal.” – just like your observation about religion making people happy. Thank you for proving my point.

          26. mommypino says:

            My point that religion is not like a narcissistic ensnarement because many people who practice religion are not miserable like the ones ensnared by narcissists. You missed my point.

          27. HG Tudor says:

            Not everybody who is ensnared by a narcissist is miserable because of the ensnarement, my friends are ensnared by me and they would never describe their friendship with me as a miserable one.

            Religion is a form of ensnarement, because it is a means of control. You may not be miserable because of that control, many people are and something beyond miserable.

            You are also explaining it further, although you stated you were no longer doing so.

          28. mommypino says:

            We will just have to disagree with religion being a form of ensnarement for everyone and it being about control.

          29. Kel says:

            Actually HG, I did respond to your comment:

            July 30, 2020 at 18:23
            I see, HG, understood, but for the record, I was still bent on suicide after I said a prayer. I wasn’t expecting anything to come from it.

            These commenters have not respected my point of view and have told me I am wrong and they are right and have assumed and decided rather superficially it’s due to magical thinking.

            Magical thinking is a common term regarding narcissism. I was not a child thinking magically. I was in a grave state of depression. I was not expecting anything from the prayer, I said it at the request from my mother and because why not, it wouldn’t hurt. The $300 took me out of the money triggered depression and the pressure was lifted from me. I could’ve taken it as my own magical streak, a bit of timely luck, but I knew God had answered that half hearted prayer.

            I would appreciate it if my point of view was respected and not ‘corrected’ by others who are just trying to reinforce that they are right and anything to the contrary is wrong.

          30. HG Tudor says:

            Thank you for clarifying Kel, I had overlooked your response and see you had responded.

            If you believe that God had answered your prayer and that makes you feel better and lifted your money-induced depression you are entitled to such a belief.
            If someone regards that belief as magical thinking, they are also entitled to that belief. The observation was not done nastily.

            Have they said you are wrong and they are right or have they stated their view disagreeing with you? People may disagree so long as it conforms with the rules.

            You have misunderstood my observation re magical thinking. I was explaining to you that the person was not labelling you a narcissist, they just referred to magical thinking. You made the step from someone’s view that your were engaging in magical thinking to that meaning they were labelling you as a narcissist. I was actually helping you.

            It is logical, is it not, that if your view as respected then you can also respect the view of someone else politely disagreeing with you? Or are you only allowed to express your view and if someone disagrees with you, they are not allowed to express their view?

          31. fox says:

            “Faith is not something that we can ever prove with logic.” Exactly, Mommypino, and thank you. We don’t have to agree on what occurred. You can attribute a plan to how the world works, and I can disagree. We can still be friends.

            With regard to your question of why atheists get ensnared, it is because there are other forms of magical or emotional thinking and other factors at play. From my personal experience, it is often been my desire to help someone cope with an internal struggle that caused me to stick around longer than I should (for narcissists and troubled normals). My ET tells me I can help them when I cannot, that if I just love a little harder I will break through. I learned from my experiences (and from HG) and since have been less prone to such thinking. My family having narcissists is another reason. I don’t have a choice in that.

            Kel, I understand that you believe your truth to be the absolute one (as do almost all religious people from all 4,300 religions), and I respect your right to believe that. Please respect my right to believe differently. Just because I don’t subscribe to your unique, personal faith, or because I prefer to see the world more logically based on my own observations, that doesn’t make me a narcissist. Trying to measure my empathic traits by my ability to believe in miracles is incredibly misguided and even a bit rude. HG can confirm I am an empath, so there’s no need to question that. It seems like you are the one not respecting “each other’s ways”, so I agree that it’s time to end this discussion.

          32. NarcAngel says:

            MP
            I am not comparing religion to narcissists, so you have not understood. At all. You are however demonstrating the type of devotion to religion that helped to form my opinion about it being a form of ensnarement. Relax – no one is taking your religion from you. You don’t need to defend God either because as you stated previously – you believe everything is up to God and not your efforts. There are just different points of view – no “winner”.

          33. Kel says:

            HG
            You have misunderstood my comments.

            I have respected other people’s viewpoints, I haven’t said anything against theirs. In fact my comments allowed for all viewpoints, and I had nothing against atheism in the least. I also don’t have anything against Darwin, it doesn’t interfere with my faith, does anyone think Gods not a scientist? Who knows how he created anything, there were other people around when Cain left Eden, because he was afraid others would kill him, there were dinosaurs before mankind, geeze I’m not closed minded.

            I don’t think they were calling me a narcissist, but I was stating don’t say I’m magical thinking as that is what narcissists do.

            Expressing a different opinion than mine regarding my comments is fine – but what’s not fine – is telling me that what I was thinking or feeling was something different than what I said it was. They are assuming and stating things that are their opinion and not fact.

            You state ‘if believing God answered a prayer makes me feel better’ –
            I didn’t say it made me feel better. It didn’t make me feel better. What made me feel better was getting the $300. I acknowledged that God had answered my prayer because He was the Only one I had ‘told’ about my predicament. Something was put in that mans head from somewhere to give me the exact amount of money I needed at that very time.

            This is what I mean. I didn’t say these things that God answering my prayers made me feel better. That is what makes the commenters feel good – by saying that’s how I felt. They put words in my mouth that I did not say so they can write off what I said to fit Their beliefs.

            I also did not say others can’t disagree with me. I said they were telling me what I was feeling -instead of listening and respecting what I actually said.

          34. fox says:

            I just want to say that HG is correct regarding my statement on magical thinking. I did not bring it up to call you a narcissist, Kel. I didn’t even make that connection. I am sorry if I gave you that impression. We are all susceptible to magical thinking in some form, including myself.

            And let the record state, MP, as anecdotal evidence, I am generally a very happy, positive person.

            If either of you are curious about how this can be, I recommend researching “secular humanism”, as that most closely resembles my worldview.

          35. njfilly says:

            Dear Mr. HG Tudor:

            Would you advocate for your friends to GOSO? If they were to become aware of your narcissism, should they GOSO and go NC with you?

          36. HG Tudor says:

            No, I am hardly going to tell my friends to GOSO am I, that would reveal what I am to them.

          37. njfilly says:

            The second part of my comment read; “If they were to become aware of your narcissism, should they GOSO and go NC with you?” What is your response to that?

          38. HG Tudor says:

            Yes, not that they could.

          39. njfilly says:

            Why should they? Not to counteract what you are trying to achieve with your blog, but I don’t think NC is necessary in all circumstances with narcissists.

          40. Kel says:

            Fox
            I have no idea what you’re referring about. I in no way have tried to force my beliefs on you. I felt though that you were forcing yours on me.

            I happily agree to respect each other’s differing viewpoints.

    3. MommyPino says:

      From my experience, reading the Bible has taught me the boundaries that my N mom didn’t. I know for a fact that it has saved me from being romantically ensnared twice even though I was extremely attracted. It is part of my strength and a big part of the reason why I am able to have a happy and normal family life in spite of all of the abnormalities of my upbringing. I’m not saying this in a proud way as we all have unique weaknesses. I’m just saying that there are a lot of situations when someone’s religious faith really saves that person and teaches that person to love thy self because we are always unconditionally loved.

      1. Eternity says:

        Amen to that Monmypino

        1. MommyPino says:

          Thank you Eternity.

          1. Eternity says:

            You are very welcome!

      2. Violetta says:

        I think the religion question is particularly important to people who’ve been victimized by narcs because for damn sure many of them will get away with it in this life, and if there isn’t another life, aren’t they right, and aren’t we wrong?

        I have found Psalm 73 incredibly helpful, especially when I see so many destructive people apparently “getting away with it”:

        But, as for me, my feet had almost stumbled;

        my steps had nearly slipped,

        3
        Because I was envious of the arrogant

        when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.a

        4
        For they suffer no pain;

        their bodies are healthy and sleek.

        5
        They are free of the burdens of life;

        they are not afflicted like others.

        6
        Thus pride adorns them as a necklace;

        violence clothes them as a robe.

        7
        Out of such blindness comes sin;

        evil thoughts flood their hearts.b

        8
        They scoff and spout their malice;

        from on high they utter threats.c

        9
        *They set their mouths against the heavens,

        their tongues roam the earth.

        10
        *So my people turn to them

        and drink deeply of their words.

        11
        They say, “Does God really know?”

        “Does the Most High have any knowledge?”d

        12
        Such, then, are the wicked,

        always carefree, increasing their wealth.

        II
        13
        Is it in vain that I have kept my heart pure,

        washed my hands in innocence?e

        14
        For I am afflicted day after day,

        chastised every morning.

        15
        Had I thought, “I will speak as they do,”

        I would have betrayed this generation of your children.

        16
        Though I tried to understand all this,

        it was too difficult for me,

        17
        Till I entered the sanctuary of God

        and came to understand their end.*

        III
        18
        You set them, indeed, on a slippery road;

        you hurl them down to ruin.

        19
        How suddenly they are devastated;

        utterly undone by disaster!

        20
        They are like a dream after waking, Lord,

        dismissed like shadows when you arise.f

        As we have seen from the “Very Narcissist” series, the same inflated confidence and virtue-mimicking skills that allow so many narcs to advance in life can also trip them up. Both politicians and celebrities in the performing arts casually forget their inconsistencies, but the media and the public are increasingly willing to point them out and girl them in their faces. (The internet may be a nuisance in many ways, but the screenshot is a lovely thing, as is the video clip.)

        If they escape retribution in this life, will they be punished in the next? Even St. Paul conceded that without justice in the next life, it doesn’t amount to squat:

        13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised.(F) 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then empty [too] is our preaching; empty, too, your faith. 15 Then we are also false witnesses to God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised.(G) 16 For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, 17 and if Christ has not been raised,[f] your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people of all.

        If there is nothing after we die, then we won’t know we got snookered. The temptation to act like the narcs and enjoy material gain NOW is quite persuasive. Most of us, however, would be tortured by pangs of conscience, which they are not.

        On the other hand, the Narcs don’t entirely win. They can gloat that they’ll get away without suffering eternal hellfire NOW, but they won’t be able to gloat about after they die any more than we will be able resent and bemoan it, because they’re in oblivion too.

        What if God doesn’t care, or, like my elementary school teachers, has favorites who get away with everything while some nerdy bystander gets scapegoated? One of Jesus’ many appeals is he got blamed for all kinds of shit. His followers were the Weird Kids, not the Kewl Kids.

        Are we petty in wanting to be rewarded for good and seeing just punishment? Here’s CS Lewis on the subject:

        Glory suggests two ideas to me, of which one seems wicked and the other ridiculous. Either glory means to me fame, or it means luminosity. As for the first, since to be famous means to be better known than other people, the desire for fame appears to me as a competitive passion and therefore of hell rather than heaven. As for the second, who wishes to become a kind of living electric light bulb?

        When I began to look into this matter I was shocked to find such different Christians as Milton, Johnson, and Thomas Aquinas taking heavenly glory quite frankly in the sense of fame or good report. But not fame conferred by our fellow creatures—fame with God, approval or (I might say) “appreciation” by God. And then, when I had thought it over, I saw that this view was scriptural; nothing can eliminate from the parable the divine accolade, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” With that, a good deal of what I had been thinking all my life fell down like a house of cards. I suddenly remembered that no one can enter heaven except as a child; and nothing is so obvious in a child—not in a conceited child, but in a good child—as its great and undisguised pleasure in being praised. Not only in a child, either, but even in a dog or a horse. Apparently what I had mistaken for humility had, all these years, prevented me from understanding what is in fact the humblest, the most childlike, the most creaturely of pleasures—nay, the specific pleasure of the inferior: the pleasure of a beast before men, a child before its father, a pupil before his teacher, a creature before its Creator. I am not forgetting how horribly this most innocent desire is parodied in our human ambitions, or how very quickly, in my own experience, the lawful pleasure of praise from those whom it was my duty to please turns into the deadly poison of self-admiration. But I thought I could detect a moment—a very, very short moment—before this happened, during which the satisfaction of having pleased those whom I rightly loved and rightly feared was pure. And that is enough to raise our thoughts to what may happen when the redeemed soul, beyond all hope and nearly beyond belief, learns at last that she has pleased Him whom she was created to please. There will be no room for vanity then. She will be free from the miserable illusion that it is her doing. With no taint of what we should now call self-approval she will most innocently rejoice in the thing that God has made her to be, and the moment which heals her old inferiority complex forever will also drown her pride deeper than Prospero’s book. Perfect humility dispenses with modesty. If God is satisfied with the work, the work may be satisfied with itself; “it is not for her to bandy compliments with her Sovereign.” I can imagine someone saying that he dislikes my idea of heaven as a place where we are patted on the back. But proud misunderstanding is behind that dislike. In the end that Face which is the delight or the terror of the universe must be turned upon each of us either with one expression or with the other, either conferring glory inexpressible or inflicting shame that can never be cured or disguised.

        I think we are all in agreement that THIS is an unjust world, and have found different techniques for coping with that fact. Even Narcissism, whether fed by abuse and neglect or by the coddling from narcy adults who only care how a child reflects on THEM, results in the conviction, “What I do, good or bad, doesn’t make much difference.” We want a world where our actions DO make a difference.

      3. Eternity says:

        Mommypino,
        There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing in the Lord. Growing up I used to go church , a lot . It was the proper thing to do in my household. As a grown up now I still believe in Jesus but I dont really go to church as much anymore. Only for Christmas ,Easter etc . I mean we do celebrate Jesus then right ?
        Now it’s pretty much a business,gift giving etc . Where is the true meaning.
        I never judge people’s beliefs either if you dont believe in god that’s ok too. Whatever works for people in their life . It’s interesting coming on the blog and reading people’s opinions. Growing up it was only one way . Take care !!!

      4. Empath007 says:

        Hi MP ! How’ve you been ?! It’s been a while since we’ve messaged.
        I’ve read a portion of your chats and wanted to offer an outsiders perspective for what it’s worth, from a friendly, caring place.

        I think what has happened is what can happen to so many of us at times, and that is, you’ve personalized the conversation as it is with what you are passionate about. You and many others know I’ve been guilty of that in the past too 😂 haha !

        That’s a normal, human response. If someone is offering a perspective about something/someone that you love… say… your pet dog for instance (as an example) and it is a breed associated with a stigma OR you encounter someone who has had a traumatic incident with dogs and they are saying… please put that dog away it frightens me… because the dog is a beloved family member it may be hard to understand that response, it’s easy to take it personally because that’s your dog, you know your dog to be good.

        From what I read…
        No one stated that ALL religous people were ensared and ALL had a miserable experience. No one was trying to imply that anything is wrong with you or anyone else who practices religion. However, they are expressing their view as a non believer, and perhaps personal experiences they’ve witnessed through the church.

        It can be difficult to come to terms with that in our minds sometimes. As it’s naturual and human to personalize situations. We all do it. But think about what’s ultimately going to be best for you… you don’t need anyone on this site To validate your feelings. Because your feelings are meaningful and important without anyone’s validation. You can express your opinion without trying to get anyone else to agree. If someone is on the opposing side of a ideal, they will likely stay there. And that’s perfectly OK. They don’t need to switch sides either.

        I can see you’ve decided to end the conversation. So you’ve already taken that step to resolving it.

        I truly hope you’ve been well 🙂 sorry if I overstepped, I did not mean to offend.

        1. MommyPino says:

          Hi Empath007,

          Thank you for your perspective. I have said it repeatedly here I think it maybe at least once that I do not intend to sway anyone to agree with me. I was not coming from a superior place or attitude. I was just disagreeing that religion is a form of ensnarement. It is not how I see religion. I want to offer my personal experience and observations. I don’t really want to talk about everything else. I do not agree with some of your observations but it’s totally fine. No need to apologize for anything and thank you for messaging me. Hope you are well as well! 💕

          1. Another Cat says:

            I think the question about the existence of a good Almighty deity is a catch 22. In the back of our minds there are some worries lingering.

            The religious are wondering (regardless of how the nonreligious phrase their questios):

            “Do you see me as an ensnared no-too-smart sheep led by a congregation with many abusive narc preachers, and who lets the bible do the thinking for me?”

            While the atheists are wondering (regardless of how the religious phrase their questions):

            “Do you see me as evil, bitter or lazy for not wanting to believe, pray or go to church?”

            At least on paper, there seems to be a lot at stake for every individual taking part in a discussion like this.
            A fine almost impossible art to keep it at pleasant level.

          2. Empath007 says:

            I see MP ! My mistake as I was not reading all the comments but saw a few of the replies etc. For the record, I’m not offended by what you said at all, I’m one of the very few people on earth who doesn’t get to hot and bothered by religion. I avoid it because it’s not my preference but I have friends whom it is and as long as they can accept and embrace me I too can with them.

            We definitely don’t need to debate any other points lol. It’s completely fine if we disagree.

    4. Empath007 says:

      “I see religion as another form of ensarment”

      100%

      Let me preface by stating I am not against religious people, in fact I am accepting of all different religious and spiritual views from others, I have friends whom are Hindu, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist etc. I do not However, engage in any of these practices myself.

      I wouldn’t even consider myself atheist, as I feel atheist’s at times can be to far down
      Their own spectrum and total intolerance of others become an issue as well.

      I would consider myself indifferent. An outside observer. And for the most part… I don’t like what I’ve observed.

      Humans have taken a (from my perspective) abstract concept and twisted it for their own purposes and gain (like HG describes in this
      Article)… people are incredibly motivated by fear (and this does not just apply to the church). But the church provides a place for
      People to remain motivated by fear.

      For me religion provides no mask of
      Goodness… in my case it’s the opposite actually, I usuallly peg the religious person as guilty until proven innocent. Meaning, I generally assume they are the kind of person that is highly judgemental, critical and hypocritical. That’s not to say I put everyone in the same box. As I stated earlier I’m
      Friends with many different people who practice many different religions, but when it comes to religion I Tend to see through the mask faster then I would for others.

      1. Eternity says:

        I agree , but religion shouldnt take over your life either .

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Indeed, only I am allowed to do that.

          1. Chihuahuamum says:

            🤣

          2. Eternity says:

            Of course HG ! You are number one

          3. blackcoffee30 says:

            HG — “No, I am hardly going to tell my friends to GOSO am I, that would reveal what I am to them.” I snort laughed!

    5. Violetta says:

      Sometimes, faith gives people the strength to go on.
      I figured it would take a miracle for me to finish grad school. So I literally ran from my government job (which I took when I ran out of funding) to a local church offering an evening Mass, always arriving slightly late (no car then). I received Communion even though I had doubts it counted after arriving late. I did this every day after work, and it gave me the the strength to plod away at my dissertation, even though I wondered why I bothered, because She-Who-Must would never approve it. One page at a time, the damned thing got written. I wore a St. Jude medal my friend gave me to my dissertation defense, and when sure enough She-Who-Must (the committee member from hell) kept questioning one of my arguments, another miracle happened, and the Rhetoric professor shut her down with a classical definition.

      Sure, I had to do my bit, but God helped me keep going. I function better when I feel like God is on my side. (He had authority problems too.)

      1. lickemtomorrow says:

        That was truly inspirational, Violetta. Thank you for sharing <3

        1. mommypino says:

          I agree lickemtomorrow. I felt inspired reading it too.

      2. Empath007 says:

        I think that’s beautiful and I’d never want to take away someone’s salvation or source of strength away from them.

        But from my perspective… you’re the one who had all the strength to begin with, it was there the whole time your religion just allowed you to tap
        Into it.

        Congrats on your dissertation.

        1. Another Cat says:

          Violetta, Congrats,
          I feel prayer and hope helps when it’s about your work,

          but from my own experience there seems to be very little help in prayer when we lack the knowledge of how to go about with something

          or when it is about hope while in inaction. In some traditions the prayer schedule of a day is too long to have time left to concentrate on anything else.

          1. Violetta says:

            Thanks to all of you for your kind words. To be fair, I have often asked God what use my degree is in such a crap academic market, but I’m not alone there. A classmate who, like me, had a performing arts background, finished earlier and with her confidence intact, in no small part because she was able to get She-Who-Must off her committee. She got a tenure-track job straight out of the gate, but I recently learned she’s left academia and gone back to teaching ballet. Not sure what the story is, but my assumption that everyone but me was living happily ever after was obviously way off.

          2. Violetta says:

            Update:

            Recently got this in my email:

            I am currently a Ph.D candidate focusing on Late Medieval Literature at *** edu. I am emailing you today to ask if you would be willing to fill out an alumni survey for our current Medieval English Ph.D candidates. Our hope is to paint a more transparent picture of professional & financial life after the Ph.D for our candidates.

            Any information provided on the survey will only be accessible to current English Ph.D candidates & their faculty advisors.

            If misery loves company, I should be thrilled. I do appreciate not being singled out for misery, but I’d rather have the company in success.

            In the midst of applying for jobs, academic and non-, I continue to nag God. It can’t hurt, and he likes the attention (Luke 18;1-8)

        2. Witch says:

          @empath007

          I agree, god is like a narc parent taking credit for your hard work. It was you all along who got you through your hard ships. I understand that religious faith can be a coping mechanism but I’d rather have faith in my own mind and will power

          1. blackcoffee30 says:

            Karma karma karma chameleon

      3. NarcAngel says:

        Vi
        I see that as it giving you comfort as you plodded on, but there was no miracle – you did the work and it got done. My thinking is: Why is it felt that it must be attributed to someone or something else? That feeds again (from my perspective) the feeling that we are never enough and must be validated by another entity – which in turn leaves us susceptible to manipulation in other arenas. That was my point. I’m glad that it brought you comfort and focus that allowed you to get it done – but you did it and you could do it again. It was no miracle (again – in my view).

        1. WhoCares says:

          “My thinking is: Why is it felt that it must be attributed to someone or something else?”

          I am in agreement.
          It is awesome that people have inspiring stories about how their faith got them through something difficult. Everyone needs inspiration. No doubt.
          But was it the key thing that got them through?

          Because if it was, then –

          God + Faith + Perseverance = Success

          But there is a problem with that equation. Because if it were true, many empaths would have been able to save their families or their relationships. Because we all know that, in most cases, the failure wasn’t due to lack of faith or lack of perseverance on the part of the empath.

          That equation is broken.

          1. MommyPino says:

            Hi WhoCares,

            As a believer I don’t believe in that equation. In fact I am always ready to accept that I will not always get what I want because in the end it is up to God and not up to me or my efforts. And I totally accept that.

            I know that a lot of non religious people also have need for validity and have also been victimized by narcissists. In the same way a lot of religious people also become victimized by narcissists and a lot do not get ensnared. An empath is an empath regardless of being religious or not and with being an empath comes traits that are easily exploited by narcissists.

          2. WhoCares says:

            Mommypino,

            “I am always ready to accept that I will not always get what I want because in the end it is up to God and not up to me or my efforts. And I totally accept that.”

            Okay, in that case if you exert effort and get what you want, it was up to God.
            And if you exerted effort and didn’t get what you want, despite the effort, it was up to God.

          3. mommypino says:

            Yup. That is my thinking. I know it doesn’t make sense to a lot of nonbelievers. I have had similar conversations with my nonbeliever friends and family members before and some of them doesn’t understand but that is pretty much the thought process of believing. It does not mean that we don’t strive for something we want but it helps to stay calm and move on when we didn’t get something that we want. It’s really true though, nothing can ever be fully guaranteed in life.

          4. WhoCares says:

            Mommypino,

            Nope. I don’t get it.
            You are correct there.

            By your logic, my striving and doing my very best to have a peaceful and supportive family life – yet not being able to achieve it – was God’s will, and not because I was in a relationship with a narcissist.

            “I also want to repeat my opinion that I disagree that believing in God makes one more susceptible to being manipulated or having the need to be validated by another entity.”

            I don’t know why you felt the need to state this disagreement, let alone repeat it, as I didn’t say that believing in God makes one more susceptible to be manipulated, etc.

            I am glad that the Bible taught you boundaries as a child and gives you comfort now.

          5. mommypino says:

            WhoCares,
            One of my unanswered prayers for many years was for my mom to change. Regardless of how I feel about it, my mom would not have had NPD if God didn’t allow it. Life is not always fair but we learn to deal with it and do what we can do. My belief has taught me the ability to find reasons to be happy in the midst of terrible things. Non believers can mock that or paraphrase that in a ridiculing way but what it has done for me is the opposite of what ensnarement does. It gave me freedom mentally and emotionally while I was in the thick of ensnarement by my mom and gave me the ability to not be in the same type of relationship or life when I got out. I am far from normal and still a working progress but I don’t regret anything in my life especially my religious beliefs.

            I wanted to repeat the original point I made that you ignored when you paraphrased what I have said that you found illogical. That original point that I made was my main point and not the part that you paraphrased.

          6. WhoCares says:

            Mommypino,

            “Regardless of how I feel about it, my mom would not have had NPD if God didn’t allow it.”

            If your beliefs help you rationalize the fact that you have a narcissist for a mother – great!

          7. mommypino says:

            If not having a religion has helped you not get ensnared then great!

          8. WhoCares says:

            My apologies, MP: *had a mother for a narcissist.

          9. MommyPino says:

            Hi WhoCares,

            I found those bible verse that explains my thoughts about everything being up to God much more eloquently.

            “ Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand.”

            I’m not trying to make you believe me and it may not make sense to many people but to me and many other believers it makes perfect sense.

            I also want to repeat my opinion that I disagree that believing in God makes one more susceptible to being manipulated or having the need to be validated by another entity. I do have a tendency to want to be liked before although now I really don’t care anymore but it’s not because of my belief in God but more because the way that my N mom brought me up created a lot of insecurities in me. In all honesty I would have been much worse if I didn’t read the Bible at a very young age. Especially the Proverbs and Wisdom of Sirach where I learned about behaviors of people and boundaries which my mom didn’t teach me in a healthy way. I also learned that God loves me and so I should love myself as well and not let anybody take advantage of me.

            “ 20Take advantage of opportunities, but guard yourself against evil. Don’t under-rate yourself. 21Humility deserves honour and respect, but a low opinion of yourself leads to sin. 22Do not let others have their way at your expense; do not bring on your own ruin by giving up your rights. 23Never hesitate to speak out when the occasion calls for it. Don’t hide your wisdom.”

            This is the Bible teaching me about boundaries and healthy self esteem.

            I think that more than religious beliefs, a person’s susceptibility for being manipulated comes from the programming that we got as little children. Again, I see both atheists and religious people who did not get ensnared romantically nor as NIPSS. They do not have the addiction to narcissists that we tend to have and they do not have the traits in strong amount that opens them up to being manipulated like we do. Anyway, that is just my point of view.

            Also finding HG’s works and reading it and learning from him totally gave me freedom to be able to disengage. But I still believe on God and my religious beliefs doesn’t make the learning that I get here less effective. I do not see it clash.

          10. NarcAngel says:

            “my mom would not have had NDP if God didn’t allow it”

            So no one here would have had to deal with NDP in their life if God didn’t allow it?

            Good to know.

          11. WhoCares says:

            Comforting, isn’t it NA?

      4. Kiki says:

        I totally agree

        I heard a quote think it from Dracula

        Everyone will laugh at our science in a hundred years but not faith.
        something like that anyway.

        I have a science degree but don’t believe it’s the be all of everything we are only learning .

        For me personally faith in something bigger and stronger and purer than us humans can ever be it helps me when I’m feeling low and weak .

    6. Empath007 says:

      Religion is always a touchy subject. Growing up my mom used to always say “never discuss politics or religion” and I’ve generally lived my life that way…. and I’ve had no regrets about it.

      My own personal view ? The Golden Rule
      Of psychology: Correlation is not Caustion.

      Religion is a variable, but it does not have ONE certain affect on other variables… there’s no sound argument to say it can make someone more or less happy. There’s no reason to believe religous people are mindless sheep following a herd. Many are quite the opposite, and are people who have leadership qualities. There’s no cause and affect here…. one variable does
      Not out weigh the other… we all just have to do what’s best for US.

      As I’ve stated, I am not religious. And I’m perfectly happy not to be. I’ve had friends who could simply not accept that…. in turn I decided then they could not accept me therefore they are no longer my friends. I have other religous friends and they do accept my views, and I theirs, we give each other the space to be ourselves. Therefore we remain friends.

      But this whole IF this then THAT. It’s simply not that black and white ( in my opinion, I know many would disagree )

      I do note that many religous people,
      Like narcissists, have this wish to “live on”
      Forever… wether that be through legacy or an after life. While theres nothing wrong with that. And some individuals may very well accomplish that. I have no qualms about my death being my end… that’s actually my preference. I live, then I die. This is not a scary thought for me. To me, it’s reality, and I’m perfectly happy to accept it.

      So, just all be your awesome selfs, be who you want to be. Make decisions on what’s best for you. And we’ll all be OK !

  15. Ren says:

    Talking about the clergy, when is the Archbishop of Canterbury going to pipe up? People who are religious need his support and guidance. Now more than ever.

    With every passing year the CoE make themselves look more and more irrelevant.

    Watched a harrowing documentary a while ago on how Lambeth Palace covered up the abuses of a Bishop. One George Carey. He sat on letters from parishioners explicitly naming the Bishop.

  16. Anm says:

    Last week, I watched a new youtube video from Dr. Todd Grande doing a mental health analysis on Pastor Jim Baker. It was interesting to me, because I lived in South Carolina for about 3 years after Jim Baker went to prison. My father was actually doing a project within that organization after it went under. As a kid, I visited that christian amusement park, the resort, their tv studios, etc. I remember jim baker even built a replica of Jerusalem at his amusement park with duplicates of some of the jewish buildings, so that his land could also be holy. The inside of the resort, was designed to look like you were outside walking around. It was all fascinating. I remember there was a lot of emphasis on money with some of those ministers. There was a lot of money even after everything went bankrupt because the ministers were so good at asking for money. There was one minister who was, and is still close to my family. I remember watching him put on makeup before a tv appearance, which was fascinating to watch a man do that. Jim Baker is/was a sociopath, but what was crazy, I remember as a child, EVERYONE in the community thinking the conviction was a giant mistake. People were conned even after he was exposed. His supporters were some very intelligent people too. What’s amazing, jim baker even admitted he never read the bible until he went to prison. What?!?! How did he have such a huge following as a minister without reading the bible? He was that big of a con. Now that he is out of prison, he is a minister again with a pretty decent life again. I would never follow such a con or trust to give money. But he fools people into trusting him ..over and over.

    1. Kel says:

      Jim and Tammy Faye Baker were so obviously fake, I can’t believe they fooled anyone. They made a fortune. I really think other narcissists were their biggest fans. It fit with their facade too, and narcissists unconsciously admire each other and are often their biggest supporters.

      1. HG Tudor says:

        Actually, it tends to be normals and empaths who are the biggest fans because

        1. The normals are the largest group and the empaths the second largest group
        2. Narcissists can of course admire other narcissists, but they are more likely to be envious which threatens control and will result in the narcissist being less inclined to be admiring etc
        3. Empaths are unconsciously drawn to narcissists.

        1. lickemtomorrow says:

          I get very emotional when I watch Pastor Joel Osteen preach (Texan).

          He cries, I cry.

          If you tell me he is a narcissist, I’m afraid I won’t believe you!

          1. HG Tudor says:

            I do not know who he is, save for what you have just told me.

          2. lickemtomorrow says:

            Oh good! That means he’s still in the ‘safe’ zone 🙂

          3. Kel says:

            I love Joel Osteen too. His slightly teary eyes are not for show and nothing on par with Tammy Fayes, but more like something he wishes he could suppress, which is empathic. I’ve noticed a lot of his sermons lately are speaking about not being narcissistic, though he doesn’t say the word.

      2. Kel says:

        I don’t know if you ever saw their show, or remember Tammy Fayes thick mascara running as she wept every show. I mean a comedy could not satire them anymore than they already were, as they were so ridiculous.

        I’m an empath and I could see right through them as it was obvious.

        I was amazed that a cousin, more like an uncle, was sending them money. He was a nice guy, but I’m pretty sure he was a narcissist. He actually wanted to date my mother right after my father passed away. Also, a lot of narcs admire trump because of his accomplishment of becoming the president. Narcissists do admire other narcissists.

        1. Violetta says:

          There used to be a smeared, drag-queen level makeup face transfer on a t-shirt, with the caption “I ran into Tammy Faye at the mall.”

          1. Kel says:

            Like your sense of humor Violetta. WordPress is not allowing me to click Like on comments.

            WP is also not showing my gravatar when I’m on my phone, which is a picture of my hand holding my phone, which is exactly what it’s doing at this moment. My laptop will show it but not my phone. I’ve gotten used to this fuzzy with a tongue giving a raspberry gravatar WP has assigned me though. It’s just a drag to keep writing in my email when I post.

          2. Violetta says:

            Kel:

            Thanks for your comments. I haven’t figured out how to like comments either. Checking “Save my name, email” etc. (underneath the space to fill in website, which I don’t have) worked for me so I don’t have to re-enter everything, but I think I had to do it separately on both laptop and phone. I have NEVER been notified of new comments or posts, no matter how many times I check them.

            If I remember correctly, I changed my gravatar through WordPress, not on Narcsite, but I don’t remember exactly how I did it. Try getting on WP and clicking on various options until you find it. The process must be pretty straightforward, because I’m tech-resistant and I
            was able to figure it out.

            Fortunately for us all, some people are not. Watch out for that ancient Windows 7 stock photo of a lighthouse.

  17. alexissmith2016 says:

    If anyone would like an excellent example of the holy narc, watch ‘The Secret’ with James Nesbit. Wow! Incredibly sad and very disturbing

    1. Ren says:

      Alexis

      He’s a great actor. Slightly OT but he started in the film about Bloody Sunday. Really well shot and acted.

      1. alexissmith2016 says:

        Now he is definitely on my, ‘Yes I would list’. Not the character or person he was based on obv. Just the real James Nesbit. Oh my god how could anyone resist.

        1. NarcAngel says:

          Alexis2016
          I’m still trying to get over BoJo being on your list.

          1. alexissmith2016 says:

            Eeek another one. May j ask why NA. I mean Boris is one of those I know would kind of cause you to feel attracted to him (not you, I mean me) but JN would have melted me in less than 60 seconds

        2. Ren says:

          Ha ha!

          Not for me I’m afraid but I’m sure he wouldn’t be excellent company with his twingling, NI eyes!

          1. alexissmith2016 says:

            What??? How on earth not??? Jees? Is there something wrong with me or everyone else? HG can we do a poll on this one please.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            No.

        3. Fiddleress says:

          Sorry Alexis, I would resist him too! But don’t go by my standards, I am sure they are not widely shared either.

          1. alexissmith2016 says:

            FD, agh how so? He is an N for sure. But if I knew nothing of Ns, I still don’t get how anyone could resist? I must definitely have odd taste

          2. Fiddleress says:

            Alexis
            I don’t go for stunningly beautiful people. Perfect beauty leaves me totally cold (what is generally viewed as “beauty” – the sort they try to sell us on covers of glossy magazines, in the fashion industry, models, etc.). There has to be something about the person’s smile, energy, tone of voice, accent.
            I need to hear the person speak.
            OK, I can’t imagine how anyone could resist actors Daniel Day-Lewis or Antonio Banderas, but they may be consensual.
            Also French journalist Frédéric Taddeï (google him up, but you need to see and hear him talk, rather than a pic), but then he has a brain, and that is a big part of the attraction for me!
            French actress Isabelle Adjani as well (younger), but again, probably consensual. On the other hand, I never found Catherine Deneuve or Brigitte Bardot beautiful, whereas everyone raves about them here and abroad. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were narcissists. So haughty, anyway (and not very bright, in Bardot’s case).
            I go for charm more than beauty and sexiness, and that depends on so much personal perception.
            But quite often, when I have been attracted to someone in real life (I stopped being smitten by actors/singers after the age of 12 – the last one was John Travolta! Well, I was very young…), people have told me “yes, they’re not bad-looking, but what is so special about them?” Well, special to me.

          3. alexissmith2016 says:

            ugh ugh I’m not attracted to the aesthetically perfect either FD. I’m attracted far more to personality but the ones with the naughty looking eyes such as JN oh my god, I’m a sucker for those! People say I have naughty/sparkly eyes too – depends who you speak with I guess. So it isn’t just Ns who have them. But usually a good indicator hahah

          4. Fiddleress says:

            I can indeed imagine you having naughty/sparkly eyes, Alexis!

          5. Fiddleress says:

            Another one I don’t like, Alexis: President Macron. I cannot understand what people see in him. I took an instant dislike to him, but the sad truth is that many women (and maybe men, too) voted for him because they thought he was so hot. Well, I don’t, and never have. I hate his voice, his tone of voice, and his haughtiness doesn’t help either!

          6. oooh no Macron is not for me. I don’t get that either. He even looks evil. I could never feel attracted to someone who actually looks evil even pre knowledge.

          7. Fiddleress says:

            Not so sure about evil re Macron, this would be giving him too much credit.
            Now that we know he is a narcissist, thanks to HG, I would say he was a Middle-Ranger. Maybe a Lower MR. Apparently his lets his fury ignite with his ministers, he is incredibly patronising, and I realised right from the start that he could say white to those who wanted to hear ‘white’, and black to those who wanted to hear ‘black’, about the same topic, and in the course of one day too!
            He certainly managed to con many people though, and (which beats me) with NO clear political agenda during his so-called campaign before the election. He was practically unknown from the general public until a few months before he was elected.
            (My own little personal ‘revenge’: I heard an English person say they laughed a lot (at him) when they heard him speak English in front of a crowd of English-speaking engineers, and he kept pronouncing ‘engineer’ like ‘vagina, without the ‘v’. I checked on YouTube, and yes indeed. Extremely funny.)

          8. alexissmith2016 says:

            Yes I don’t know anything of him except for a photo I googled earlier haha. I’m sure he is as you say a LMR.

            hahahah that’s hilarious FD what you said re engineer/vagina, I’ll have to check it out. I do rather hope they asked him questions life of brian style

          9. Fiddleress says:

            Life of Brian is an all time favourite of mine!
            I can just imagine the question being put to him : “Are you a virgin?” and he going all huffy about it, haha!

          10. hahahah yes, I was also thinking along the lines of ‘welease wodger’ because Macron was unable to say the word engineer.

          11. Fiddleress says:

            Oh right, I see! Haha, yes, you nailed it. And he takes himself for a Cesar of sorts, too!

          12. Fiddleress says:

            Alexis
            I should add in all honesty that Macron won the election also because his opponent in the second round was not someone who should ever get into power (in my view), and this is putting it mildly. Macron was partly elected because she (the opponent) was rejected, therefore not only because he was considered that great by all his voters.

          13. alexissmith2016 says:

            I’m intrigued what led you to be interested in Macron and French politics.

            I still keep trying to stoke up some interest in politics but I struggle. I’m super interested in their personalities and how the dynamics play out but beyond that…

            I’ve been watching the 3 part documentary on Rupert Murdoch. Christ I’m ashamed to admit how little I knew of his involvement in well…everything! Extremely interesting though for anyone who is interested in narcissism. They are plentiful on this docu! blimey!

          14. Fiddleress says:

            Alexis
            I have been interested in politics since the age of 15, but that was quite the norm then even for teenagers, here, back in the 1980’s.
            I am interested in French politics because I have to put up with their decisions since I live in France. So I am forced in a way to be ‘interested’ in Macron.
            I am interested in other countries’ politics too, mostly Britain and the USA, but not only.
            I studied in a Scottish university for a while, and I remember that one (English) lecturer there said that the French, because of their Revolution, had a greater sense of citizenship (as in being involved in the decision-making process of their country) than the British. Hence our numerous demonstrations, probably! But lately, I have felt that we have less and less of a bearing on those decisions, anyway.
            I am interested in the personalities and dynamics too. But for instance, here we wouldn’t try to impeach, or not re-elect, a president who had cheated on his wife, if the two adults involved were game, because we tend to think that policies and political decisions are what matter, not your private life when there is no criminal offence. Which I see as a major difference with the US, for instance. I find that interesting, it tells a lot about the majority perspective in a given country.

          15. That’s interesting FD, you sound like you’ve lived in various places and have a depth of knowledge. I feel being hyperfocussed holds me back, but when I’m on the trail of something which interests me or I want to make change, I won’t bloody give up until I have cracked it. But I’d much prefer to have a broader spectrum of interests and knowledge. I manage to get away with it, simply because I’ll say something amusing, if not to anyone else, amusing to me ahaha

          16. Fiddleress says:

            Alexis, thank you!
            I really like reading your posts, you crack me up! I love your straightforward way of putting things.
            Apart from HG and everything I have read and listened to of his work, of course, you are one of the people here who have helped me get over narcex quickly including with your humour. I have not shed a tear over him since April I would say, and never will again – and I was a basket case when I arrived in mid-February.

          17. alexissmith2016 says:

            Awwww FD that is so lovely to read! You’re completely fab too! So pleased to hear you’ve not shed a tear on the **** he’s not worth it.

          18. alexissmith2016 says:

            Having just checked out Pedro Sanchez I could be swayed into learning more about Spanish politics however

          19. Fiddleress says:

            Ah, I must say I am with you there, Alexis, re Pedro Sanchez.

          20. Phew! pleased to hear it.

          21. alexissmith2016 says:

            No one could not agree with that one!

          22. Fiddleress says:

            One more thing, Alexis (you really got me thinking, here! And that’s great):
            On a more personal note, one particular thing did lead me to become interested in politics; my father was sent to the army by his mother when very young (16). He was then sent to the war in Algeria, aged 17, where he stayed for four years. He came back completely destroyed, and I witnessed it first hand as I grew up. He was in a constant state of PTSD. So my first approach of politics was through strong anti-war and anti-militarist feelings, as a way or ‘reparing’ my father, no doubt. An impossible task, of course, but then I have always championed lost causes!

          23. alexissmith2016 says:

            I’m really sorry to read about your dad. That must have been very tough for him and difficult for you too. I definitely have an element of saviour in me too, definitely not enough to be a saviour but I certainly always support the underdog and that’s why I struggle very much to understand how a narc feels like they’ve ‘won’ against a poor defenceless person who never stood a chance, e.g. the school bully – I can’t bear it. If I’m going to win, I want to take the strongest man down, not the weakest?

          24. Fiddleress says:

            It was especially hard for him, Alexis. He was never in the here and now, always trapped in his trauma(s), and married to a narcissist too.
            It took me some time to accept that I could not save him. I tried to save other men, of course. Now I have given up for good on that front.
            I am not surprised to hear there is some saviour in you too!

          25. Goodness FD really I would have found that so difficult to deal with if it was my father and I wanted to make things better for him.

            Glad you have given up on saving other men. We have to save ourselves and each other. I won’t stick my neck out for anyone who is not an empath any more. Not in the slightest. I did with normals for a while until HG made it clear to me that they didn’t really need any help or support as a normal.

          26. Anm says:

            Fiddleress,
            I love love love Daniel Day Lewis. She is so mysterious and private. I am bummed he stopped making films, but I heard his method acting was insanely brutal, and he deserved to live a life. If anyone here has ever met him, I’m curious what he is like in real life.

          27. Fiddleress says:

            Hi Anm!
            One of the reasons why I love Daniel Day-Lewis: suitably mad – and an excellent actor, of course!

      2. alexissmith2016 says:

        I’d love for him to not be a narc but sigh I guess that’s almost impossible

        1. Another Cat says:

          Just can’t tell Day-Lewis apart from Bono. Both hot.
          When I saw Pedro Sanches photos I was like immediately: Too good to be true. Must be narc.

          1. All narcs mostly likely. I always quite liked Tevez, not fancied him but the way he stuck up for wayne bridge made me think he must be a decent person, I watched apache drama series about his life recently still thinking he was good I then googled him, sadly to discover his history of cheating on his most beautiful wife.

          2. Another Cat says:

            AlexisSmith2016

            Tevez, Tevez, ehm, oh, soccer you say? I know nothing. I’m proud to reveal the only player I noticed for being cute is probably not even a Normal, but an Empath. Ruud van Nistelrooy. Will one day take him to the Tudor test.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            Cute? Are you an equestrian?

          4. Another Cat says:

            HG
            Well, I don’t know, my autocorrect said ‘Turing test’ so you may be right about him…

          5. Ren says:

            Another Cat

            Of course,. Totally understand. I wouldn’t be able to tell Bono from Day-Lewis apart because they are BOTH monumental bell-ends.

            If they were so inclined, I’m sure they can do what’s known in the trade as a ‘reach around’. Both of those twunks are masturbating frenetically at the thought of having sex with themselves.

            NS is going downhill. Quick smart. You might think it’s me but actually Alexis is largely the culprit in these matters. So I’m fingering her. (In this crime).

            It is a crime. Alexis had admitted to the following;

            Fancying Boris Johnson (thanks @NA for the reminder)

            Sting

            James Nesbitt

            And now this. Pedro? Whom? Sounds like a tosser.

            Onviously: there will be others.

            Can we on NS all club together and get Alexis a decent vibe?

            I can provide links of interest.

          6. StrongerWendy says:

            Another cat,
            I’m sure he doesnt hold a candle to HG of course! 🙂

            but Herve Renard in the soccer/football world (his instagram) is very pleasant to look at.

          7. Alexissmith2016 says:

            Another cat, I think you may well be right about van n being an empath. It will be interesting to find out.

          8. Another Cat says:

            Renarde
            You’re saying Alexis fancies Bojo.
            I have a thing for Jojo, his hot brother Jo.
            My English is not very exquisite, but you’re suggesting we spank Alexis for her taste?
            It’s too early for me to get that personal! Let’s wait a fortnight.

    2. Witch says:

      Alexis…
      I’m mad but it’s still a slight improvement from boris I guess

      1. alexissmith2016 says:

        jees witch, it seems everyone is much wiser than me. I had a quick googld of James Nesbit today. I only read two articles and that was enough. One of them, his gf (who is half his age) was left outside at some awards ceremony or the big event whilst he was inside. She was going nuts outside trying to get in. She’s possibly an N too but anyway, pre knowledge I would have thought what a spoilt brat etc, now I wonder whether he did this on purpose. I suspect he is a mid who thinks he’s a greater with a dirty great big sadistic streak!

        1. Ren says:

          Alexis

          Be honest you’ve got a bit excited there!

          1. alexissmith2016 says:

            I can’t read what I wrote on WP but if it was about JN yup, definitely excited!

        2. Witch says:

          You do like your shady characters don’t you Alexis?
          My narc addiction is being triggered by Rio from good girls right now but at least I’m sticking with fictional characters and not real people

          1. hahahah I do. My husband jokes with me about how poor my taste is. I think I’m likely attracted to the ones who are up for a bit of devaluation sex early on ahaha. I’m guessing that’s the common denominator between my vast range in taste.
            Just googled who Rio is. mmmmm yup – I’m with you there Witch!

          2. Witch says:

            @alexis
            You need to watch the Netflix series.
            He’s not even that good looking yet the Latino gang vibes and neck tattoo is calling to me. He’s also very slim and doesn’t look that tall which makes me feel like he’ll let me dominate him a little bit and finger his bum … sorry but this is where my mind goes

          3. Witch says:

            My bad he is tall he’s 6 foot lol
            I would still try to violate him though

          4. Hahhaa oh god! Dirty girl! X

  18. Joanne McEvoy says:

    I am aware how religion can be utilized in such a fashion. I grew up practicing a faith plus had to study religion at school. I have watched many documentaries about the varying extremes of religious protocols and the dogma attached. In addition, through university studies I have also seen such practices in action.

    1. Eternity says:

      HG, should we then be careful to go for confession knowing all these things?

      1. HG Tudor says:

        Depends if the priest is a narcissist.

        1. Eternity says:

          What happens if he is a N?

          1. HG Tudor says:

            You GOSO.

          2. Another Cat says:

            One thing that gives narcissists away is their grating voice (esp the Mid Midranger type B), designed to slowly and stealthily tire you out. Also they constantly stare, either at you or at something else. Their gaze is firm. The gaze of a nonnarc is rarely very firm.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            Not necessarily correct. A range of factors, seen in aggregate over a period of time must be assessed. The voice is not a reliable indicator at all. The stare/gaze is more reliable.

        2. lickemtomorrow says:

          I’m wondering how you would determine if a priest was a narcissist.

          “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.”

          The priest is under the seal of the confessional. Which means he is bound to keep that seal or secrecy. He is not permitted to reveal anything that is shared with him and confession used to be a more anonymous affair. It should have stayed that way. Now priests are treated more like psychologists in doling out more than the standard prescription of penance. I don’t see this as devaluation. And absolution is part of the rite of confession. So while the power rests in the priest to grant such a thing, the power does not come from him personally and therefore the thanks belong to God. This would be a Catholic perspective on confession. Now, it would be possible for a priest who was also a narcissist to take this all back on himself, but as far as confession goes he is bound by the seal to never reveal what is shared. And as he is only an intermediary, he cannot prevent God from working in that situation as it has been set out in the Catholic rite. If this is what you believe.

          1. NarcAngel says:

            Except that a narcissist is not bound to anything. So…there’s that.

          2. lickemtomorrow says:

            In response to your comment, NA, this is what we are learning here. And the Catholic church is plugging holes faster than I care to contemplate right now. Is this the work of narcissists? More likely than not it is. There is a lot to consider about how things come to be the way they are sometimes.

          3. Violetta says:

            We were warned there’d be wolves in sheep’s clothing. It’s not just the RC Church: there’ve been scandals in Mosques, a Hasidic sect in Brooklyn, and of course the Protestant Duggars.

            I don’t believe religion produces narcs any more than gymnastics, Boy Scouts, or prep school. It’s just one of many places they hide. And hunt.

          4. Ren says:

            Vi

            Echoing your words. No group is exempt. I know many cases in the pagan community to.

            They are forever trying to get you naked, or get you to stare at your vah-Jay-Jay with a mirror. Yeah, I kind of know what it looks like?

            I’ve honestly never seen the point of that.

          5. Violetta says:

            Ren:

            I did so when I was 9 and that pretty much settled things. Since then, I’ve used a mirror when shaving or applying ointment after antibiotics had side effects, but I’d say any curiosity was more or less satisfied long ago.

            One of many reasons I don’t quite get things like Gwynnie and her cha-cha-steaming, cha-cha jade eggs, and cha-cha-scented candles. Yes, Gwynnie, you have a twat. So does half the world. As long as mine is working properly, I can’t say I devote that much thought to it.

          6. Eternity says:

            I honestly wouldnt know if the Priest I am confessing to is a Narcissist. Call me dumb.

  19. lickemtomorrow says:

    This is a very interesting article and I can certainly see how a narcissist might reap the benefits by becoming a clergyman. Clergy can certainly be as ‘fallen’ as their flocks and we see plenty of evidence of that these days. In fact, pure evil streams from some of them as we continue to read far and wide about the sex abuse scandals which have occurred in the Catholic Church.

    I watched on video the other day by a Catholic priest who discussed the issue of the abuse scandal tying it with ‘grandiose narcissism’. He made a couple of interesting points in relation to this, but disappointed me when he provided a cautionary tale of how the narcissist in victim mode is able to find supporters amongst the institution. While I could see how this could happen, there is no excuse for an authority in these circumstances to consider ‘protecting their own’. It is inexcusable. Nothing about the faith would indicate that it was excusable once known.

    I think I came to realise clergy were fallible when as a younger child we found out the Anglican priest from our local parish (which we had left at that stage) had run off with his daughter in law! A child’s mind can’t really make sense of these things. But, it did mean that the person we thought we knew, we didn’t really know at all. His poor son … I’d say there was an element of narcissism there, though on whose part it is hard to know. And imagine the shame of his wife who was also the church organist. I could have an understanding of what it meant without really understanding how it could happen.

    Since other people are commenting on their own faith perspectives, I will also add mine. I am a convert to the Catholic faith. From this perspective I will take my final stand in life. And I made that choice as a younger woman with no particular influence or any type of coercion. I find it has benefited me enormously and continues to do so.

    1. Fiddleress says:

      Hello lickemtomorrow
      If you don’t mind me asking, I would be interested to know what drove you to Catholicism.
      The Protestants are a minority here, and there are people leaving the Catholic Church and defecting to the Protestants (who are more liberal than the Catholics here, except the Evangelicals), but I have never heard of it happening the other way round.
      Please feel free to ignore this question if it is too personal.

      1. lickemtomorrow says:

        Hi Fiddleress, I guess the first thing I would say is in a sense I was ‘driven’, but I prefer to think of it as ‘drawn’ and it was out of personal need and not out of any sense of morality. Far be it from me, and I’m far from perfect still. You will see my faults and failings here and the full expression of my humanity!

        This has kind of become a ‘confessional’ in some ways …

        I was in a relationship situation which I hoped would work out. It was important to me at the time. Maybe a little like HGs Amanda story, it involved my first love.

        From the time I was a child I remember calling out to God and wanting to believe he was real. I needed someone to rescue me from the world I found myself in and sadly nobody ever came. Eventually I let go of the idea of a loving God. I was on my own.

        In my early 20s I happened to end up sharing accommodation with another girl who was a Catholic. We became best friends and are friends to this day. Anyway, these two situations came together at a certain point.

        When we first began sharing our accommodation she was heading out to Mass one Sunday morning and asked me if I wanted to come along. I laughed in her face! I wasn’t even a Catholic, why would I want to go to Mass?

        Not long after came a crisis point in my relationship which had me calling out to the God I had abandoned long ago. Discounting all my other cries before, I made another cry from the heart. I don’t know what possessed me to do it, but a strange thing happened. And I had the sense that God stepped in. It’s impossible to explain.

        A week or two later my friend tried me again and asked if I wanted to attend Mass with her. This time I agreed. The moment I stepped into the Catholic church I felt like I had come home. Much like I have a sense of ‘recognition’ here, I had a sense of recognition there. What attracted me most was the image of Our Lady. I didn’t understand why then, but I do now. I had never had a mother in the true sense of the word. I was very drawn to the figure of Mary. It was a huge moment of healing for me. I was not abandoned. And now I knew it. And I embraced that.

        It is a personal experience and my personal journey. Those who had been raised Catholic will often have a very different story to tell. I can only tell my own. I made the choice as an adult and it has benefited me. I remember thinking at the time that one had to be ‘born’ a Catholic. I didn’t realize you could become one! I was so grateful when I was accepted into the Church.

        My mother, of course, wasn’t so thrilled and when I told her of my plans and asked my “why don’t you become a Jew?” My mother is German and that was obviously meant to be an insult. She had denigrated Catholics all my life. She, being a narcissist, was always superior and this was another element of that, though I didn’t recognise it at the time. So, I had no family support in terms of the decision I made and became more ostracized because of it. Cementing me in the position of the scapegoat. I’ve learned not to let such things phase me. I’m prepared to take the rejection if I can live my truth.

        1. Fiddleress says:

          Thank yopu, lickemtomorrow.
          It’s funny, I thought after hitting ‘send’ that I should have written ‘drawn’ instead of ‘driven’.

          I understand your quest.

          On a totally different level, and this will sound weird for sure, when I set foot in Britain the first time I went there, aged 13, I had the strongest feeling ever that I had come home! So I understand at least the feeling.

          You told a story a while ago about being a warrior in 10th century England. For what it’s worth, someone that I had not asked (a claivoyant of sorts) told me that I had lived in 19th century England in a previous life (maybe when England defeated the French at Waterloo, hehe!). That was years after I felt that learning English felt to me like re-discovering it, as if it had been tucked away in a part of my brain/memory. I even ‘guessed’ the meaning/origin of some words from Shakespeare’s times that I could not have known. I would love to believe that I lived there in Elizabethan times too, though I do not believe in reincarnation and certainly hope that what I think is true: that it is but a tale.

          I can certainly relate to the attraction of going against what your mother said. I am glad to know you have found a way of healing the wounds, and I trust you will continue to do so.

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            Thank you, Fiddleress <3

            I can relate to so much of what you said here, and no worries on the earlier wording. some things do become a drive and it's as relevant as being 'drawn' to them. Being drawn I guess creates a drive!

            I love what you have said here also about the sense of returning to something, supposedly unknown and yet somehow 'known'. It makes sense to me and you have expressed it beautifully. There's probably a kind of longing that goes with some of that once discovered.

            Your experience of setting foot in England, of the clairvoyant placing you there in the past, of your Shakespearian moment all seem to add up to more than we can understand in this life. And that's where we move from the human to the divine.

            The one thing that did strike me about what the clairvoyant said to me was the notion that I was a warrior. I definitely have a warrior spirit!

            Thank you for your kind words, too. I appreciate them.

            On another note, I did listen to an interview someone did with Sam Vaknin (it could be dungeon time for me!) and he went on a rant for over five minutes about how everyone's life is basically meaningless – and that includes yours, your children's and your parent's – apart from the 0.1% within which I'm sure he includes himself! I couldn't believe what I was hearing, and listening to five minutes of that was enough. The interviewer didn't interject and I'm sure he didn't know what to say … he'd just been told his life was basically meaningless. I'd rather have my perspective than Sam's any day!

          2. Fiddleress says:

            Ha, I just might get around to listening to that Sam Vaknin one of these days, just to see. I had never heard of him before reading about him here.

            I wasn’t worried about the wording, really (‘drawn’ vs ‘driven’), it is just funny that you should have said this and I had thought about it. Plus, I have promised HG to stop beating myself up about my use of some words over others, haha! So I have stopped.

            That ‘claivoyant’ was the friend of a friend, I hadn’t asked her for anything; of course, what she said raised an interest.
            Re what you said about finding a mother figure in Mary: I suppose I found myself a different ‘mother’land in Britain, and a different ‘mother’ tongue in the English language (my mother cannot speak a word of English, learning this language was not compulsory when she went to school).

            You come across as a lovely person, lickemtomorrow, it’s good to have you around here. The spirit of a warrior is a great thing to have!

        2. blackcoffee30 says:

          What a beautiful story! I completely understand what you meant when you said, “The moment I stepped into the Catholic church I felt like I had come home.” I am not Catholic, but had the experience of “coming home,” one of the happiest days of my life. I’m so happy to hear you found comfort and peace in your religious beliefs. <3

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            Thank you so much BC <3. I'm glad you had your own experience and if you're anything like me I'm sure it made a big difference in your life. I hope so xox

        3. Ren says:

          lickemtomorrow

          Now that is intresting on Mary. You appreciate of course that Catholicism is a quasi basterdised remnant of Goddess worship?

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hi Ren, there are so many perspectives to take on board and I have come across this thought before. I can’t argue with it as it is obviously a reasonable perspective for some people to take. I understand that. As to Mary being a remnant of this worship it is possible to consider her so, but I would dispute it. Jesus had a mother. She was not a Goddess. Both were human and ultimately divine.

            Believe me, before I became a Catholic I thought all the talk about Mary was hogwash! I couldn’t understand Catholics, the way they thought, some of what they believed. I was Protestant through and through in that sense. And probably took some of my lead from my mother. So, I would be the last person to jump on board and say ‘Hail Mary’.

            That obviously changed and it was such a fundamental change.

            I’m going to liken it to being here again. I was blind and now I see 🙂

            Mary just happened to be part of my eye opening experience in the circumstances x

          2. blackcoffee30 says:

            It took a while to get there. The Catholic church didn’t spring up overnight.

  20. Violetta says:

    Just for fun, check out the poses adopted by Just Harry and St. Meghan in recent video speeches. Catholics (current, former, or so lapsed they’d rather eat a live bison on Good Friday than ever get in a Confessional with Father Fumble-Fingers), will immediately recognize the BVM Annunciation Holy Card gesture:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/07/25/22/31196192-0-image-a-35_1595711332953.jpg

    Oh well, Megsy did go to a Catholic high school, although the One, True Faith isn’t one she officially adopted during her rotating creed-n-husband progress. So far….

    1. lickemtomorrow says:

      This scenario just keeps getting worse! Now there is a book coming out about them which apparently they didn’t contribute to, but at the same time have not spoken out about, which is going to lay out their issues with the royal family. One commentator stated that Harry has burnt so many bridges now it would be hard for him to come back from that and also raised massive questions about Megan, stating she has Harry in a ‘trance’, wondering about the eventual outcome of the relationship. Way to crash and burn, Harry. It’s not possible to feel anything but sorry for him knowing what he has become ensnared with. They also mentioned how Wills told Harry to ‘take his time’ with her when he first became ensnared. It must hurt him terribly to see what has happened to his brother and not be able to do anything about it. And I’m sure the two of them relied on eachother significantly after their mother died. To have lost that bond to this …

      1. Violetta says:

        Oh, they (she) “contributed” alright.

        Quote from book in DM:

        Their love was real & their feelings for each other were genuine. Everything else was noise.

        Hmm, “noise.” Who used that word to describe tabloid gossip? Who talks like that?

    2. Ren says:

      Vi

      OMG! Saw this picture.

      At least Harry looks somewhat authentic!

      1. Violetta says:

        All her contradictions are biting her in the booty, except her Narcissism won’t let her see that they are contradictions. Readers are amazed at how her story keeps changing, “Does she think we’re stupid?” and don’t realize that in her mind, she’s not lying.

        I had a McJob in retail when I first got out of college, and the replacement manager (the one who’d hired me left to get married) went through three different versions of how an electrical fire had started and how it had been handled, and believed every one of them (except the 4th version where she had fucked up everything). I puzzled over that one for years, but of course once you find Narcsite, it all makes perfect dreadful sense.

  21. Zoe says:

    Is my ex narc actually praying for his ex everyday? He said he is.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      No. This is just being said as a manipulation.

      1. alexissmith2016 says:

        interesting. so a mid-range who genuinely thinks they believe in a god, if saying prayers would only say them for themself? would this include the overwhelming angel? and would it be the same during golden period?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          No.

          A narcissist may actually say prayers for somebody else, however remember, what do narcissists desire? The Prime Aims. How do narcissists prefer to obtain those? Through efficiency, i.e. lowest expenditure of effort, the quickest method, without aggravation. Therefore SAYING you say prayers for somebody is more efficient than actually SAYING THOSE PRAYERS DAILY, therefore a narcissist is more likely to claim they say the prayers (when they do not), than actually perform those prayers.

          1. Leela says:

            Yes, that´s what “my” narc said. But it was so over the top that I didn´t buy that one from the beginning and immediately suspected a serious mental illness, Just didn´t know it was NPD.

        2. Anm says:

          Alexissmith2016
          From what I have observed, a common midrange narcisisst tactic with prayer, would be to create what is called a “prayer chain”. You confide in the narcissist all your sin. The narcisisst prays for you. The bible says that “when 2 or more are gathered together to pray……” something about God’s will will be done. The midrange narcissist is now allowed to tell others about your sins for the sake of prayer, and your own good. They thrive on gossip.

          1. blackcoffee30 says:

            What?! I had no idea. I thought those were just for people will illnesses and such and they entire congregation prays for the afflicted. I’ve never heard of this confessing of sins for a prayer chain.

          2. Anm says:

            It’s not confession. Confession is for catholic people. Other denominations do other things. My grandma is apart of one. You call people in your church to pray for other members, and you share what you have heard from others, and what you want to share about your family, and who needs prayer. There are other ways of doing prayer chain. On sunday, people can stand during church, before the sermon to ask for a prayer request, or one could write prayer request and put it in the offering bucket thing. Someone has to read all of the prayer request. Do they keep their mouths shut? Some do, most dont.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            I find around 10-30pm on a Friday or Saturday night in the pub to be confessional time.

          4. blackcoffee30 says:

            I understood, “You confide in the narcissist” as generic confession, but Catholic Confession.

            I have a B.A. in Religious Studies. I should have been more careful in my wording. However, this type of prayer chain is new to me.

          5. alexissmith2016 says:

            Mids do thrive on gossip! Wow do they!

          6. HG Tudor says:

            Indeed they do, especially MMR A and MMR B.

          7. alexissmith2016 says:

            God I can’t bear it!

          8. Witch says:

            My suspected lower mid mum fake pretending that she doesn’t want to hear the tea:

            “Don’t speak to me about these people, I don’t want to know!”

            *5 mins later

            “So what is Sarah doing with her life now?”

          9. fox says:

            Absolutely about midrangers and gossip. I’m pretty sure part of my role was to spy on our mutual friends for my MMR ex friend (who lived out of state). He kept saying things like “keep me posted about so and so” and “no one ever notifies me about these things, keep me in the loop” and I would say, “just reach out yourself and ask how they are doing, I’m sure they’d like to hear from you” and he never would, and even claimed to not care about them at other times.

          10. mommypino says:

            Fox, I couldn’t respond directly under your comment. I just want to say that for the record, I never said that non religious people are not happy. My brother is an atheist and he is a very happy and successful person. In fact, I have said on this thread that it is not religion or lack of religion that makes one susceptible to being ensnared but our empathic traits. The statistics that I shared was not to say that only religious people are happy. I shared it to support my assertion that religious people can be happy and thriving while being religious.

      2. blackcoffee30 says:

        “I receive numerous emails telling me that God and Jesus will save me. I explain they are many years too late for that.” — HG

        But why would you need to be saved? There’s an assumption.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          I do not. Certain of those that subscribe to organised religion assume I do.

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            This has always interested me. The notion of being ‘saved’. It is presumptuous on the part of those who express it. Partly because it will come across as an imposition of another’s worldview. My friend didn’t say to me ‘you need to saved’, she offered me an open invitation to attend Mass. The decision to attend was mine in the end.

            I will share my own story when it is appropriate, but the work is not mine to do.

    2. Leela says:

      😀 “My” narc is also a “spiritual” one and is praying for X and Y and Z and whoever (you name it). 😀 BULLSH…!!!

    3. Violetta says:

      “May God bless and keep my ex-…far away from me.”

      Per Fiddler on the Roof’s “prayer for the Tsar”

  22. Eternity says:

    This reminds me of the artist Prince and becoming Jehovah’s Witness . He would actually go knocking door to door and he is a Narcissist.

    1. Witch says:

      There are many narcs within the JW.
      It’s an extremely strict cult where everyone is encouraged to spy and snitch on each other.
      They are claiming to have modernised some of the ways they handle things but it’s designed in a way that if you’re born into the religion it’s very difficult for you to leave because your entire life and support system is built around the religion.
      There are many videos on YouTube of “apostates” speaking out about their experiences of being part of the religion and also leaving

      1. Eternity says:

        No kidding Witch , they actually knocked on my door last week with a mask. I told them no thank you but they were so persistent . They starting giving me some books and again politely I said no thank you .
        Now if it was Prince I would ask for his autograph ha ha.

        1. Witch says:

          @eternity
          Because I look young when they knock on my door they tend to ask if my parents are in and put on a cute delicate voice and say “no they aren’t home” and then they give me a leaflet and go 🤣

          1. Eternity says:

            Witch , that’s hilarious !
            That’s a great way to get rid of them. I felt bad so I listen to their story and said again no thank you for the tenth time.. They told me god loves me etc….
            I did my cross and closed the door. I honestly think dont they have better things to do. Plus aren’t they scared about Covid 19 and knocking on people’s door. No offense if any of the readers are JW I wouldn’t want to offend anyone. But seriously.

          2. lickemtomorrow says:

            I invite them in, offer them a cup of tea, and then debate with them 🙂

            Always honing my skills!

          3. HG Tudor says:

            I just say can’t stop off to give blood.

          4. Another Cat says:

            I talk and talk enthusiastically for very long, ‘oh yes, you are so right, the world is coming to an end’ with a lot of political and conspiracy theories, until they kindly walk away and I haven’t seen them for more than a year now…

          5. Witch says:

            Every so often you’ll get that thick skinned queen bee of evangelising were nothing puts them off.
            You could say you’re running late for your dick appointment and they will still be there hyping up Jesus, really trying to sell it.
            My gf told one she’s a lesbian (which is true) but they weren’t giving up. Everyone can be saved through the power of the Holy Spirit.
            Ha, it’s like empaths with narcs…

            I’ve also noticed that they don’t come around as often. Maybe they are declining in numbers. I can’t imagine that they get too many interested people these days

          6. HG Tudor says:

            I receive numerous emails telling me that God and Jesus will save me. I explain they are many years too late for that.

          7. NarcAngel says:

            Put a Red Cross blood donation sticker on your door.

          8. Witch says:

            It’s funny how god is always too late, yet expects worship for doing a terrible job

          9. HG Tudor says:

            Sounds like a narcissist!

          10. Kel says:

            It’s funny how everyone still overlooks red flags after learning about them. More than lambs in the flock here, there, and everywhere.

            God’s fault of course, not narcs. Continuing on and not asking for help is your own choice.

          11. HG Tudor says:

            It is called Emotional Thinking.

          12. Kel says:

            Having a different point of view is not being emotional. It’s entirely logical. And smearing is as smearing does. Blaming God for something he didn’t do, misrepresenting him as being narcissistic or just expecting you to praise Him, couldn’t be farther from the truth. I don’t know anyone who deserves more, but gets less praise and attention than God. God is someone I had to know if existed, and I found Him, and he’s a knowledge – every bit as much as the existence of narcissism is. Hard to explain to anyone until they’ve experienced it themselves.

          13. Witch says:

            I’ve come to the conclusion that god can defend itself and shouldn’t rely on inferior feeble beings like us to do it’s dirty work

      2. Fiddleress says:

        There’s a film (from a novel) I enjoyed about the JW and the consequences of their strict rules about not accepting blood transfusion, and cult-like ways of ensnaring people: The Children Act, based on a true story. Emma Thomson plays in it, and the young actor is really good too. I thought the story touched on some essential needs in most human beings, and the extremes that those needs can lead you to.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          See R v Blaue

          1. Fiddleress says:

            I have just looked it up: very interesting, thank you.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            Its all about the learning here, Fiddleress.

          3. Eternity says:

            Thank you HG, I know some JW people and carry a card with in their wallet about not giving blood. They would actually let their child die then give a blood transfusion and had to get a court order I asked why dont they give blood and they said blood is sacred and not to be shared .
            So the person would rather die and refuse treatment ? Doesnt make sense .

          4. lickemtomorrow says:

            How low can a criminal go? She didn’t die because I stabbed her, she died because she refused a blood transfusion! Glad they threw that defence out. At the same time, it’s difficult to appreciate how such a simple lifesaving technique could not be applied due to religious beliefs and for that reason also a young girl lost her life. Apparently they cannot even store their own blood for transfusion. It would be the height of frustration for medical staff knowing they could save a life but are not permitted to do so in the circumstances. I don’t envy any of the people involved.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            Much to be learned on either side.

          6. lickemtomorrow says:

            I see this case has a significant place in your history, HG. It was very interesting to read about that in “Fury”. I would have been interested to be a fly on the wall in terms of the discussion that day and hear your thoughts on it. I’m sure they were splendid!

        2. Bubbles 🍾 says:

          Dear Fiddleress,
          I saw that movie too
          He had huge psychological issues
          After all that and look what happened to him in the end
          Religion is all about control
          Good movie 🎥
          Luv Bubbles xx 😘

          1. Fiddleress says:

            Hello dear Bubbles!
            It was a good film, glad to hear you thought so too.

            Yes, because of the way he had been brought up in the closed community of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with extremely strict rules that set them apart from society, he was totally lost when he left that cult, so he turned to the Judge for guidance, or leadership even. He couldn’t live without being led by someone he viewed as a higher power, even though he was a bright boy, so he put the judge in a godlike position.
            And neither his God nor the judge could be the answer to his living his life/remaining alive.
            Being brought up in such a cult, and the consequences of this, reminded me of a quote I had to work on for exams in high school (and shame on me, I can’t even remember who said this!): “Freedom is unbearable to mankind, that seeks shelter in slavery”.

          2. Bubbles 🍾 says:

            Dearest Fiddleress,
            I really felt for the lad, dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t
            She (the Judge) ruled a decision that culminated into a domino effect, basically throwing him out into the big wide cruel world without the added counselling he desperately needed
            His vulnerability lead him looking for direction from her, hence his stalking
            The Judge made it personal by singing to him
            Just goes to show how damaging ‘control’ is
            Your last sentence carries great truth
            The sad part is, it was based on a real case
            Luv Bubbles xx 😘

          3. Fiddleress says:

            Dear Bubbles
            “The Judge made it personal by singing to him
            Just goes to show how damaging ‘control’ is”
            That’s right, she knew how he loved music and she used it to manipulate him into accepting to continue to live (which she didn’t need to do because she was going to make that decision for him anyhow by ordering the transfusion).
            Yes, it is a harrowing story, all the more so as it is based on a true story.

            I loved all the symbolism in the film too , a lot to do with religion. I am not religious, and I know the novelist (Ian McEwan) is an atheist too, but I found the symbolism really interesting; it added a lot to the story, I thought.

            I could talk about this film for hours, really.
            I am just so chuffed because I think you are the first person I’ve been able to share views with on this film, who also enjoyed it!

          4. HG Tudor says:

            Use of chuffed by non-native English speaker. Kudos to you!

          5. Fiddleress says:

            *Blush*
            Thank you, HG. An excellent way to start August for me!

          6. Bubbles 🍾 says:

            Dearest Fiddleress,
            Thank you lovely one
            The film raises many controversial and debatable religious questions for sure …..and then there’s the aspect of the law
            The fact that he was also 3 months off his 18th birthday
            I enjoyed Stanley Tuccis role as the patient love starved husband, at least he asked permission from workaholic Judge wife, to have an affair haha
            Freedom of choice, what’s right and wrong, respect for religious beliefs, emotions, perceptions, moral strength and grounding, becoming independent, all play important factors
            There was no guidance for young Adam, (his parents didn’t appear compassionate or empathetic at all) the religion stifled awareness of his unique talents and unfortunateky found solace in the Judge, being his only support and not surprisingly a love interest to boot
            Religiously speaking, one would say, his demise was ‘god’s will’

            I felt he was let down big time by both systems 😔
            Luv Bubbles xx 😘

    2. Ren says:

      True!

  23. Tammy Scott says:

    I’ve read this article several times on the holy narcissist. It never gets old to me to see how the narcissist uses this to his or her advantage and the millions of people that are still fooled by this type of narcissist. I’m getting better at spotting them, but it’s always good to have this reminder.

    I read our local news articles online pretty regularly and I specifically enjoy reading the comments section. People disagree with each other frequently which gets everyone riled up. When someone feels their comment has been attacked, they will reply with something similar to what was written here in this article. “I’m sorry you feel that way, I will pray for you”. To the unsuspecting reader, this person praying for everyone appears to be the “good” person. Notice how they are not sorry for anything they have done, but they’re sorry you feel that way. Another way of blaming the other person.

    While I do believe in God, I stay clear of organized religion. HG, do you think there are “holy” people who actually want to do good for others? I’m so suspicious of all of them that I rarely give them the time of day.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Yes, they are called empaths and normals.

      1. Another Cat says:

        I was a bitsy nervous about whether my morals and empathy would stay alright after leaving church. I was mighty surprised to tally that I now give more to benefit than when I was religious. I guess the realization that an empath/normal does these things naturally, emerged, through knowledge from Narcsite and through the peace of No Contact.

  24. Asp Emp says:

    Interesting to read this from a different concept – via a religion point of view. The empaths in this article have no idea, no suspicion of the potentially dangerous position they may find themselves in should they ever suspect anything that appears out of context of the so-nice-as-a-pie ‘ruler’ of the local church.

    Granted, not all ‘rulers’ of the local church are narcissistic.

    This could explain why some sermons are put across with such “passion” (indirectly a potential reaction to someone or group that has upset the narc) but done so in a way that ‘brainwashes’ the congregation into thinking this guy / woman really feels passionately when in fact they are very annoyed and need to vent their anger indirectly. The narc then obtains the fuel from the congregation to ‘rectify’ and justify his anger.

    It also goes to show why it can be very difficult to prove any ‘wrong-doings’ within the religious sector – as the person or group making ‘noises’ about the wrong-doings would be viewed as the trouble-makers.

    In reality, it’s a horrific position to be in for the true victims.

    I don’t personally attend church or follow any religion in the sense of the word. I do support charity, by either volunteering because I believe in the ethos / cause of it’s existence (or can relate to the individuals who require the services of the charity), or contributing to charity by sharing experiences / knowledge – whichever is applicable.

    Not too long ago, I made a suggestion that an awareness session is offered within the work environment. This was met with deflection (change of subject) and avoidance. Now, I understand why. There will be many others who will walk through those doors, not knowing what they are actually walking into. Especially those that are considered ‘vulnerable’.

    Those ‘vulnerable’ may quite innocently and with naivety point out one or two (or lots!) of things that they see is ‘wrong’ or not working in the way it is supposed to be working. It may be a process that is manipulated not to work for the vulnerable but works for the narcs. The process may be forced to be changed if someone from the outside comes in. That is probably when ‘all hell breaks loose’ for those within and some are discarded purely because they challenged the process in the first place.

    HG, thank you for providing this in a different concept – it offers another way of understanding narcissism and how it can take place. It can happen anywhere, in any place of work. Non-narcissistics would not necessarily reognise it as narcissism if they do not have the awareness.

    Hmm, more food for thought…..

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

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

Previous article

Thought Fuel