Fear and the Empathic Victim


It is time to stop being frightened.

Fear is often and frequently experienced by the empathic victim of the narcissist.

Why does this happen?

What causes it?

What purpose does it serve, if any?

What does this fear cause?

Most importantly of all, how can you tackle it and remove it?

HG Tudor uses his understanding and expertise to answer all of these questions and more in this extremely helpful and enlightening logic bulletin.

To conquer and remove this fear go here

The Knowledge Vault

The Books of HG Tudor

Audio Consultations

29 thoughts on “Fear and the Empathic Victim

  1. Asp Emp says:

    HG, the percentage edits in brackets….. very good. I’m amused.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      All about the evidence.

  2. MsSpeller_McGrammergoof says:

    Thank You Violetta 💕 I have no excuse 🥴 I was clearly passing notes or out sick during many important lessons in school 😈

  3. lisk says:

    QEII’s not afraid of The Markles.

    According to the DM, the Queen is now taking a gloves-off approach in responding to their shenanigans.

    Is this the right approach toward a narcissist, HG? Maybe it’s okay if you’re a real queen?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      The queen is able through various machinery to exact an outcome against the narcissist, a message that I have consistently advocated. GOSO is the counsel of perfection, if you need to achieve some form of outcome you must have an external machinery (usually the law) to implement it, i.e. a cause of action, clear evidence that will secure the judgment and the relevant redress based on the case of action, if you do not have those three things, return to GOSO and move on.

      1. lickemtomorrow says:

        I am struggling with this after reading articles online again today.

        Apparently the “gloves are off”, and seemingly this is apparent by the Palace not refuting the report by the BBC given by the Palace insider. Is that it? Gloves off is Noel Gallagher style. I don’t understand how a whimper is somehow meant to be a roar. Maybe I am missing something. Since you mention various machinery, HG.

        So many people want to see some direct action, i.e. take away their titles and make it clear why. Or just do it!

        Thomas Markle has spilled his guts on Aussie TV. Oprah is now in the crosshairs.

        1. lisk says:

          Maybe small steps to title-revocation is the most effective thing, especially in terms of public opinion. Had the queen done that sooner, it may have not gone over so well. Now that MM reveals herself more and more as the deep-down narcissist that she is, title-revocation might not cause such a stir.

          I wonder, too, if the queen is receiving even more sympathy from the public now that she is “alone.” Though she might also be seen as doing things HER way now, without Philip’s counsel. (Just guessing here—these thoughts were popping into my head as I read the articles.)

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hi Lisk,

            I see your point about any delay in title revocation. For me, it’s a toss of the coin on this one. You delay and respect is lost. You preemptively strike and respect is lost.

            I think the difficulty is the personal nature of the relationships. That’s a real spanner in the works. Harry is the Queen’s grandson. She will want to do as much as she can, I’m sure, to try and retain a relationship with him. So, kid gloves are one way of going about that. Not being reactive, but being responsive is another method or manoeuvre.

            Hence, “recollections may vary”. Raises a question mark without needing any kind of outright denial or reactive response. The Queen doesn’t have to prove anything. And she leaves it open to the possibility of discussion in private. If it was a game of Chess, I’d say that was an excellent move.

            Unfortunately, it didn’t stop with that stop gap manoeuvre. Harry had to interview again, and again, and consistently threw his family under the bus while doing that. All with his wife’s lingering presence in the background. The “never complain, never explain” policy is being thrown back in the Palace’s face. While Harry and his wife do all the talking. Silence in the face of that is not always going to cut it.

            Lilibet was the last straw for many people. The Crown was already being mocked, but such a personal and direct affront (which many people considered it to be) is a bridge too far. To attach it to an innocent child who will now have to carry the burden of that decision is beyond. By all accounts the couple have licensed that name. Couldn’t get “royal” so they took something even more personal. And I believe the only way you can license a name is if you intend to use it for commercial purposes. They are merchandizing their children! People are already calling Archie, Merchie! How awful, for him. But the children are just an extension of Harry’s wife, she has no real love for them and just intends to utilize them for her own ends. That is the sad fact of narcissism. Harry is the only one who can step in and stop the rot.

            For now, it seems he’s too far gone. The only hope is for a wedge to be placed in the door of the RF to keep it open for him. That way he has an option. Maybe that’s what the Queen is aiming for, but she’s losing ground fast without a more vigorous response to the couple’s antics. People are fed up, and you can only keep the door open so long before you have to bring the welcome mat in accepting someone has burned all their bridges. The people see the monarchy as their own institution. Some brass necked bimbo doesn’t get to destroy it. Unless the monarchy allows it.

        2. Chihuahuamum says:

          I used to like Oorah years ago with her talk show, but since the interview with the Markles I can see her for what she is!

          1. BC30 says:

            Oprah will take any advantage she can.

          2. Chihuahuamum says:

            I can see that now. I guess i was naive when it came to her. She had supposedly helped many on her show, but of course that was all part of the facade that made her so successful. This interview cast her in a different light for me.

          3. NarcAngel says:

            What do you mean by seeing Oprah for what she is?
            What is she in your estimation?

          4. Chihuahuamum says:

            Hi NarcAngel…well once upon a time i thought she was an individual who experienced abuse herself and never thought her to be a narcissist. Her name has been tossed around here before this interview or Harry and Meghan, but i was skeptical. Since her interview with them I see her for the opportunist she is. Helping these two air their dirty laundry and smear campaign for all the world to see. Royal family or not to do that to your own family so publicly is disgusting.

          5. Chihuahuamum says:

            In regards to Harry and Meghan i think they’re both narcissists. I know many will not agree, but for now I stick with my opinion of the two. Both midrangers. Meghan is of course the dominant one. Two that adore the limelight and have agendas.

          6. NarcAngel says:

            Thank you for your response. I’m not arguing your assessment but question the following: does seizing opportunity necessarily make one a narcissist?

            An interview like that is highly coveted in her field and I can’t imagine anyone in it turning down that opportunity or not pursuing it. Their job is to flush out information and revelation to an audience who will then decide what they accept and/or reject based on content and observation, but does that necessarily mean they themselves accept or believe what is offered in the interview?

          7. Chihuahuamum says:

            Hi NarcAngel…those are great points to ponder. No it doesn’t make her a narcissist to explore their side, but something about it all stinks. I may be swayed to by the fact she’s chummy with MeAgain. This airing out of family dirty laundry i find distasteful. Whether you like the queen or not she’s an elderly woman and the duke was not well at the time. It just lacks any form of respect for their family.

        3. BC30 says:

          What does that mean, “the gloves are off”? What have you heard or read?

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            Buckingham Palace has removed its longtime “never complain, never explain” policy. Which means the Queen has now decided to publicly correct any statements that misrepresent her conversations or those of other senior members of the Royal family. Which means we should see Buckingham Palace issue a number of corrections for things it would in the past have stayed silent about.

            That’s it in a nutshell, BC30.

          2. BC30 says:

            Yikes. That sounds serious. Sad, sad situation with a MR. A Greater would have quietly pulled the strings of power.

          3. lickemtomorrow says:

            It’s probably just as well that she’s an MR then. She’s dangerous enough as it is. Having said that, it seems she has Greater’s to back her up. WTF is going on?!!

      2. lisk says:

        I really appreciate this excellent clarification/reminder, HG.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          You are welcome.

      3. Eliza says:

        I’m an American and TEAM QUEEN all the way …. I think most American’s who follow this nonsense are. I Love the Harry’s Wife analysis HG does. Highly entertaining and also insightful. Shines a light on so many people in life/news/pop culture and their contradictory nonsensical behavior.

        1. Eliza says:

          Oh God – Americans – Im really not this dumb 🥴 Er maybe I am 😂

          1. Eliza says:

            Maybe I should change my Blog name to this -“ I apologize in advance for spelling and grammatical errors. “ It would save time 😂

          2. Violetta says:


            I’ve worked in publishing and taught college English, and I make mistakes all the time, especially if I post before I’ve de-“corrected” Autocorrect.

      4. NarcAngel says:

        Has the Queen identified what M is while failing to recognize it in those close to her (husband and son for example) due to the different manipulations and proximity? Or, is she aware but is/was more tolerant of the behaviours of the latter because they are/were somewhat more controlled due to their positions and proximity to the Queen as opposed to M who really has nothing to lose?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          I see it as the Queen sees more clearly the poor behaviours of MM compared to her late husband and son and also it is easier for her to effect a certain course of action with regard to MM, than her late husband and son, in part as you identify owing to proximity issues.

          (The Aggravation Index stands at 2.53%)

  4. Asp Emp says:

    Laughing…… after I have talked about ‘smashing’ things up….. how apt. Thank you, HG 🙂

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

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