Something Doesn’t Feel Right



“I am left feeling I am not good enough”

“I am always waiting for him to call.”

“She never seems to listen to me.”

“I feel like I always have to respond straight away.”

“I do not feel settled.”

“I always feel like I am being scrutinised.”

“I feel like I am out of my depth.”

“I am always wondering whether he is serious or joking with me, I struggle to tell.”

“I cannot seem to think about anything other than him.”

“She makes me feel left out.”

“It seems like I am always running around after him.”

“I always feels like I have to please them.”

“I feel like I am on trial.”

“I find myself always having to explain myself.”

“It feels more like an obligation than a friendship.”

“I am often left wondering what is happening.”

“I am left feeling unsure of myself.”

“I feel like I am always on call for her.”

“I keep feeling jealous and that makes me feel bad.”

“I am anxious for him to leave her and be with me.”

“If I express an opinion I feel like I am being unfair in doing so.”

“It is great when we are together, but then am left feeling uncertain when we are apart.”

“I am sure he doesn’t mean to make me feel nervous, but I am.”

“I don’t think I am good enough.”

“I don’t want to let her down.”

“Nothing seems to bother him and I am such a worrier. I will put him off.”

“I don’t understand why he still keeps in touch with her, but I don’t feel I can say anything.”

“I am nervous I will mess this up and he is so wonderful.”

“It´s nothing specific, but there´s something that makes me uneasy. It is probably just me.”

Doubtless many of you will find some of the above comments will resonate with you.

You have been created with emotional empathy. This has formed the bedrock for your worldview and your perspective. This accords with a majority perspective and forms the basis for those subjective qualities of what is deemed as “good” and “bad”. Since you operate within the majority perspective it is your perspective of “good” and “bad” which prevails.

When you encounter something which contrasts with this majority perspective, you often do not see it as a clear, shining example. Instead, you have a “feeling” or a “gut instinct”. This is the manifestation of behaviour which clashes with your empathic world view. This is your alarm bell.

There are those of you whose alarm bell does not often ring at all, although you are limited in number. For most of those who are empathic, the alarm bell rings through some kind of feeling encapsulated by many of the phrases detailed above and more besides.

So far, so effective. You have an established worldview formed by your emotional empathy. When you encounter behaviour which contrasts with this empathic worldview, your alarm bell goes off. Where it is one of our kind (and it almost always is one of our kind) which has caused this alarm bell to sound, this is when the problem starts.

Your alarm bell sounds but you attribute it to the wrong cause.

You either think that the cause is an external reason for this alarm bell, such as

  • The individual is tired or exhausted
  • The individual is drunk
  • The individual is suffering from stress
  • The individual is suffering from grief or bereavement
  • The individual is under some kind of pressure
  • The individual suffers from anger management issues
  • The individual is highly strung

There are others besides.

The alternative is that you think the cause is an internal reason, namely your behaviour, such as

  • You are too sensitive
  • You have been hurt before
  • You are too direct
  • You think badly of people too quickly
  • You are too trusting
  • You were not listening
  • You judged too soon
  • You are tired, upset, stressed
  • You were insensitive to the needs of others
  • You were worried

There are others besides.

Accordingly, when your alarm bell rings, you end up attributing the sensation of something feeling wrong to either an external cause to that you are the problem.

This is incorrect.

It is akin to your burglar alarm going off and you think it was a passing cat or that you tripped the sensor yourself. It was the burglar.

Something which offends your worldview, offends the logic of your world. Your logic seeks to warn you by creating a feeling or a sensation (the alarm bell) so that you take action.

Unfortunately, two factors interfere in this warning system.

The first is a lack of understanding about the nature of the individual that is generating the behaviour which causes the alarm. The red flags that signal that it is a narcissist which is engaging in behaviours which are offending your worldview.

The second is the obscuring nature of your emotional thinking which does not want you to pay attention to the alarm´s actual source and instead diverts you to thinking it is the external source (incorrect) or your fault (also incorrect).

Your emotional thinking does not want you abiding by the logic of your world. It does not want you acting on the alarm by identifying the real cause (the narcissist) and then taking the logical step to avoid further harm (further feelings that something is wrong) by removing yourself from the real cause (the narcissist).

Your emotional thinking does not want to do what is best for you. It does not want you to know the actual source of the alarm nor act on that alarm. It wants you looking in the wrong place,e taking the incorrect course of action so that you remain interacting with the narcissist.

Your emotional thinking does not care about your physical health, your emotional contentment, your mental well-being or the state of your bank balance. It is not interested in you engaging with a healthy, normal and well-adjusted individual. That does not matter to your emotional thinking.

For a very unfortunate few of you, there is no inherent alarm system and you need to build one. It is hard work but achievable.

For the vast majority of you, you have the alarm system but it is infected and caused to malfunction by making you look in the wrong place for the problem and not act on the actual problem. Fortunately for you, this faulty alarm system can be corrected although it requires repeated and ongoing maintenance, which is naturally most worthwhile.

There is a valid reason why you feel something is not right. It is your early warning system, but it is not perfect and it is fundamental that you realise this and understand that it is here that you are able to perfect its operation.

Early Warning Detector


The Knowledge Vault

The Books of HG Tudor

Audio Consultations

170 thoughts on “Something Doesn’t Feel Right

  1. Bubbles says:

    Dear Mr Tudor,
    Brooklyn Beckham and Nicola Pelz…….. hmmmmmm?????
    When a man expresses ‘his huge sign of commitment and his love for her’ by changing his name to ‘hers’ , she’s got him by his short n curlys
    In my book, that’s a sign of weakness from a man……………big mistake !!!!
    Be interesting to see what happens down the track besides her now ‘resting bitch face’
    I’ve become soooooo suspicious of everyone, I blame you ‘again’ Mr Tudor 🤣😂🤣😂
    Luv Bubbles xx 😘

    1. Asp Emp says:

      Bubbles, ah, bless you for making me giggle as I read your comment 🙂 Yes, when I came across the news about their wedding, I did wonder (not for long though). I was wearing my own “resting bitch face” 😉 I am just pointing out that there are different types of bitches and different types of resting faces 😉 Reading your comment made my morning x

      1. Bubbles says:

        Dearest AspEmp,
        Yes darling but she has the $1.6 billion RBF worth
        Luv Bubbles xx 😘

        1. Asp Emp says:

          Ah, Bubbles, that was it. Nothing to do with the trousers “compartment”? 😉

  2. Bubbles says:

    Dear Mr Tudor,
    Just watched Bad Vegan, unbelievable!
    I had a chuckle at a few similarities with your good self 😂
    Luv Bubbles xx 😘

    1. HG Tudor says:

      I eat meat.

      1. Asp Emp says:

        So do I 🙂

      2. Bubbles says:

        Dear Mr Tudor,
        Haha very clever, you’re such a card.
        Luv Bubbles xx 😘

  3. PeteSpiers says:

    Thanks for putting ‘she makes me feel left out’
    That can so easily be projected back onto the empath as them not being pro-active enough

    1. Asp Emp says:

      Well said. I’d suggest that both narcissists and empaths have the ability to be either proactive, or not proactive. Including the ‘normals’.

      1. pete says:

        Yeah I have been both. Proactively socialising is much better when with a narcissist, but obviously it’s best to just escape.

  4. Alice NW says:

    The range of emotions for narcissists is on the dark side, which makes their perception lopsided and incomplete. Their image and facade however are a saving grace because it enables them to cognitively see both sides of the picture.

    The world right now is a narcissistic mess. So many aren’t even bothering to wear a mask anymore. They just let it all hang out. Tucker Carlson and Fox News only care about shock and fear ratings, lowering their credentials to that of the National Enquirer gossip rag. Americans actually climbing and storming their way through our Capitol, threatening murder, and then waking up from their funk at trial stating they don’t know what got into them. Putin has removed his mask of the strong image he had portrayed and exposed his true self.

    Some narcissism may be highly functional, but not all of it is. Lesser narcissism is deceptively functional and often dangerous. There’s a point where perception comes down to sanity versus insanity when one can’t reason but only react.

    I’m not trying to offend or differ, but only to discuss. I don’t appreciate the world we’re living in now, and I very much attribute it to narcissism. It’s as if Trump opened Pandoras Box, and Hell has broken out on Earth ever since. I do have a positive view though that it’s showing weakness. I’m so impressed with the Ukrainian people. We need more people like them and less nonsensical’s.

    1. wensical says:

      Hi Alice NW, I agree with you, we absolutely need more people like the Ukrainians and their fortitude. I would like to add to your comment because so many people love to bring up the storming of the capital.

      People like to point this out in many discussions but do you happen to remember the burning down of American cities in the US before the storming of the capital ever happened? Do you happen to remember all of the chaos that went on in our cities where people were burning down businesses and chaos and looting was happening? I do. I remember that well. Also, innocent people out to dinner and being bombarded by political psychopaths daring them to get up from their seats and if they didn’t raise their fists in agreement with groups liked Black Lives Matter then they would have their tables turned over.

      I don’t support Trump and his rhetoric BS but I do support the freedoms we have in the US to be able to vote and believe what we want to without intimidation. The US is a severely divided country.

      You can blame Trump all you want but I think that is BS. Pandora’s box was opened way before he ever stepped into office!

      1. wensical says:

        Adding a footnote to my above comment. In no way am I approving of the storming of our capital. It was wrong! But, there are so many other wrongs on both sides of the political spectrum in the US. We can’t just talk about one side and not mention all of the wrongs that happened on the other side. There were many!

        Our country is divided and I’m sorry to say that there are people out there that love to spew out lies and propaganda on both sides. It’s a shame! I agree that there are MANY narcissists in power here, Trump being a former one. At times this can be a good thing for multiple reasons but most of the time it spells bad news for our country!

        1. Alice NW says:


          I definitely don’t want to talk politics. What I was saying is that to me the world has been a different place ever since Trump was in office – and getting a lid back on this outbreak of outlandish lawlessness and downright low class behavior isn’t happening easily. To me every time Trump steps out into the news, even now, there’s a flare of whack-a-doodle nonsense of someone doing something crazy somewhere. Now we’re dealing with a Putin that nobody recognizes- he even attempted to mimic Trump in a rally of his own In Russia.

          I don’t think the country is divided. I think the country has been duped by narcissism. The world has never been good- there’s always been horrible things going on- but at least it used to have manners and class for the most part. It’s been just plain ugly since Trump. There’s a double standard with these right-wingers on Trumps history of lack of morals and broken commandments, and of the measuring stick they hold up to everyone else.

          I think the world will be alright. We just have a lot of cleaning up and healing to do from the nonsense that broke out over the past years- allowing racism and ugliness to show it’s face without a care.

      2. Alice NW says:


        The Capitol Rioters blamed it on Trump themselves, stating that he invited them there to do it. They stated they were upset that Trump didn’t help them and turned his back on them when they were being prosecuted for their participation.

        It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s fact from the rioters own mouths.

  5. Alice NW says:

    It isn’t the majority rules on right and wrong. Narcissists are too inconsistent for that to be so. Narcissists change right and wrong to fit whatever they need it to be at the current moment, and will change it later to fit into a different moment they’re having. Their image might shine from being the old traditional good, and the next moment they’re smearing and making fun of someone who was just promoting them as a great citizen. There’s no steadfast right or wrong in a narcissists world, and the majority’s rule wouldn’t fit for all narcissists at that moment – there simply is no right or wrong in a narcissists’ world.

    Truth is never a lie. A lie is not true. That’s simply the definition of those words. A narcissist can lie all he wants, but it’s still not the truth. His only goal is to make other people believe his lie is true, and then he pretends his lie is the truth- but it isn’t. A narcissist doesn’t live in reality, he lives in imaginary.

    What is a majority rule in a world of narcissists? The whole concept of narcissism is all for one- me, me, me, and none for all the rest – I’m better than everyone. If your kind pillage Earth, and end up with no more fuel sources, you’ll have only yourselves to turn on, and there would be no majority rule, it would be every man for themselves, and lookout because each one of you is feeling queasy and needs to smear the other or fool your own kind into admiring you.

    It’s not majority rule. We’re in a weird world right now, a narcissistic apocalypse, overflowing not just with NPD’s but also with other people who think narcissism is normal because that’s the social world they grew up in. They don’t really care about anything, other than what’s happening in their moment, anymore than actual NPD’s do. They might as well be one and the same. There’s no right and wrong there because they don’t care. All they care about is being in a clique, trying to impress others- but what if their clique turned on them? They’d find somebody else to lash at and take it out on, and then they’d have a victim to take back to the clique for everyone to feed off of.

    Your insinuation is that being mean to others is good in your world because it’s what you need to survive. Many narcissists, even serial killers, know they do evil things- have said as much – quite calmly and logically, but it’s something they are and can’t stop being even though they themselves know it’s wrong, know they’re monsters.

    If there was a world with no rules by majority rule, it would take all the fun out of being mean, overstepping boundaries, and getting away with it wouldn’t have any spark anymore.

    And people who don’t lie, don’t pretend, who know the difference between right and wrong and have a conscience will never give into majority rule that says lying, evil, mentally physically spiritually harming others, is good. They would be living in Hell, as a minority, protesting, helping the victims.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      You make the common error of assuming that your reality is THE reality. It is not. It is simply your reality.Time and time again people make this mistake.

      1. Alice NW says:


        True I’m not adept at life in the alternate realm, in the backwards side of the mirror, in the rabbit hole where reality is an ever changing lie, but I did attempt to look at the reality of a narcissistic world from the outside.

        I can’t envision a world where majority rule is based on shifting rights and wrongs or lies being truth or evil being the norm – except in a dictatorship- and that is a prisoner society.

        1. Truthseeker6157 says:

          You sound remarkably similar to Wiser Now.

          1. WiserNow says:

            It’s not me. I can confirm that Alice NW and I are two separate people 🙂

            By the way, I’m reading this whole thread about subjective worldviews and I am giving it a wide berth. I agree with Leigh though, narcissism sucks!

          2. WiserNow says:

            Hello again TS,

            Actually, I will comment on this thread, because I think it’s more important to communicate than it is to hold on to what happened in the past.

            I can understand that ‘subjective worldviews’ exist and that there is no ‘grand arbiter’. From an intellectual or philosophical point of view, that’s true. There can be a variety of perspectives and if they exist, then they are ‘valid’ simply because they exist. When intellectualising, I can see that there is no ‘objective’ good or bad.

            It’s easy to philosophise or intellectualise though when we are sitting and relaxed in a chair, in our warm, comfortable homes sipping on tea or coffee or a glass of wine, after having a fulfilling meal. It’s easy to ponder whether or not there is a grand arbiter while our partner is paying the bills online and our children are safely tucked up in bed and we are ironing a shirt getting ready for the next day at work. It’s even easy to intellectualise the existence of various viewpoints while we wait for the ambulance to arrive after we have fallen off a ladder and suspect that our ankle is broken. We are confident the ambulance will arrive in about 15 minutes and there will be doctors in a nearby hospital able to ‘fix’ whatever is wrong.

            On the other hand, if we are hiding out in our basement in terror because a bomb has just ripped our home apart and we don’t know whether or not we will be crushed under the rubble, we are not going to philosophise the existence of ‘subjective worldviews’. Instead we will be struggling to stay calm while also being traumatised and deeply troubled. If we are in the basement in the dark without electricity, food or water and don’t know when it will be safe to go outside to see if we can find food, we won’t be intellectualising whether or not ‘good’ and ‘bad’ can be ‘objective’.

            I’m illustrating extremes here, but it’s for a reason. I think ‘anyone’ would be able to see that the first scenario is more favourable than the second. When safety and well-being are threatened and danger is a visceral and ‘real’ threat, the prospect of intellectualising the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ of the experience is not relevant in that point in time.

            Even though I understand the concept of subjective worldviews and there being no ‘objective’ definition of right or wrong in an *intellectual* sense, I think there is definitely the existence of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in a ‘real’ or objective sense.

            The example above is an extreme one. My point would be the same though if it was less extreme and involved an experience that occurred in a more common or day-to-day sense with ‘real’ detrimental consequences.

          3. HG Tudor says:


            You have given two examples which are seen from the same standpoint, not different perspectives, thus your proposition fails.

          4. WiserNow says:


            Okaaay … I think…

            I’m going to return to my initial stance of giving this subject a wide berth…

            While cleaning my kitchen window, I shall subject this subject to further subjectification. The window definitely looks ‘good’ when it’s clean and ‘bad’ when it’s dirty. That’s a universal truth everyone would agree on.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            Not if you want a dirty window to prevent people looking in to your house, then it is a good thing.

            Once again, it is a matter of perspective and your passive aggressive attempt to have the last word is once again noted.

          6. WiserNow says:


            Your first sentence makes sense and I stand corrected. About five minutes after I sent my previous comment, it occurred to me that someone who was blind or whose vision wasn’t clear may not be able to see or notice the difference between a clean and dirty window. Also, I can see that some people may not care how the window looked so the ‘judgement’ of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ wouldn’t occur to them.

            I understand what you’re saying. I admit I was presumptive by speaking in absolutes and saying “everyone would agree”.

            Then again, there have been times in the past when I’ve been criticised (not by you) for not speaking assertively or concisely because I have qualified statements by saying things like, “In general, most people would likely agree that…”, etc. Some people see this as using ‘weasel words’ or as being ‘mealy mouthed’.

            I guess it comes down to not expecting ‘everyone’ to agree or to sympathise or to accept whatever it is that is being said.

            Your second sentence and accusation of me making a “passive aggressive attempt to have the last word” is ironic. Before I sent my reply, I considered whether it was ‘better’ to respond or not respond to your comment (where you said I was ‘wrong’). I thought that if I don’t respond, it will seem like I was ignoring you and dismissing your comment; or being rude; or ghosting you. I didn’t want to do any of those things. Similarly, I didn’t want to continue engaging in a back and forth debate. At the same time, I was conscious of my plan to clean the window and I also didn’t want to get involved in a time-consuming thought process of how best to explain my ‘perspective’ so that it was more likely to be understood. I didn’t even think of it as having the ‘last word’. If you or anyone else wants to reply, it is not up to me to stop the replies.

            If my reply seemed to you like a passive-aggressive way to have the last word, please consider that you may be interpreting it in a certain way and that it was not intended in the way you are interpreting it.

          7. Alice NW says:

            Actually WiserNow is a lot like Sweetest Perfection to me – couldn’t resist saying as both have the Ukraine flag emblem! 😊

          8. Sweetest Perfection says:

            You are correct about that! Haha

          9. Truthseeker6157 says:

            Alice NW,

            Haha! I’m a visual person, if we all changed to Ukraine flags, it would near enough blow my mind I think!

            Nice to meet you Alice NW 🙂

          10. lickemtomorrow says:

            The “Chicken of Authenticity” blew my mind!

            That lack of individuality really got to me.

            It was so hard to identify people as well.

          11. Truthseeker6157 says:


            You made me smile here. I did wonder if anyone would get what I meant by that comment, trust you! 😉

            Yes, haha forgot about the chicken of authenticity. You’re right, that did mess with me too, and for precisely those reasons.

            I don’t even like the Tudorite reference. It discomforts me every time I see someone refer to themselves in that way, yet I can’t put my finger on exactly why. Ownership maybe? The Tudorite reference is more to do with group identification though I think. The psychology behind group association is quite interesting. I contradict myself quite a lot with group association. I’m content with some memberships, not with others. I remember you making a comment when we were talking about INFJ. You don’t believe in being defined by a group, parts of it you agree with, some parts not and as such you don’t wholly identify with it. Similar thing with me on the whole as regards groups. I think perhaps I accept INFJ more because I see it more in line with a personality trait, I accept I have many of the INFJ traits and behaviours so am happy to reference myself in those terms maybe. If there was an INFJ social group though, no way I’m showing up, too many INFJ’s!

            I’m a little twitchy with my school and cadre here too. Ok, a lot twitchy! I accept my cadre, less so my school, but am reasonably comfortable overall because my minority schools and cadres are acknowledged. It becomes less, “You are this.” more “ You are a real mixture of these.” Maybe that’s it, I don’t believe that people are all one thing or all another.

            Overall, I see the membership of groups in society as problematic. I think it promotes division rather than unity for the most part. That said, I think society today also isolates, and in that case group membership can give a sense of belonging to those who feel they don’t belong anywhere. My views are inconsistent, but, I know I wouldn’t want us all to have the same avi! 😂

          12. lickemtomorrow says:

            TS 🙂

            Trust us both!

            Interesting to hear your thoughts again, especially around the Tudorite reference and group identity. I don’t refer to myself as a Tudorite, but make clear my appreciation of what HG offers us. I’m very individual in that sense and shy away from complete identification for the most part. That is because as a Truthseeker, like yourself, I often find there are ‘nuances’ which can’t account for a complete identification for me. I accept ‘commonalities’, if I can put it that way. I may have much in common, but won’t necessarily throw my hat in the ring to say “all right” or “all wrong”. Shades of grey 🙂

            I can identify with INFJ also, but won’t commit to it being the determining factor of who I am. It explains part of me, but human beings are far too complex to be put into nice neat little boxes. Awww … you wouldn’t join an INFJ social group? I think I would, based on what we have in common and how we can reassure one another that we are not total outliers <3

            You've pretty much confirmed my thinking with your comment on Schools and Cadres here. I'm fascinated by the accuracy of them, can see myself in them, and yet don't let that define me in the sense I'm happy to consider them a part of who I am, but won't let that determine how I act. No doubt, those categories do define how I act on most occasions, so it's important to give recognition to that. At the same time I'm not sitting there thinking "What would my Saviour do in this situation?" "How should my Super react to that?"

            The notion of groups creating division and also helping to break down a sense of isolation is also an interesting one. It can work both ways and groups can also create a sense of unity or alternatively impose a sense of isolation on others.

            Much to mull over, TS, and I don't see inconsistency, I see 'nuance'.

            Definitely wouldn't like everyone's Avi's to be the same xox

          13. Truthseeker6157 says:

            Awww SP you changed avi. Hope that wasn’t on my account.


          14. Violetta says:

            TS and LET:

            For some reason, I’m perfectly happy to be a Tudorite (better still, a Tudorista . ¡Viva la HG revolución!). We are all so different: in our interests, in our experiences, even in the specific narc problems that brought us here. Where else could the punker ACON have a lovely conversation with the suburban parent trying to protect children from a narcy ex and the millennial with the narc-from-hell middle manager?

            It’s true people sometimes clash politically, but we’ve been learning how narcissism operates in every political branch, from the leaders to the followers. Sometimes I do feel rather helpless, because the nominees are all pathetic, but I can at least make sure I educate myself on the candidates and vote in the primaries, so I’ve done my bit to keep the most destructive ones out.

            I can see the advantage of a hereditary monarchy. As HG said, the genetics favor narcs who quashed others before they could breed (just look at the Plantagenets) and the combination of rigid court protocol and enormous privilege is a narc petri dish. However, every now and then you’ll get a normal, like the Queen. It’s not like American politics, where the narcs self-select, because most normal people don’t want to do it and the idealistic empaths usually get chewed up during the campaign period.

          15. lickemtomorrow says:

            Violetta, interesting thoughts and are you the punker ACON? What we share here in common is narcissism and its effects. They are numerous, and impact people no matter what walk or station in life. No matter what beliefs, we come together here as the victim of a narcissist, or multiple narcissists. It is a leveling, if you will. None are spared. Narcissism takes no prisoners.

            It can cause us to feel helpless, and sometimes we need to choose between the lesser of two evils when we are left with no other choice. When it comes to politics we hope a candidate will rise to the top who is worthy of our vote, but lately it seems they are few and far between. Knowing the majority are narcissists really doesn’t help and empaths are likely to get chewed up before they get to the top. It’s a tough call in terms of decision making, that’s for sure.

            A hereditary monarchy in terms of how most monarchies operate these days (more as figureheads, but with influence all the same) can provide some benefits to a country, and if you do manage to get a normal then that is likely to help steady the ship around the various changes of government and sometimes enormous upheavals taking place in society. I never thought of it in terms of the narcs “self selecting”, but that makes sense, as in narcs can often be out for their own self gain (or the prime aims) as opposed to the good of their country and will seek to get to the top for their own purposes. Some of their facades are great, some we know operate without them, but I can only come back to the lesser of two evils in terms of how we choose. With a monarchy you get no choice, so it’s purely the luck of the (gene) draw whether you get good or evil. In a democratic system at least you can vote them out!

          16. Truthseeker6157 says:


            Oooh Tudorista. Now you’re talking. I like the logo too! I might trial it! Haha! I’ll ask Asp Emp, I decided to run things by her now before I trial. ( laughing, joke as to my trialling weakness on another thread)

            “Where else could the punker ACON have a lovely conversation with the suburban parent trying to protect children from a narcy ex and the millennial with the narc-from-hell middle manager?”

            Exactly. One of the things I enjoy most about the blog. All the bells and whistles stripped away and we are just people discussing our thoughts. I include HG in that too.

            I’m not opposed to the Tudorite term, it’s just something I back up from personally. It’s far more efficient than, ‘Empaths that subscribe to the works and education provided by HG Tudor’! The other part that niggles I think is the thought of being owned in some way. If I understand correctly, as a narcissist, HG believes that he owns us from the very first interaction. I understand that HG is operating within the narcissistic perspective, so this doesn’t offend me, but similarly that concept of ownership is something I’m always going to reject. Unless HG adopts the role of ‘Professor’ from DC, then, all bets are off. Haha 😉

            As to my thoughts on groups in general, I think LET explained this very succinctly when she describes why she is reluctant to throw her “hat in the ring”. Similarly, your point as to groups in relation to politics. I feel the same. I’m voting defensively to keep someone out rather than wanting the alternative in. That’s a very sad state of affairs.

            Often, I think the original concept of a group or movement is honest and necessary, but as that group grows in stature and narcissists infiltrate it for the Prime Aims, it becomes unrecognisable and something I come to reject outright. The woke concept would be a good example of this. I might have subscribed to woke at the start, now, I can’t entertain it. As society becomes more narcissistic and the numbers of narcissists increase, I can’t see how this contamination of the group voice can actually be prevented. Overall, I think this has also made me more wary of groups in general.


        2. njfilly says:

          “I can’t envision a world where majority rule is based on shifting rights and wrongs or lies being truth or evil being the norm”.

          Really? In my opinion, this is the world we already live in.

          1. Violetta says:

            Amen to that, NJFilly.

          2. Alice NW says:


            I find it hard to believe half the things going on in the world we live in today. It’s like a narcissist apocalypse with political and social lies and slander and conspiracies abounding. It’s like we’re living in an episode of the Twilight Zone where we all woke up one day living in a world that doesn’t make sense anymore. I was born into a different world than this. The Capital, Trump, Putin- this is all a new kind of lowness.

          3. Violetta says:

            Yale law students heckled and threatened a conservative speaker, instead of debating her ideas. The law school is defending their actions.

            The Alma Mater of famed debater William F. Buckley. Couldn’t make it up.

            One of the classical rhetorical techniques lawyers (among others) need to know is counter-argument and rebuttal, which these law students aren’t learning. They will be pulverized in a courtroom if opposing counsel does know it.

            Ever watch Nixon vs Kennedy? BOTH of them knew how to use this technique. They didn’t interrupt or shout at each other: courteous disagreement, followed by the reasons for disagreeing.

            One reader commented, “417 students reportedly signed an open letter issuing support for ‘peaceful student protesters,’ that means I have a record of who they and can use it in the in any case they are involved in to show bias.”

            Other readers say that a degree from Yale will be a barrier to hiring, in many places.

            So much for Lefty debating skills, but we already saw right-wing debating skills, with Trump interrupting Hillary, out-shouting her, and even broadly “hinting’ to supporters that people who heckled him at his own rallies should be carried out of the arenas and possibly roughed-up.

            Review HG’s “America: You Are Being Conned.” There are narcs in EVERY political wing. The problem isn’t the Democrats, the Republicans, the Russians, the Ukrainians–it’s the narcs.

            As usual.

    2. NarcAngel says:

      There is no absolute right or wrong. Only a majority perspective that does not have all non-narcissists in agreement either. Empaths can (and do) disagree on what is right or wrong. Much the same with truth and lies. What you believe to be true is not necessarily accepted as truth by other non-narcissists. Majority is merely a membership of larger numbers to a particular mindset – nothing else. It changes nothing for those who do not buy in, and it does not make either group right or wrong.

      1. HG Tudor says:

        Indeed. you have paid attention NA.

        1. Violetta says:

          I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, but I’m slowly accepting the fact that most Narcissists have a very different concept of what that is. It’s easier for me to process it he idea that someone like HG just doesn’t give a toss than to process someone like my ex-co-worker, who would never see that she was mistreating the babies, let alone mistreating her co-workers. You could show her a video of her snarling at one kid, “Did you poop again? You stink! You hear me, you stink!” and her narcissism would find a way around it.

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Of course there’s such a thing as right and wrong but what is considered right or wrong varies dependent on perspective. It’s not fixed.

          2. Asp Emp says:

            That’s true, HG 🙂

          3. Alice NW says:

            Mr Tudor

            That is my point. A narcissist’s perspective on right and wrong is always changing. Their perspective depends on what works for them at the moment. Their perspective is not based on the definition of right or wrong, but on whether it’s helpful for fuel or for façade.

          4. HG Tudor says:

            No, the point is that anybody’s concept of right or wrong, good or evil etc is simply a matter of perspective. Yes, the narcissist´s perspective is black or white and that will alter, but the point that was being made was that the empath victim view is not THE right perspective, it is A perspective. Too often people who are empathic victims think their view is the right one, it is right for them, but it is not right by an objective standard because there is no such objective standard.

          5. Truthseeker6157 says:


            No doubt the narcissist would call that character building.

            I think the most frustrating thing about the narcissistic perspective is the apparent lack of consistency. That ex co worker might mistreat a baby herself and call it ‘teaching’ or ‘ character building’. The following day she might witness a different co worker do the similar thing and say that the behaviour was mistreatment.

            There is consistency, consistency as regards seeking the Prime Aims, but on the face of it, the behaviours and the perspective appear inconsistent. It’s little wonder we were so confused during ensnarement.

        2. WhoCares says:

          “Too often people who are empathic victims think their view is the right one, it is right for them, but it is not right by an objective standard because there is no such objective standard.”

          So true HG. Many things are accomplished, past and present, with the involvement of empaths believing in something that they feel is ‘right.’

          Two examples,…first, look at the residential school situation in Canada – was it “right” that children were taken and isolated from their families and their cultural heritage denied them? (No, of course not as the majority sees it now.) But were empaths involved in those decisions or practices (at some level) at the time? Likely. Because it was believed to be “right”, in terms of what was deemed as better for those indigenous children and with the (entitled) perspective of the Christian church.

          Second, and a current example, would be empaths in the legal system that – honest to god – believe that an abusing ex can have a healthy, kind, and positive relationship with his child – even if he was completely and horribly abusive to his partner. And they believe this because they see it “with their own eyes”…which could simply be the benefit of the facade playing out in the front of onlookers (in the case of a verified narcissist) and the dynamic of the child being a NISS and essentially being treated to, mostly, positive behaviours. But would we here agree, with our current knowledge, that it is “right” for a narcissist parent to be automatically given access to his or her children?

          In Canada it is currently held that the right of the child to know and have involvement with a parent (regardless of that parent’s treatment of the other parent) supersedes pretty much anything (except proven physical or sexual abuse to the child by the narcissist.) Would we agree, generally, that this is “right”?

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Valid observations, WC.

          2. WhoCares says:

            Thank-you HG.

            I really appreciate your blog for the opportunity to read, and take part in, discussions such as these – difficult, and emotionally charged (for us empaths, haha), but extremely interesting and educational.

          3. NarcAngel says:

            Great example with the residential schools.

            Also, with regard to your comment further down:

            “ I don’t know if you have had any experience with a lengthy legal proceeding or familiarity with various legal theories (I have only recently been educating myself on legal theory and philosophy) but…
            laws do not necessarily follow a moral code.”

            I was thinking about that. It’s true (I feel obligated to clarify “for me” given the current discussion haha). Laws put into place do not even necessarily reflect the moral majority perspective. It only takes into account those that can be arsed to lobby/vote, and the limited pool they have to choose from for “representatives”. Just because it is law does not mean it benefits all, is well intentioned, or even makes sense to many (as you have experienced).

          4. WhoCares says:

            “Just because it is law does not mean it benefits all, is well intentioned, or even makes sense to many (as you have experienced).”

            Oh fuck, yeah.

            I could tell ya some stories…(and they are not from anyone’s daily news feed.)

          5. WhoCares says:


            A more serious follow-up to your comment…

            Personally, I don’t know that I would say I entertained a naive understanding of the law (pre-legal battle) – it would be more accurate to say that I had an *absence* of an understanding of the law, before my the beginning of my legal case.
            I think this benefited me, actually, because you cannot use something to your advantage, if you don’t understand how it works. (My ex, of course, would maintain that I am just using the law to make his life difficult.) I am not. And my earnestness has shone through from the beginning – and that, I believe, has kept me in good stead.

            The theory of how the law works (or how we think it should work) is vastly different from how it works in practice. I am speaking from personal experience and from the sidelines of witnessing the stories of other empathic individuals in my day to day life. The reality of it could be soul crushing – for some, it is. (Very similar to coming to terms with the illusion-shattering, bubble-bursting effect of grasping the narcissistic perspective.) Personally, I think that law, and the legal system, is a fascinating world. (Actually, I am shocked at – and could not have predicted – my own fascination with it.)
            But what a jarring reality to come to terms with! And with regard to something that we usually believe is very straightforward: the law is the law, is the law – right!?

        3. Bubbles says:

          Dear Mr Tudor,
          “thus, according to Narcissistic Ignorance view, narcissists should believe that others see them as positively as they see themselves and that narcissists use meta-perceptions to reinforce their positive self-perceptions”

          This is deep, just saying.

          Luv Bubbles xx 😘

      2. Leigh says:

        NA, I value your input because you think very logically. I also I understand what you are trying to say that majority just means that a higher number of people see something in a particular way. I also understand that good/bad or right/wrong can be highly subjective. I’m struggling with your first sentence. There is no absolute right or wrong. I don’t agree with that. Raping a child is absolutely wrong. Adolf Hitler killing 6 millions Jews is also absolutely wrong. I know there are shades of gray. Like when a mother is trying to feed her children and she steals a loaf of bread and peanut butter.

        For me, I interpret that line as giving someone a free pass to do something that is unkind to another human being and then saying, “Well, there is no absolute right or wrong, so what I did is ok.” I struggle with that. I know right or wrong is highly subjective. I also know that its up to us to say what behaviors we will and will not accept from others. I’m just not ok with giving people a free pass to do whatever they please without thinking how it affects others.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          No, you have fallen straight into the usual trap.

          You see raping a child as wrong. Someone may not see it as wrong, hence why they do it. Someone may know YOU (and others) regard it as wrong, but they do not subscribe to your point of view. There is. no such thing as an absolute wrong, if there is, where is this decided, by whom? There is no grand arbiter who has decreed that “x is right and y is wrong” and this is written on a stone tablet at the end of the universe.
          You regard Hitler killing 6 million jews as wrong, but he did not and there were others who did not regard it as wrong. Different perspectives. Hitler did not think “Oh exterminating Jews is wrong, but I will do it anyway. He believed what he was doing was right.” Many people who do things which you will regard as wrong, regard what they are doing as right.

          It is not giving someone a free pass at all. It is explaining the existence of differing perspectives which in turn explain why people do the things that they do. That person who does something they regard as right, which you regard as wrong, may well be held to account if the Majority Perspective regards their actions as wrong also, because that MP creates a moral stance on which a legal system is then founded.

          1. A Victor says:

            So it only matters what the person doing the action believes it to be that makes it right or wrong, to them. And it only matters what the person looking at that action believes that makes it right it wrong, to them. Got it.

            This is why my ex could cheat, knowing I would say, “That is wrong of you.” and he would not care that I believed this, because he believed it was not wrong. So to him, it was not wrong even as to me, it absolutely was wrong. Got it.

            I think…

          2. Rebecca says:


            I see what you’re saying and my therapist told me the same thing. It’s about perspective. Take five people watching a movie or reading a story, each one will have their take of the movie or the story because their own personal experiences and how their brain processes information has changed the story or movie to their point of view. You ask them each about story or movie and it’ll shock you how different they are. It’s like the view of what’s beautiful. What you find as attractive, maybe repulsive or average to someone else’s eyes.
            That being said, there are laws now put in place to keep people from committing horrible crimes against each other and it doesn’t matter if YOU think it’s wrong or right, there’s a law against it, so the innocent are protected from being harmed.

            I watched the documentary about Marilyn Manson and Evan Racheal Wood and they passed the Phoenix Law recently and it made me feel we’re finally making steps forward.

          3. Joa says:

            Damn it! I don’t have time right now, but I have already marked this post and my guts will twist if I don’t say anything here!!!

            Perhaps you deliberately set this extreme example with the rape of a child (as always, I justify!).

            There is a difference between absolute good and evil (utopia), socially objective good and evil, and subjective good and evil (total shit!).

            I’ll write more, when I get home.

          4. HG Tudor says:

            The example given was not my example. You need to pay better attention.

            Save your time, it does not alter the position whether you use absolute, socially objective or subjective.

          5. Leigh says:

            In theory, I understand what you are saying, Mr. Tudor. Everyone has a different view of right and wrong and laws and the moral compass is based on the majority perspective. I also understand that sometimes the majority perspective changes, like with Slavery and women’s rights. 200 years ago people thought very differently.

            I still have a problem with people hurting other people to meet their own selfish needs. For me, thats wrong.

          6. A Victor says:

            For some narcissists and other people, it’s okay to hurt others to meet their needs. They will not see it as wrong, maybe because it meets their needs. Or maybe because they enjoy it or who knows. To you wrong, to them, not wrong.

          7. HG Tudor says:

            You are correct, AV.

          8. Leigh says:

            Ugh! I know. It just irritates me.

          9. A Victor says:

            It irritates me too.

          10. wensical says:

            “There is. no such thing as an absolute wrong, if there is, where is this decided, by whom? There is no grand arbiter who has decreed that “x is right and y is wrong” and this is written on a stone tablet at the end of the universe.“

            This is a perfect example of subjective morality.

            Yes, there is a grand arbiter who decided right from wrong very clearly. We humans are in defiance against it because we want to be our own authority and do exactly what we want no matter the consequences of it.

            People know absolute truths but they care more about how they feel. They cover up facts and truth to fit there own false facts and truth. This is called believing there own truth aka lies. The person raping a child I would bet knows this is wrong but he is ruled by what he wants to feel. He has a depravity and yes the majority rules that this is wrong. But the majority perspective is based on a moral code with moral authority.

            Hitler and Stalin murdered millions. Why? Yes, they believed it was the right thing to do. Just because they believed it doesn’t make it true. They had a defiance of morality and were shaking a fist in the face of the one who is it’s author.

            The reason why people want to believe that there are no absolute truths, rights, and wrongs is because of pride and ego. If we believe in good and evil then there must be a guide or a code that we go by to determine good from evil. A moral code, a compass. And where do we get that code from? Ourselves? I don’t think so.

            I believe the human heart or human condition is ultimately not good. We may not do really bad things but we have a sense of pride and ego that goes against believing that there is a moral code and as such there has to be a moral code giver. We want it “ our” way.

            Postmodernism is where this arises. Everyone is right and no one is wrong. It’s just your perspective. I don’t believe it and think it is a very dangerous way of thinking.

            This in no way is saying that I think people who believe there are no absolute right and wrongs are “bad” people, on the contrary. There are many good people living good lives but I’m trying to make a broader point about morality and truth.

            We live in an ordered universe. One small variation to its formation and we would not be here. Our bodies are incredible in its design. There are mathematical certainties. There are absolutes. There is moral reasoning and there is a moral code giver.


          11. HG Tudor says:

            “Yes, there is a grand arbiter who decided right from wrong very clearly.”

            Who is this, your imaginary friend?

          12. wensical says:

            Lol, I prefer my imaginary friend over an imaginary Big Bang, aliens(ET) transplanting life here and whatever other ridiculous, nonsensical explanation of the origins of life we have. Of course that’s just my opinion. I’m not getting into an argument on creation.

            We can all agree to disagree about absolute rights and wrongs.

            If there are no absolute rights and wrongs then why have the discussion? There is no reason to ask the question. It’s irrelevant. We ask the question and have the conversation because it means something. It’s very important!

            We have an overwhelming majority perspective and laws in place because of a moral code. I think many people have no problem with moral reasoning or a moral compass, they only have a problem with where that moral authority comes from.

            Again, just my opinion. But, I will be sure to consult with my “imaginary friend” for further insight, lol. 😉

          13. WhoCares says:


            I kept thinking of my comment to Sweetest Perfection – and I didn’t want to let it go without explaining that when I said I was laughing, as a result of her response regarding Postmodernism – the laughter was directed at SP knowing herself so damn well that she had to respond (truthseeker trait) – and that she wanted to do so, in case, the world ends/changes “as we know it.”

            Just wanted to set the record straight, in the event of any misunderstanding.

          14. wensical says:

            Hi WhoCares,

            I didn’t think that. But, thanks for wanting to clarify it. I appreciate it. Her comment was funny in that way, I agree. SP is obviously a very intelligent person and I appreciate people who are passionate about their thoughts and beliefs. That’s such a good thing!

            I learn quite a bit of things on this blog not just related to narcissism. I like coming here because it is a safe place to communicate about what we all share in common with our ex or maybe current narcissist and how to heal from it but also other things.

            There are some very smart people here! I like hearing everyone’s different perspectives. I just might not agree! lol.

            That’s ok, what a very boring world it would be if we all agreed on everything!

            Thanks for your comment WC, 😊

          15. WhoCares says:


            Thank-you for reading my comment and understanding. I agree with all your points.

            I found HG’s blog in early 2018 and have been following along (with a few big gaps where I couldn’t) ever since. At the time, I read both the blog articles and comment sections for a long while without taking part. My hesitancy was due to several factors but what finally drew me in was the interesting and intelligent people here, the fun and intriguing topics of discussion and my desire to contribute to those conversations. I had to overcome a fair amount of fear to do so, because my self-confidence had pretty much been ripped to shreds and then ground up into the dirt at my feet.(I found HG’s work after escaping my ex and initiating a custody battle.)

            There is a lovely mix of bright, passionate and articulate empaths here that all make the discussions interesting – and intense, at times – but often engaging and educational.

            There’s been quite a few memorable discussions on the blog – I really enjoyed both reading the points from others and contributing to this one!

          16. wensical says:

            WhoCares, I appreciate your comments.
            I totally agree with you about this blog and the mix of bright empaths here! Always great comments and conversations. I have healed so much over the past 6 or so months after finding HG’s work and this blog! I have my momentary semi-meltdowns when I “think” I miss the ex narcissist but I open up this blog and I can’t tell you how much better I feel!
            I’m glad you found your way here 4 years ago. You definitely have much wisdom and knowledge to share!
            Hope you are having a great day. 😊

          17. Sweetest Perfection says:

            I was gonna let this go, but then I thought that Putin may press the nuclear button at any given moment and send us all to hell without me having the opportunity to debunk your false generalization that Postmodernism is simply a way of thinking where everything is valid. No it is not. Out of the top of my head, I recommend Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard, Kuberski, Kristeva, Barthes, Blanchot, Hassan… Bhabha is also a good one but he’s seen more as a postcolonialist. Just spreading the knowledge!

          18. WhoCares says:

            SP – “I was gonna let this go, but then I thought that Putin may press the nuclear button at any given moment and send us all to hell without me having the opportunity to debunk your false generalization…”

            Oh,…how hard I tried to not laugh at this – but laugh I did!

          19. wensical says:

            Hello SP, thank you for being so kind as to spread the knowledge of these postmodern philosophers, brilliant minds no doubt. Thank you so much!

            Let me share some knowledge with you. Here are a few that I’m sure you know of but I will just go ahead and point these brilliant minds out as well.

            Albert Einstein
            Arthur Compton
            Blaise Pascal
            Ernst Haeckel
            Erwin Schrodinger
            Francis Bacon
            Francis Collins
            Galileo Galilel
            Isaac Newton
            Louis Pasteur

            I realize I am veering a bit from the topic of postmodernism by mentioning them but honestly I think it’s important. There are many great minds and brilliant thinkers. HG being one!

            I do know what postmodernism means and is. You and I have a different world view and that’s ok. We can agree to disagree. No need to debunk anything as I am not in a debate with you.

            I believe postmodernism started long before any of these brilliant minds came into play. They never started it. I’m sure this will give rise to chuckles and eye rolling but it is my belief and I will hold on to it at all cost.

            Genesis 3: The Fall
            Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?

            The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

            “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

            The perfect example of changing the reality of the truth right there from the very beginning. This is postmodernism to me. Brilliant minds writing volumes of wonderful ideas but yet by their very own definitions say it isn’t true. It’s just their own reality.

            You say myth I say truth. But, again this is my worldview and my opinion that’s all. I don’t discredit anyone or want to slight anyone else’s beliefs. If I did that then I apologize. I don’t say that anyone who doesn’t believe what I believe must have imaginary friends or be feeble minded. You didn’t say that but I’ve heard this before.

            Free to think and believe what we want to that is awesome.

            It’s a great conversation and some of those people you mentioned above I will definitely check out.

            Oh and by the way I have no intention of visiting hell!

            Thanks SP! 😊

          20. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Pfff. I pass.

          21. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Postmodernist has not done any harm to anyone. You know what has? Wikipedia.

          22. Sweetest Perfection says:

            And autocorrect!

          23. Violetta says:

            “Lepcha old men of eighty copulate with girls of eight, and nobody minds,” says Nabokov’s Humbert Humbert, ignoring the fact that the girls of eight might mind very much, even if the culture allows it.

          24. WhoCares says:


            “We have an overwhelming majority perspective and laws in place because of a moral code.”

            Personally, I do get where you’re coming from and appreciate your contribution to the conversation and sharing your perspective.

            I don’t know if you have had any experience with a lengthy legal proceeding or familiarity with various legal theories (I have only recently been educating myself on legal theory and philosophy) but…
            laws do not necessarily follow a moral code.

          25. Joa says:

            Let me start by trying to classify, what is it good? It seems to be a very abstract concept. It seems to be, tahat everyone to have their own definition of good. It seems to be, that most of these definitions to determine the overall picture. Is there a common value, that binds all people?

            Yes, this value is life. This value is our being as humanity. Our development is social value. This value is the survival of mankind.

            Each of us has an instinct, that tells us to defend our own life. If a threat arises, you instinctively fight. For what? To survive.
            (Except for destructive individuals, that eliminate themselves from society).

            People, who combine logic with feeling, feel it instinctively. Need to protect against loss. The need to respect my own and other people’s lives. They know, that good causes a feeling of contentment, fullness, fulfillment, that good is allowing everyone to live in harmony with themselves, as long as it does not interfere with another person’s way of life. You live and you let others live.

            Someone will say, that this is only the point of view of the empaths, and the narcissist thinks only about himself. But the narcissist has the same goal. Narcissus wants to survive. Narcissus needs other people so that he can think about himself. Narcissus needs people staring at him. Narcissus needs living people. A wise narcissist needs people, now and later, for his legacy to survive.

            Life. This is the core value.
            I would call the striving to maintain the universal value of life – my own and others – good. And then, striving for the best condition of this life.

            “I’m a bad person, who does a good job.” It fits in with the above, right?

            So we have a superior value, a common goal. Life.
            Good (our society), I would call all activities, aimed at survival and maintenance of human life. These will be: respect for ourselves and others (even though we stumble and err), tolerance, kindness, understanding, help, learning and knowledge, development, smile, honesty, but also a reprimand, punishment, self-defense, manipulation, flight or attack.

            It’s easy to get lost, isn’t it? That’s why we get lost. But remember, that life is our goal. Life is our signpost. Our life and that of other people.


            Narcissus, a psychopath – believes that he has the right to decide about the lives of others. Only the Aryan race is to live. Only Muslims are to live. Only the rich. Only the mighty. Only Russians. Only…

            They retain existence… for the chosen ones. At the discretion of your own mind. Live as I want or die. Do as I want or suffer. Submit to my will or go away in obivion.

            From my perspective: They are not balanced. They’re bad for our life. They cause losses. They destroy life.
            From their perspective: They “purge” humanity of unwanted elements for the “good” of their own vision. They punish the disobedient. They make life better.

            Which of these perspectives is good? Which is better? Perhaps we need to improve humanity by exterminating “inferior” individuals?

            How to choose which signpost should guide us?

            If I believe, that life is the overriding value. It is my goal to protect this life. Even if you have to kill to save a life. Protect. Not to attack. Attack – only if you’ve been attacked and you know it will happen again and again.
            Extermination – ONLY in special cases. A serial killer, with no hope of a change. A ruthless dictator. A liar, who murders, pretending to be greeted with applause and flowers.


            Have you noticed, that Putin’s narrative is an attack in the name of “cleansing” of Nazism, Satanism, Zionism, pedophilia, child pornography, chemical laboratories etc. etc.? Putin’s narrative is that with this attack, he saves the people of Ukraine, that he brings “freedom to the rotten West” and is “a hope for the World”. They prepare hundreds of fake films of how Russian soldiers save children and animals, feed the poor and help old people walk. Bombed Ukrainian cities still exist in their films and green is just blooming in them and the sun is starting to shine…

            So, Putin trades around with the notions of good and bad. He lies to his citizens by showing good. Realizes that life must be “promoted”.

            Interestingly, when you watch Ukrainian and Russian films and articles, you can notice, that they are completely the same. They differ only in one thing – time. The time, where Russia is always second.

            Ukraine shows, how the Russians are killing civilians.
            A few hours later, the Russian media shows, how Ukrainians are killing their own citizens.

            Ukraine records the song “Bayraktar” and shows, how it eliminates the opponent’s equipment.
            A few hours later, the Russian media record their songs and show, how they are destroying enemy forces.

            Volodymyr Zelensky unmasks the meeting with the flight attendants.
            A few hours later, Russia uses the same method, to prove that Zelenskiy is not in Kiev.

            Volodymyr Zelensky visits the wounded in the hospital.
            A few hours later, Russian generals visit the wounded in the hospital.

            Pro-Ukrainian demonstrations are taking place in many cities around the world.
            Russians show residents of the largest countries with Russian flags.

            The world is imposing sanctions.
            Putin imposes sanctions.

            Companies close or suspend operations in Russia.
            It is Putin who is kicking companies out of Russia!

            The world – nationalization of the wealth of the oligarchs.
            Russia – nationalization of company assets.

            Putin is a COPY. Still the second. Still a fake. Amazing that he just repeats. Like a parrot…


            I back to good.

            I agree, that each person has their own distinct perspective. Each of us is slightly different. Mix of traits. We are not robots (oops, I forgot HG has a remote! 😊).
            I agree, that most people’s perspective is decisive.

            The “objective” good (ie the most objective, that we can afford, subjective individuals, because we cannot leave ourselves) is the sum of subjective goods.

            Why must there be something objective? Because people need a paradigm. Even an axiom. So that on this basis the law, rules and guidelines for all individuals could be created. As in a democracy, the majority decides – the majority of the world, the majority in the state, the majority in the city. So we have a globally objectified good, with differences between countries (contractual borders, dispersion of power), cities and houses. With differences in space and time. If we are in a dilemma, how to proceed, we should turn to the “decisive” global good. All of humanity decides, what is essential for this humanity at any given moment. As a matter of fact, the base has been the same since the dawn of time.

            Each of us, therefore, has two guideposts before us – objective good (as a sum) and subjective (as an individual).
            If your subjective good coincides with objective good, the matter is clear. Are you sure. You have the strength.
            If your subjective good is opposed to the objective good, you have a problem. All that’s left for you to do is: 1. reformulate your perspective, 2. adapt, despite doubts or reluctance 3. lie and pretend that you are adjusting, 4. openly go against the tide.
            Note, that some people stop at point 1, others get to point 2 or 3, the most resistant get to point 4.

            And here we come to another important matter. Empaths see many perspectives. They are able to understand and feel the way they look at world other people’s. They are also able to reformulate and balance their own perspective, to suit both you and me. In a balanced and painless way.

            Narcissus feels and prefers only one perspective, his own, which he reformulates in any way and at any speed. This causes confusion. Chaos kept in check. Ultimately, it always ends in rebellion and anarchy of the people around. Sooner or later.

            Why should we trust the objective good/the good of the majority?
            My answer is: Can you find a better solution? The kind that – like a mother – will ensure stable, sustainable and safe development? Such that will not cause chaos, losses and the risk, that humanity will lose itself while fighting for “its”. What would the world be like, if everyone individually pushed their own vision of “good”? Are we to be eternal troglodytes?


            And one more thing. Too much logic is bad. You need to understand and feel the world in order for your natural subjective good to be identical to objective good. Sometimes, empathy is smarter than dry logic. And definitely much more thrilling! 😊
            Logic is the guardian of empathy (so that it does not get lost, does not get sped up). Logic is an ally of empathy.
            Logic itself is a set of sterile deduction. Gymnastics – theses and assumptions. Let us not forget, who logic is to serve. Not you. And not you. And neither not you. US.

            It annoys me, when good is presented as the choice of the majority – in a pejorative and cold light. Give me a better alternative!


            Alice NW – I like your sentence: “There’s a point where perception comes down to sanity versus insanity when one can’t reason but only react.” And many more of your wonderful words! Thank you! Girl, you keeps my faith in World!
            But you overestimate Trump. Pandora’s Box is always open.

            NA – everything is correct. Consistently and sensibly. Except for one sentence, that triggered my boil: “It changes nothing for those who do not buy in, and it does not make either group right or wrong.” What will this approach lead to? Impunity? Infirmity? No morale? What is the point of forging this type of cold logic?

            HG – if there is no objective standard, on what basis is the law constructed? Limping and sick in many places and time, but still quite consistent at the core. Constantly refined and corrupted by the imperfect individuals we are.
            Yes, the rape example was given by Leigh, but you exaggerated it in a way, that causes my inner “ultra fucking opposition” (although, I understand what you are writing about, because I learned about incest up close – though not the my skin).
            If there is no great arbiter (humanity!), who has decreed what is right and wrong, where do you get the concepts you use from? So maybe it’s better, without mixing good and bad, say: “I am a man, who does what he thinks is right.”

            WhoCares – an example of taking and isolating children. An idea worthy of a narcissist – usually followed by a herd. Empaths will not always manage to “break” the wall. Sometimes, and even as a rule, it takes time. We are quite sluggish in our actions. First you have to find yourself, orientate yourself, make sure… blah, blah, blah.
            The second example – they are struggling: the right to custody of a child with the need to protect the child. The child’s welfare is of overriding importance (majority axiom, future of generations) – such issues should be decided individually, with a balance between careful interference and vigilant control.

            Leigh, I really like what you say. But absolute good does not exist, it is an idea, reaching for divinity. Rape of a child is objectively wrong (subjective majority).
            Adolf Hitler is responsible for the deaths of about 50 million people (including about 6 million Jews – in Poland alone it was about 3 million Polish Jews and 3 million Poles). HG is right, many believed that the “utilization” of Jews and other nations was the right thing to do. Social engineering in Germany and outside, did its job, as it does now in Russia (imposed narrative). The objective good, which is the preservation of the superior value – life – has been replaced with the subjective good of an authoritarian individual and for a long time “fogged” with manipulative ideas, suggesting that the aggressor is a savior and liberator for the objective good. A lie, that contradicts all facts.

            Authoritarian individual – pest, no inhibitions – to be eliminated.

            History shows, that pests of this type, violating the objective good understood in this way, are finally rendered harmless and eliminated. Unless they die a natural death earlier (like Stalin – according to the dubious official version). Unfortunately, it was allowed to be replaced by another pest, that took over heirloom, with the not fully “cured” society. A society, that is bursting with jealousy, that the smaller neighbor (Ukraine), who was equally ill, recovers so quickly. A society, that hates all the recovering ex-satellite countries and wants to bring them down again.

            I’m sorry, to involve Russia here, but this situation is very, very much alive in me. In addition, in parallel, I am conducting a public polemic on this topic elsewhere (provocation of N1 and his entourage of doubles, but I could not be silent, let him grab the fuel, there are more important issues for me).


            If we provide superior value (life), we can take care of its security. All you need is a roof over your head and food. This is the basis, that an individual should have. Leave the rest (quality of life, purpose, standard of living, lifestyle) to the individual.
            If individual aspirations do not collide with the superior value (life maintenance), but limit another life, trample another life, it should be educated or eliminated socially (punishment). Or, as HG teaches us, try to understand this rough perspective and its causes by reducing friction, avoiding or using the antidote given. Infect people’s with good elements of science, eliminate “evil” from the bottom up.

            To save life, you need both empathy and narcissism. Kept in check.
            Good and wisdom, altruism and selfishness should go hand in hand. In parallel.


            Live and let others live. It is a universal value.
            Maintaining a universal value is an “objective” good.
            It is a good, that we should do for ourselves and for each other. This is the goal.
            Good, understood in this way, should be a compass in the maze of complexities, desires and aspirations.


            Yes, I am an idealist. But without fanaticism (?) 😊
            I think, I fit in with the “objective” majority, ha ha ha 😊

            I’m sorry for the length of this post… Sorry, I had to let out it go.
            Congratulations to anyone, who got through this 😊

            Gee, I need a translator! It took me 3 hours…
            Jesus, I’m going to take a bath. I smell! 😊

          26. Leigh says:

            Joa, Yay me! I got through it! Thank goodness I had the day off today because it took me 3 hours to read! Just kidding!

            When I first read NAs comment, my first reaction was, there absolutely is an absolute wrong. Whats interesting though, I don’t think there is an absolute right or good.

            What I’ve learned is that good/bad and right/wrong is subjective and ever changing. I get to decide to what’s right or good for me though.

            My biggest issue is hurting other people in order to make oneself feel better.

            I hope you enjoyed your bath. 😀

          27. WhoCares says:


            “My biggest issue is hurting other people in order to make oneself feel better.”

            I agree with the essence of this statement.
            But unfortunately empathic individuals can be duped into actions that potentially cause the hurt of other people. People can and do make decisions based on a subjective view of reality – and it does make them “feel better” – providing confirmation that their view of the world is thus supported.
            Sometimes they simply lack a view of the whole picture – so therefore, they are unknowingly causing the hurt of others, yet they derive self-satisfaction from those decisions*…So could we, potentially, label this act or decision as a ‘selfish’ act?

            Judges, who view the world through rose-colored glasses can make lasting decisions that negatively impact children for the long-term. But those judges make a decision based their ideal that people (everyone) CAN change and that everyone should just ‘get along’, be given a second chance – or better yet – that there is a therapeutic solution to every problem.

            *See my earlier point about residential schools in Canada.

          28. Leigh says:

            Hi WhoCares, I think I’ve been misunderstood. I agree that empathic individuals can make errors in judgement and make a “wrong or bad” choice. I say that with the understanding that wrong or bad is very subjective. Maybe its a bad choice for them but not necessarily for someone else. I also understand that when someone doesn’t have all the information their decision may be different. Like when a judge is making a decision, he thinks he’s making the best decision for the child but without all the facts and information he may not be making the best decision. I know that many judges don’t understand narcissism and are missing that fundamental piece of information. In that instance, I wouldn’t say the judge is absolutely wrong. He’s basing his decision on the facts he has.

            I’m not so rigid in my thinking that I only see good/bad or right/wrong. I know there are many variables. I know not everything is either absolutely good or absolutely bad. I know there is a middle ground too. I’m merely saying that for me, there are certain instances that are absolutely wrong. I’ll go back to my original examples. Raping a child and Adolf Hitler exterminating other human beings is absolutely wrong to me.

          29. WhoCares says:


            It’s possible I did misunderstand you.
            However, just so you know, I don’t believe you’re a rigid thinker, nope.

            If I thought that, I wouldn’t have bothered to comment and pose my example to you.

            But, upon reflection, I think that my judge example wasn’t a good one. I may think of a better one…

          30. Leigh says:

            LOL! I’m even more confused now. Thank you for your comment about me not being a rigid thinker. I do have certain beliefs but I try to be open minded as well. I’m not always successful though, lol!

          31. annaamel says:

            Joa, this post is both epic and excellent. Thank you for putting so much into it.

          32. annaamel says:

            “It is a good, that we should do for ourselves and for each other. This is the goal.
            Good, understood in this way, should be a compass in the maze of complexities, desires and aspirations.”

            Joa, this reminded me of the Eightfold Path in Buddhism – tenets for living based on the principle of ‘do no harm.’ Right speech, right thought, right livelihood etc… The word ‘right’ doesn’t mean correct as much as it means ‘least harmful’.

            It does rely on a sense of our commonality, rather than our own exceptionalism. It’d impossible to live by these tenets if winning was imperative. Perhaps a middle ground in those instances could be to win but with as little harm done as possible.

          33. Alice NW says:

            Narcissists are sometimes incestuous. They don’t see it as wrong. The child who it’s being forced upon likely does see it as wrong, and will likely grow up harboring some psychological problems from it.

            The narcissist doesn’t look at it from the child’s perspective. He only sees it as a moment of naughty pleasure, not as a lifelong secret memory this kids going to remember over and over again.

            A narcissist will tell a sad story of how he was abused as a child, and he’ll have an angry grudge toward his abuser for how they wronged him. But when he’s abusive to someone else it’s okay from his perspective.

            A problem with a narcissists perspective is that it is often harmful and unhealthy to others.

            The Moral to this story is sometimes you have to set aside your own interests and act on the best interests of others.

            It’s the mature thing to do, even when you don’t feel like it.

          34. Joa says:

            Leigh, I was laughing, when I read your comment 😊 Good to know you did it! 😊

            Morning bathing in the bathtub and going to work every day with wet hair, even when it is -15 degrees outside, are my hallmarks, ha ha ha 😊

            That morning, I contented myself with brushing my teeth and decided to write first, but it took me a few hours + translation, with breaks for “life”, so morning turned into afternoon.

            When it comes to hurting people, to make you feel better. I guess, it happened to everyone. I have such tendencies too. It happened more often in my youth. Now I have better control – myself. I let go. I learned this. And I redirect my attention.

            You live with Narcissus, it makes things difficult.

          35. Leigh says:

            Joa, I didn’t see this comment until today. WordPress is terrible with the notifications.

            I hope you had a nice day writing that day. Its always good for the soul to do something to love to do and to take time to relax.

            Yes, I live with narcissists and still try not to hurt people to make myself feel better. I guess thats what makes me different than the narcissist.

            I don’t want to sound like I’m telling you what to do. But, you shouldn’t be going out with a wet head.

        2. Alice NW says:


          If there are people who believe raping a child is not wrong, then thank Heaven there is a world majority that agrees it is horribly wrong.

          There’s no value in the life of a mind that has no morals. If raping a child is right to a person, then there can be nothing that is wrong to them.

          1. HG Tudor says:

            “No Morals” – by whose standard is the concept of morals defined? See how easily you fall into the trap again.

          2. Alice NW says:


            You opened my eyes to narcissism, and I’ve learned a great deal from you. One of them is to not bother trying to discuss something with a narcissist who is defending himself.

            I came here wondering how an ultra narcissist would stop Putin’s invasion. Say if you were a leader of a country, and wanted to put a stop to Russia bombing nuclear power plants for example. I was surprised there weren’t any comments here regarding the invasion.

            You have now given a summary of Putin’s life so far in a new series. I’m sure it will be interesting.

          3. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Alice, maybe because in the past, every time we talk politics we get into chaos. I find your question very pertinent, I also would love to know from HG’s infinite wisdom whether it could be possible to stop Putin’s invasion and in that case, how. My fear is that it is not, because I suspect Putin is a psychopath with a megalomaniac personality and once moved by an impulse, there will be no way to make him abandon his objective.

          4. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Unfortunately, this was a common practice completely validated in past civilizations. Maybe not a baby, but much of the literature and art we revere now shows cases of sexualized children. Classic Greeks and Roman found it completely civilized to have sex with underage kids. And nowadays, many cultures still consider legal the practice of little girls’ marriages to older men. Not saying I do, just that, as we are discussing, what is right or wrong morally is subjective and volatile.

        3. NarcAngel says:

          I am not giving anyone a free pass, and did not say that I, (or anyone else) should accept whatever acts a person commits as ok. I am simply observing that independent views that form a majority perspective do not change that view or definition for others. What’s more, and complicates things for some, is that the moral majority perspective is subject to change over time, proving that there is no “right”, only “right now”. Slavery comes to mind. Religion also. What once was “right” according to the majority perspective is now inconceivable to have been considered as such. The acts did not change – only the majority perspective regarding them.

          1. Leigh says:

            NA, I know you didn’t give a free pass but that won’t stop a narcissist from using it as an excuse if given the chance. They will twist words to suit there own needs.

            I agree that the major perspective can change. I used Slavery as my example too.

            I also agree that that my view ot the majority perspective view won’t change other people’s views.

            Its just that first sentence that I struggled with. For me, there is absolutely an absolute wrong. Like hurting other human beings to meet one’s own selfish needs.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            Absolute from your perspective. It is not an objective absolute.

          3. A Victor says:

            Okay, I absolutely felt it was wrong for my mother to abuse me. My mother felt it was absolutely right to do so. Okay.

          4. Alice NW says:

            Isn’t it curious that the cruelty of slavery seems like a very narcissistic thing to do. And then that a lot of people lost their lives in the Civil War freeing slaves because they had such a strong conviction that it was wrong. Ironically and artistically it looks kind of like a war between narcissists and empaths.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            More likely a war between narcissists who are the leaders of the two sides involved.

          6. Alice NW says:


            I’m bored with the insinuation that empathetic people are not great and powerful leaders. That every time there’s a great leader, you want to peg them as a narcissist, and then turn around and give a ridiculously low percentage of NPD’s in the world. It doesn’t add up. Empathetic people are also brave and powerful people who indeed lead. One can lead out of a sense of duty, it’s not just from egomaniac narcs wanting fame, power and glory. Empathetic’s have a strong sense of right and wrong.

            Just on an everyday basis; I’m not an inefficient perfectionist for example, but I do my work quickly with rare errors because it’s as easy to do a job well as it is to do it halfway. I contribute ideas to make work better because I see it as teamwork. I lead without trying, and I’m not a yes-man, I speak out if I don’t agree. I’ve had my share of narcissistic smearing and have handled it gracefully and with a smile. That’s what empathetic people do. Yes, a lot of narcs might be managers, but not because they’re good at what they do. Narcs can be good at their work, but they are easily influenced by cliques, gossip, favoritism and so on.

            Narc leaders: Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-Un, trump, Saudi Crown Prince.

            Empathetic’s can be stern and discipline others because it’s for the good. Empathetic’s are also self-disciplined, persistent in their goals and fiercely brave and determined.

            An NPD might be accustomed to seeing only the empaths they reduce to a stressed last nerve, but that’s not who we are in the least and we aren’t weak because of that. Weakness in fact is a bully blind sighting innocent people who trusted them, who didn’t see the blow coming. Stand up to a bully or a Narc, and you see how weak they are.

            Personality is individual whether you’re a Narc or an empath, both can excel or be mediocre.

          7. HG Tudor says:


            I am bored with the inaccuracy.

            1. Everything time there is a great leader I do not peg them as a narcissist. Provide some evidence for this assertion, but before you do, I suggest you take a look through the famous empaths and famous narcissists material.
            2. 15% is the rough percentage of narcissists in the world. It is a minority but a sizeable one and as I have explained many, many times before becoming a world leader or a political leader caters to the Prime Aims to such a degree it draws far more of our kind so the number of our kind in such positions is over-represented.
            3. Nobody said that empathic people cannot lead etc, so banging the drum about that is irrelevant.
            4. Fame, wealth, power etc draw more of our kind than they do of those who are empaths for reasons which I have again made clear many times previously.
            5. These arenas become infested with our kind meaning that commonly in order to survive and thrive you need to be of our kind. Again, not always, but more often it is the case.
            6. It is interesting that you list several individuals as Narc leaders but do not provide a list of empathic ones. Given what you state in your comment, you surely must be able to list them, why did you not? Perhaps a rare error.

            Your observations are high on emotional protest rather than founded on logic and evidence.

          8. Violetta says:

            There would most certainly be narcs who used abolition to feel superior not only to slavery-supporters, but also to other abolitionists who weren’t as dedicated as they were.

            I’m not sure what an empath slaveholder would look like, but I suspect the Normals would try to treat their own slaves “decently,” by their own definition: not breaking up families or ordering whippings or worse tortures, but they wouldn’t be too worried about changing an entire system that made people like Delphine LaLaurie possible.

          9. pete says:

            For an empath to lead something that has a lot of status attached to it they would have to be prepared. They would have to know about narcissism in advance, as they would be surrounded by them, the ‘infestation’ 🙂 .

            An empath going for corporate CEO or Prime Minister would have to handle the narcissists around them who are competing for the same role, the narcissists have the natural abilities in that arena. I can’t imagine hardly any empaths becoming that type of leader.

            I can imagine empaths becoming a pastor because the power structure is different. You just do your theology degree and the leadership position in a church can be secured not long after.

          10. Alice NW says:


            I did not list empathetic leaders in anticipation of you saying no, they are narcs, which was my point. The several narcissist leaders I listed are an example of how they are not good at their work. Yes, spare me, I know they’re effective at meeting their own aims, but they won’t go down in history as great leaders.

          11. HG Tudor says:

            Depends who writes the history though doesn’t it? Take Trump, some see him as an awful president and others as a brilliant one.

            Your explanation with regard to a failure to list empathic leaders does not sit with what you wrote previously.

          12. Alice NW says:


            So far as how Trump will go down in history being left up to perception, I’m very sure that our forefathers who created our democracy, and the soldiers who fought defending it from a madman antisemitic dictator, would view Trumps love of Putin and Jong-un, and dislike of our allies, plus the accusation by his own party of plans to withdraw us from the UN, his election tampering attempts, his leadership to the Capitol takeover attempt, to name just a few of his traitorous antics, unfavorably and as an attempt to undo all of the hard work they did ensuring the freedom and democracy of the US.

            There are laws, and Trump has allegedly and most assuredly broken quite a lot of them. He’s the first President to be impeached twice. An orange jumpsuit will match his orange face so well.

        4. Alexissmith2016 says:

          It’s a really difficult concept to get your head around Leigh that people operate from different perspectives but trust me, once you do, it completely alters your thinking and understanding of Ns to a point where you can almost completely understand them. That does not mean I sympathise with them, I don’t. But I do believe since I understood their world view it all makes perfect sense.

          1. Leigh says:

            Hi Alexis, I think I have a good grasp of their worldview. I understand why they do what they do.

            My problem is that even though I understand it, I still think their worldview is wrong. I also understand that’s just my perspective.

            This is why I think narcissism sucks!

          2. Sweetest Perfection says:

            I agree with you both, Alexis and Leigh. I understand narcs view interactions from a different perspective and thanks to HG’s work, I can kind understand what they think or what they mean when they say something. The problem is not how they perceive the world, but their modus operandi. They act egotistically and callously, when things could always be done in a friendly manner. But when you don’t have empathy, that’s irrelevant.

          3. Leigh says:

            Very well stated Sweet Pea and I agree 100%

          4. A Victor says:

            I think it’s a matter of acceptance. We must accept that they think differently and act on their thinking differently. Once I accepted this, with my mom since she’s in my life currently, things became much easier.

        5. NarcAngel says:

          No need to struggle. You’re just wrong and that’s the truth. Absolutely. My perception, my truth. Final answer.

          Put down the gun. I’M KIDDING!!!

          1. Leigh says:

            Just for that, I’m adding emojis to this reply, lol!


          2. A Victor says:

            Haha! I think this thread shows clearly how empaths can have various differing perspectives on things and to each of us, our view is correct. Thank you for showing this to us so well NA with your initial comment and the ensuing discussion.

          3. Leigh says:

            I agree AV! Many of us do have differing views. These discussions always broaden my mind a little bit more.

      3. Alice NW says:

        Narc’s are created having emotional narcissism, the kind that causes the rest of us to walk on eggshells around them. They’re not just logical Mr Spock’s going about without emotion. They are full of emotions that they might try to keep inside and unnoticed, but which manifests by loading it onto others back’s and off of theirs – and then they feel proud of themselves for it.

        I imagine a lot of what you’ve referred to as normal society not agreeing on everything actually includes narcissists mixed in our society. A lot of narcissists probably don’t care so much about an issue, but they’re strong supporters protesting and invading the Capital for example, because it’s about being in a type of clique and having a façade. A lot of them are probably even guilty of whatever they’re opposing.

        What then is this story referring to as a Majority Rule? To me it’s implying that a narcissistic majority society would have a different point of view than current days. Does that mean it would be opposite of our current ones? How would a narcissistic society have a sense or set of what’s right or wrong when nothing is right or wrong to them in the first place?

        I’m questioning, what is Majority Rule in a Narcissistic majority society? It keeps being said that we think there’s only One Reality, what is the other reality then? What’s the narcissist reality and majority rule specifically?

        1. HG Tudor says:


          Narcissists have a reduced emotional spectrum and are not “full of emotions that they might try to keep inside and unnoticed” on the contrary many of the narcissist´s emotions are displayed.

          There are lots of different realities all personal to the relevant holders. Many people have evolved in a similar way, hence they hold the Majority Perspective, they share a similar perspective and then there are other perspectives outside of this Majority Perspective.

          1. Sweetest Perfection says:

            To follow up on that, not everybody experiences “the Real” in the same way, which challenges the presumption that majority’s view is the absolute one. I, as it has been discussed in the past in the blog, see colors in letters, names, and color and texture in some sounds. Until I was 16 I totally believed everybody did. I am not right or wrong, I simply perceive it that way. I understand what you are saying, HG. When we talk about morality, we tend to believe the human kind tends to do what is generally accepted as morally correct for the sake of well-being of other humans. But history demonstrates this is actually not true.

          2. HG Tudor says:


          3. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Or not… haha

      4. Sweetest Perfection says:

        Nietzsche: “There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe.” Peer pressure is a thing. It has sufficiently been demonstrated that the influence of the majority can alter the view or opinion of an individual, whether that person originally agreed with the majority’s view or not, just to avoid exclusion from the group. There’s a need to separate “reality,” which admits plurality, from the objective “real” which is what we all experience as a tangible world out there (even though this will not be valid for quantum mechanics). This argumentation is actually a fantastic excuse for narcs to do whatever they fucking want to and then tell you that everything is relative so, suck it up buttercup!

        1. A Victor says:

          Hi SP, this conversation made me think this morning of the first recorded murder. Whether one believes it as truth or a tale, Cain seemingly did not have peer pressure, he just saw that he was jealous and the way to fix it was to kill the object of his jealousy, to him it was right to do. Interestingly, it appears he holds to that thinking, only bemoaning the fact of the consequences placed upon him, it is never recorded that he regretted killing his brother. I think the people around him saw the death of Abel as a loss, possibly as wrong, but I don’t know that they influenced each other to this, I think they just knew it to be wrong. But to Cain it was right.

          1. A Victor says:

            But yes, peer pressure does affect things, I’m not disagreeing with that at all, just saying it can be a factor, but not necessarily always is.

          2. Sweetest Perfection says:

            AV, Genesis and the whole Bible (Torah/Christian New Testament) together with other texts considered sacred scriptures to me: the Rig Veda and the Upanishads, the diverse Buddhist Sutras, or the Quran, to name a few of the ones I have read, are purely mythological and to be read as exempla (Latin for exemplary roles of social morality, social practices and conduct), as also to explain rites in each tradition. I do not take them literally, therefore, I do not believe in a literal person named Cain who killed his brother named Abel and that they were the only two offsprings of the only two couple existing on Earth. That would pose many interesting questions regarding our so-called morality and what our modern society regards as taboo, i.e.: incest. Of course Cain didn’t feel any peer pressure, from whom? The other people you mention in your comment were not such if we read Genesis literally. There’s a gap in that book wherein the author(s) forgot to clarify where the other people come from. I don’t believe in religious texts, sorry. I simply read them from a genuine intellectual, anthropological curiosity. My comment was based on Philosophy and the very well demonstrated experiment that we human beings are easily manipulated into wanting to establish belonging to the group, which explains historical events that we classify as human atrocities and that, however, we keep on repeating and even justifying.

          3. Sweetest Perfection says:

            *Upanishads is a section of the whole Rigveda. I know of someone who would devalue me for making that basic mistake.

          4. A Victor says:

            The Upanishads and the Rigveda we’re the ones I had not heard of.

          5. A Victor says:

            Hi SP, I wasn’t speaking from a theological POV, except as many base their morality on such things, in all of the religions/religious materials that you mentioned. And they are all unique to themselves in some way, with variations on a theme. I tried to downplay the viewing of my comment as fact, some will believe it’s source as such, others will not. I was only trying to say that seemingly even without peer pressure, people will often do what they believe to be right, according to their perception. And this could go along with the majority perspective but it also may not, as you say.

            I think there is an element of survival at play with the NK and Putin events you mention, in such situations, who wouldn’t go along, that would only be insanity.

          6. A Victor says:

            Oh shoot, I didn’t say it clearly still, I’ll try again. Even without peer pressure, different perspectives will cause different actions justified by their different “morality”, maybe that’s it.

            This is a difficult concept to wrap my head around, thank you for your thoughts on it.

          7. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Why does WordPress only notify me of certain comments but not of others? AV, we basically agree. In the case of narcissists, their actions don’t necessarily obey any peer pressure but their narcissism interprets information in a way to guarantee control. The ULA justification of cheating for example illustrates their skewed morality: “yes, I know I am lying. But I am not lying to you. I have never lied to you and never will. I know this is cheating but, how can you stop desire? My wife and I go to couple’s counseling. I really care about that so we can’t meet at that time but let’s meet the next day when she’s at work.”

          8. Sweetest Perfection says:

            I always wondered about siblings’ relationships in the Old Testament. I did not get along with my younger sister, but, not to the point of killing her or selling her into slavery! Of all the texts I mentioned my favorite is the Upanishads. Anyway yes, how scary to live in a totalitarian regime with a Neronian leader! I read some news yesterday that claim that some images from Putin’s rally were actually taken from a past public appearance from last year. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s true.

          9. A Victor says:

            I wonder about a lot of the relationships in the Old Testament, some were so odd. I’ll check out the Upanishads.

            I’ve heard similar claims about some other things also. It would be unsurprising.

          10. Leigh says:

            I think you said it clearly. Sometimes peer pressure is a factor, but not always. At least that’s how I understood it.

          11. Sweetest Perfection says:

            I know she did but when someone cites a religious text to prove a point I get defensive. I should relax a little, sorry for my “tirade” though I wasn’t angry and I totally agree with AV’s point. It hasn’t been discussed how the current world situation is affecting us, empaths. I don’t know about you, friends, but I find myself deeply sad these days and in a perpetual state of “fight/flight.”

          12. Leigh says:

            Hi Sweet Pea, I was just letting her know that I thought her comment made sense. It wasn’t against anything you said. I make it point to not discuss religion. I have the minority perspective when it comes to religion, lol.

          13. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Leigh no worries, I was feeling guilty for being an ass myself, nothing to do with you!

          14. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Now you sparked my curiosity, Leigh. The minority perspective… what do you practice? Raelism? (said with all
            my respect for Raelians out there).

          15. Leigh says:

            LOL! Yes and if you’re not careful, I’m going to have my leader abduct you. LOL! I’m just kidding.

            The truth is I believe in a higher power but I don’t believe in structural religion. That’s all I think I want to say about that. Most people get upset when you start talking religion and I’d rather not start another debate, lol.

          16. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Oh, I believe the same, Leigh! Yay!!! Minority Friends! ❤️❤️❤️ I don’t get upset when talking religion, it is a very interesting topic to me, and that’s why I have studied many religious traditions. I get upset when anyone pulls out a quote from the Bible as a piece of evidence of anything. First of all, it is not scientific data to demonstrate anything, and second, why do you think the Bible has more authority than, let’s say, the Bhagavad Gita? And if you defend the former, have you also read the latter, or is your opinion simply based on your own family upbringing? I find the use of religion to prove any evidence as accurate as quoting from Alice in Wonderland, for example.

          17. Leigh says:

            To circle back to the original discussion, I would agree that religion is very subjective.

          18. A Victor says:

            No need to apologize, I understood what was happening. Religious themed discussions, parts of discussions, are hot button. I usually try to avoid them in places where they are not the intended focus. I probably should have here.

            Yes, the world situation is weighing on people, likely empaths more than others also. It is hard to think of people’s lives being upset as they are and feel so helpless to do anything substantial about it. And that’s not to mention the concerns we might have about it escalating in some really dangerous ways.

          19. A Victor says:

            Thanks. One reason I thought it was important is that to narcissists per pressure is irrelevant, unless it serves their purpose. To others, non narcissists, peer pressure could have more effect depending on the circumstances. Narcs do what they want.

          20. Sweetest Perfection says:

            * the only one couple, not two couple sorry. Two people who make a couple haha.
            Yes definitely I agree with your second comment, AV. Not everyone acts out of peer pressure. I just said that the view of the majority sometimes is taken for fear of not belonging or being excluded from the group (as also for fear of threatening factors). I am thinking of the people that gather together to celebrate and flatter the leader of North Korea or more recently, Putin in his public appearance. I would be terrified to not do so if I lived in any of the two countries!

        2. Leigh says:

          Sweet P, I love this!

          Nietzsche: “There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe.”

          The truthseeher in me wants to know, not just believe.

          Thank you for sharing that!

          1. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Thank Nietzsche, Leigh! Haha, I’m glad you found it motivating!

  6. Duchessbea says:

    Brilliant article HG.

  7. Leigh says:

    Mr. Tudor, you always post these articles at the perfect time. Thank you.

    1. HG Tudor says:


      1. Duchessbea says:

        HG, love your responses. Humble and down to earth. Love it.

      2. Violetta says:

        Speaking of timing, more Stig, please? I could use a good laugh about now.

      3. Not So Sad says:

        HG .
        Hi again .
        Not So Sad here .. 🙂 Long time no see !
        I just thought I should let you know that because of everything I learned from you. I’m seven years FREE of abuse.
        Thank you for that .. NNS

        1. N says:

          BTW I still think you’re a narcissistic TWAT, BUT then again I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing right now because of you .
          Take that anyway you like ..
          NNS X

        2. HG Tudor says:

          Such are my powers I am able to provide you with freedom for a period longer than I have been making my knowledge public.

          1. Asp Emp says:

            That is a new revelation, HG. I am not surprised to read that your ‘work’ started before creating KTN blog. So good to read as such 🙂

          2. Violetta says:

            Yeah, I did wonder at the arithmetic. Thought it was never my best subject anyway.

  8. NatAlie says:

    Our emotional thinking is what allows us to adapt and survive the tragic situations of our life.
    The unavoidable ones. Such as our reared environment. ( I can not view it as a childhood. It was not) My emotional thinking lied to me in order to protect me and survive the situations I had no control over. The emotional thinking does not know it can escape now. It only knows it must find a logical , acceptable reason for what is occurring in the moment in order to sustain our mental facilities.

    1. A Victor says:

      NatAlie, I relate to your comment so much. We have to choose to break away from our ET, and what a fight it is! Certainly the “emotional sea” analogy that HG uses is fitting, it is a battle and we either learn to swim/stay in control of the boat, or sink! Thank you for this comment, I really like your use of “reared environment”, that works well also.

    2. Asp Emp says:

      NatAlie, interesting to state “It was not” a childhood. I’d agree to a degree. Yet it was the only one we ‘had’ as the saying goes “You only have one life”. And that is the sad part of having narcissistic parents / carers.

      In my view, it is a very well worded comment, giving a different perspective on ET and how it can be ‘trained’ from an early age to how it can be ‘retrained’ through a different ‘lens’ of the ‘prism’ of life.

    3. Leigh says:

      Hi NatAlie, I once saw another ACON (Adult Child of a Narcissist) refer to her parents as genitors. That comment really resonated with me. My so called “parents” were genitors. Reared environment is another comment that will resonate with me as well. It was a reared environment with genitors not a childhood with parents. Thank you for sharing this comment.

  9. Bubbles says:

    Dear Mr Tudor,
    ‘Something doesn’t feel right’ with what Rhianna is (not) wearing regarding her baby bump 🤰🏽
    Rebel Wilson was also cringeworthy to watch at the BAFTA awards
    I’m finding these celebrities so boring, tiring and embarrassing to watch now, their fake is showing like neon signs big time
    Thank you Mr Tudor hehe 😉
    Luv Bubbles xx 😘

    1. Asp Emp says:

      Bubbles, I was watching ‘The One Show’ the other week and Rebel was guest on it. Now, I did not know for a fact about her but it was her behaviours that gave me some indication but not for sure. It was bordering on ‘cringe-worthy’. I find myself cringing when I see a celebrity (now I realise why) and will just change the channel (with a “protest” of ‘not fkg watching that’ LOL). Some of them are so OBVIOUS! 🙂

      1. Bubbles says:

        Dearest Asp Emp,
        She’s Aussie and has lost weight, who cares? She does ! So many people on social media are doing senseless dribble about themselves that no one really gives a continental about. What have we become ? Please make it stop, whaaaaaaa !!! 😩
        Luv Bubbles xx 😘

        1. Asp Emp says:

          Bubbles, thank you for sharing more ‘intel’ on her 😉 Laughing at your use of “senseless dribble about themselves”…. hilarious. xx 🙂

          1. Bubbles says:

            Dearest Asp Emp,
            It hurts my nearly worn out weary brain and delicate ears 🤣
            Luv Bubbles xx 😘

          2. Asp Emp says:

            Bubbles, well, I suppose I am an ‘earily’ lucky one in that respect 😉

  10. Savoy Truffle says:

    “He hardly ever kisses me.”
    “I don’t feel loved.”
    “He is still stalking his ex.”
    “He gives that same sweet talk to everybody.”
    “I feel like one of his tools.”
    “I wonder if he thinks he can fake his way through a relationship.”

    1. Traci says:

      I completely hear you!

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

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