Charlie Kirk : His Wife’s Reaction
What is being witnessed in the public responses of Erica Kirk? Questions that require answers.
195 thoughts on “Charlie Kirk : His Wife’s Reaction”
Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Hello HG,
It’s good to see that your coverage of someone other than TOW is bringing in similar numbers of views on YT. I am enjoying your latest videos on Erika Kirk – especially The Blueberry Devaluation. (That statement of Erika’s did land weird, but it wasn’t clear to me why exactly when I heard it.) To think that she immortalized that moment, on social media, where she basically blames her daughter’s blueberry consumption for her father’s absence.
Thank you and yes, plenty of people are interested in Erika Kirk which is gratifying for that to be the case rather than TOW.
I have just listened to HG’s video about Erika Kirk and the allegations about her being involved in a ‘charity’ operating in Romania that is linked to child sex-trafficking.
As HG explains in the video, the specific allegations about child trafficking in Romania are baseless.
The specific allegations may be baseless, but what it does show – and this is factual – is that numerous tax-exempt “charities” have been established by wealthy people tightly connected with the Republican party.
Erika Kirk formed her charity ‘Everyday Heroes Like You’ in 2006 when she was only 18 – the minimum legal age to sign legal binding contracts under Contract Law. This is not an allegation. It is factual and it is suspicious and incriminating. Charlie Kirk, a college-dropout, also established the tax-exempt TPUSA when he was 18 years old.
According to Wikipedia, TPUSA funded Charlie and Erika’s wedding reception.
I wonder if the “charity” also funds events for other TPUSA employees? Does it fund the 21st birthday parties or the bar mitzvahs or, I don’t know, the housewarming parties of other staff?
This is totally a conspiracy theory, but my spidey senses immediately after Charlie Kirk was shot was that Trump had something to do with it. Why I don’t know but I just feel it very strongly. Charlie’s wife’s behavior has been very performative and suspicious from the very beginning, also. I think they’re hiding something.
I also think Trump faked his own “assassination attempt.”
Again, just my sense as crazy as it may sound.
Hi All,
While I appreciate the kind comments reassuring me, I brought up my thoughts of inadequacy because I was trying to put myself in Constance Marten’s shoes.
Mr. Tudor has said in the past that when we’re in the grips of a narcissist, we often do things we wouldn’t normally do. We’re in a fog because of emotional thinking. After we’re away from the narcissist for some time, we then ask ourselves, “what were we thinking” or “how did we allow this to happen”.
I’m wondering, due to Marten’s father leaving and her feelings of inadequacy, did she look to Gordon for answers. I know for myself, while I was raising my children, I often looked to my narc husband for answers. Of course I didn’t know he was a narc at the time. I didn’t want to be as hard on them as my father was on me. But I also didn’t want to be as lenient on them as my mother was on me. I would often ask my husband what he thought and sometimes I would even do what he suggested.
Since Marten has limited empathy, was in a fog and had feelings of inadequacy, if Gordon reassured her or told her not to worry, did she then not even consider that there was an issue with her children?
I wonder what’s happening now. Now that the fog is diminishing, is she realizing what she’s done?
I’m not excusing her behavior. It was abhorrent and she should suffer the consequences of that behavior. I’m just trying to work it out in my head how someone with empathy was able to let it get this far.
Hi Leigh,
HG does state that Marten (finally spelled that correctly) showed signs of Codependency. Clearly not enough for her to be fully Codependent. One of the key characteristics of Codependency is an inability to make decisions, so what you are suggesting here does tie in to that Codependent aspect of her personality. Marten likely would defer to Gordon in terms of decisions, which would further explain why she failed to act appropriately in protection of her baby.
I agree. The aim here is not to excuse her behaviours but rather to better understand them.
Thanks for the info on codependency, TS. that clicks something into place for me about a friendship group that imploded for me in the past. My “normal” friend sided with two other narcissist friends who weren’t happy with me not doing their bidding anymore.. it all blew up and I went NC. She was definitely high in codependency and asked them to decide if she should still visit even when she was ill, rather than deciding herself or letting them know she couldn’t. That helps a lot. Thank you. 🙏
You’re welcome Jade.
Yes, that’s exactly what I was thinking, TS. Due to her codependency traits, she would defer the decision making to Gordon. I wondered if she really thought she was protecting the baby. I just can’t get past the fact that baby Victoria was gone for weeks and she did nothing about it. That’s the piece I can’t reconcile in my head.
Hi Leigh,
She saw her family as the enemy. She saw the authorities as the enemy. The real enemy was in full control of her. Gordon would have cautioned her that she couldn’t trust anyone or they would both be arrested. She was without friends and entirely isolated. The only voice she would have heard was his. Add in shock, guilt, grief, shame etc. Once baby Victoria was lost to her, it’s quite possible that she hung on to Gordon even more, he was the only person that she had left to lose.
UGH! Let me tell you something, TS. This empathy things sucks sometimes!
She really doesn’t deserve my empathy but after reading that, it made me feel incredibly sad for her. She was isolated, alone and desperate.
Its not an excuse. She should’ve stood up for baby Victoria. But I understand her a little better now. Thank you, TS.
Hi Leigh,
It is tough empathy wise. My empathy focusses on the baby. My two are legally adults in a few weeks. I’d still willingly lay down for them, in a heartbeat if it meant they would be ok. So I find it incredibly difficult to accept when a mother with emotional empathy doesn’t do the same thing. One job as a mother, that’s it, just the one job, protect your child.
That’s me though, saying that where I have control of my own actions, I’m not being manipulated to the point where my thoughts are no longer my own. It has taken me a while to see her more clearly. I can’t condone her choices, at all, but I can see her situation more clearly than I could previously.
Manipulators are most effective when the victim believes they are doing the right thing. I hadn’t really considered that either. I visualised it more that she chose Gordon over her baby. I now don’t think that’s the case. I think he manipulated her into a position where she believed what she was doing was actually the only option.
When the whole world feels like your enemy, you can’t stay in one place. You keep moving. That’s exactly what she did.
Hi TS,
“Manipulators are most effective when the victim believes they are doing the right thing.”
“I think he manipulated her into a position where she believed what she was doing was actually the only option.”
That’s exactly how I see it as well.
Thanks for sharing that Leigh.. I try and work things out in the same way.
Leigh
“if my father didn’t see me as good enough”
If your father is/was a non-narcissist, might it be the case that he felt HE was not good enough for you, your siblings, and especially your mother, given that she is a narcissist? Not to excuse him for leaving (and especially in that way), but just to consider that it likely had nothing to do with your worth. Now if he is/was a narcissist, we know it definitely had nothing to do with you and EVERYTHING to do with him. Either way- you are/were worthy of love that he was unable to give. There is/was nothing you can do about another persons inabilities. He missed out.
Thank you so much for this comment, NA. Both of my parents were narcissists. I know now that he left because it no longer served his purposes to stay. I also know that it didn’t have anything to do with me. I did have a conversation with him in my early 20s and he did tell me that he left because of my mother, but honestly I wasn’t satisfied with that answer. Thank you for saying he missed out. He most certainly did.
Regarding Constance Marten being “a normal” with PSTD, similar to HG’s assessment on Sinead O’Connor. Interesting to read the conversations. Where does Erica Kirk sit on HG’s narcissism to empath spectrum?
Hello Asp Emp!
“Where does Erika Kirk sit on HG’s narcissism to empath spectrum?”
I don’t feel like I should touch that question.
But the topic of “normals” feels safer! Except that I am struggling with what I have learned about “normals” thus far, and its application to ‘everyday normals’ in my life. The normals that I can recall being identified so far: QEII, Prince William, Sinead O’Connor and most recently, Constance Marten are not normals in typical circumstances.
It’s interesting that Prince William and Constance Marten are both normals who grew up in privileged circumstances and both experienced the loss of a parent (and therefore, experienced abandonment in some fashion) but the outcome was vastly different for each.
Hi WhoCares, thank you for your reply. Yes, your points about normals and their circumstances not being “typical”, goes to show that life-changing traumas can impact someone who is not empath, or narcissist. It can be difficult to gauge because of the impact of such trauma (depth / circumstance / environment etc) affects people differently, depending on their upbringing, knowledge (learning / education / experience). William was surrounded with people, had access to the right people at the right time, when they were needed. As for Constance, I do not know much about her background / childhood to understand her “reasonings”. Considering that William met Catherine when they were young adults, it may have helped him in some way.
Also Emp,
“It can be difficult to gauge because of the impact of such trauma…”
Yes.
And, I think for me, one of the assumptions that I may have made is that normals travel a more moderate road in life, with fewer ups and downs, so to speak (because they don’t appear to have the vulnerabilities of an empath, nor the pathologies of a narcissist). For example, I wouldn’t have necessarily thought that a normal is as susceptible to being trapped in a cult as an empath, nor as attracted to a cult for the prime aims, as in the case of a narcissist.
You’re right that William seemed to have support at the right times and was very fortunate to have a healthy, long-term relationship with Catherine. Plus, he didn’t have the added trauma of being caught up in a cult.
WhoCares, it is interesting to consider the behaviours of normals with PTSD and how they may get taken back to the LOCE (trauma). I think using William and Sinead as two different examples shows how one’s PTSD can, or, cannot be managed should a trigger occur. I’m not suggesting that William has ongoing PTSD, he has mastered the art of regulating his emotions when in public.
I agree, about the affects of cults and how some normals may be more impacted than other normals. Having said that, there are many normals out there who find themselves in the midst of conflict and they did not choose to be there, how many of them will develop PTSD, and / or, CPTSD?
Hi WhoCares,
“Plus, he didn’t have the added trauma of being caught up in a cult.”
Your comment touches on some of my own thoughts with regard to Constance and her upbringing.
For example …
Constance Marten spent about three months at the cult in Nigeria.
While three months can be enough time to have a severe traumatic experience, it’s a relatively short time overall.
When contemplating HG’s analysis, something didn’t add up to me about the length of time Constance spent at the African cult compared to the tragic and extreme consequences and her entrenched and repeated pattern of behaviour.
Then I listened to parts of HG’s analysis again.
Prior to her experience at the African cult, Constance spent her childhood and teenage years at a very strict Roman Catholic boarding school. The school had a “strict code of conduct” and an “endless list of school rules [that] only served to fuel Marten’s rebellious streak.” (HG’s words in quotes).
While the boarding school was part of an “idyllic” and “privileged” upbringing, the emphasis on discipline and religion sounds like a form of ‘cult’ in itself.
In my opinion, sending a child to live in a boarding school is abusive. Add to that a strict, religious, authoritarian boarding school, and it sounds like being trapped in a cult.
It makes me think that the groundwork for Constance’s later life was laid out in her childhood and teenage years. The experience in the African cult probably served to exacerbate and deepen trauma that already existed.
Also, to me, the description “rebellious streak” sounds like a euphemism. Anyone can have a ‘rebellious streak’ about certain things, but very few people go on the run from all forms of authority.
It makes me wonder. When did Constance’s rebellious streak begin and why? What was it in her own personality that made her so rebellious in her later life? What was she running away from exactly?
To me, this case raised a number of questions.
It also makes me think that using a heavy dose of religion in early education (or in politics for that matter) is a recipe for deluded and warped thinking.
WhoCares,
I hope you don’t mind me adding my thoughts and observations to the conversation.
WiserNow,
Agreed, Marten’s negative experience with the Catholic boarding school probably contributed to her shunning conventional rules and expectations.
Hi WhoCares,
” … probably contributed… ”
That’s not what I meant.
Considering that Constance walked away from the African cult after three months, she wasn’t “trapped in a cult.”
In contrast, she had no choice but to spend her childhood and teen years in a very strict Roman Catholic boarding school with an endless list of rules.
My point was that her growing up in a strict religious boarding school was actually the time when she was “trapped in a cult.”
“Also Emp” – what? Damn autocorrect. Sorry, Asp Amp.
Made me laugh though, WhoCares x
😊
I know when you’re in the public eye, you have to expect scrutiny. I also can see Erika’s behaviors. After listening to Mr. Tudor’s analysis of Constance Marten though, I realized that its not always so clear cut. I can be a bit cynical and quick to judge. So I’m actively trying to not be cynical or quick to judge.
Dearest Leigh,
I’m sooooo judgemental now (haha) I never used to be. Dealing with so many narcissist people in your life changes you. Long term self protection.
A little bit of cynicism is good, don’t be too hard on yourself, we’re all human
This Erika Kirk response to Charlie’s death has left me with a “ something’s not quite adding up here kinda feeling ! There’s more to this than we all know !
Dearest Bubbles,
Thank you for this comment! I agree! A little cynicism is good.
Hi Leigh,
Personally, I don’t think you’re being cynical and quick to judge.
To some extent, I can fully imagine that Erika Kirk would not hesitate being quick to judge you or anyone else – in the name of “christianity.”
The irony of people who are from an immigrant background discussing the need to be empathic about people like Charlie and Erika Kirk doesn’t escape me.
Hi WN,
I’m not sure what you mean about someone with an immigrant background having empathy for The Kirk’s.
If you’re referring to their stance on immigration, I’m not aware of it. I don’t know much about either one of them.
Regardless of their views on immigration, what happened to their family is horrifying. How can I not have empathy for her?
Hi Leigh,
When I replied to you, my thinking was based on what you said about “being cynical and quick to judge.”
From some of the things that Charlie and Erika Kirk said, I think that they are/were quick to judge and also cynical.
This is what I meant about irony.
For your info, I have an immigrant background myself.
When it comes to the USA, and Australia also, the populations of both nations have a very high majority of people with ‘immigrant’ backgrounds. The only people who can claim to be ‘indigenous’ make up a small portion of the population.
Trump’s own grandfather was an immigrant who immigrated to the USA in 1885.
Personally, I think it’s possible to have empathy for Erika Kirk and the devastating way that Charlie Kirk was killed, while also having the opinion that their political views are/were cynical and judgemental.
Hi WN,
Oh yes, I agree. The USA is a country founded on immigration. Trump makes me chuckle sometimes because his first and third wives are both immigrants. 4 out of his 5 children are direct descendants of immigrants. I understand what Trump is trying to do with immigration. I just wish he was just a little bit more open minded.
You make a valid point in your last paragraph. You can have empathy for the Kirk’s and still not necessarily agree with their views. I won’t go as far as call them judgmental because I really haven’t done that deep of a dive into them.
Mr. Tudor,
Will you be doing analyses on Erika Kirk and Charlie Kirk?
(I hope I score some points for using the proper plural of analysis.)
Even taking into consideration that grief impacts people in different ways, instinctively, watching Erika Kirk feels like nails on a chalk board to me.
The whispering. No, just no. The eyes to heaven. The breaking voice at perfect times for practised emphasis. The perfect self presentation. (I think she had her hair coloured for the funeral.) The remembering to thank Charlie’s team. The emphasis on one male member of his team. The sharing of the open casket and her bending over his body kissing his hand. Her consideration and acceptance of the CEO position. Her expressions in general are all wrong for me. Very martyrish.
Above all. The smile. It doesn’t fade as it would if she was genuinely remembering something meaningful, it drops off a cliff. Even putting on my bravest face, forcing myself to smile for the benefit of my children for example, it wouldn’t look like that.
I don’t see her aching. I see performative grief.
People handle grief differently. These are extremely unusual circumstances so I wouldn’t feel comfortable categorising her as yet. First instincts though, that’s more than empathy erosion. That looks to me like an absence of emotional empathy.
TS,
I agree with several of your points.
I think another speaker at Charlie Kirk’s funeral adds a good comparison/contrast to Erika. This is Stacy Sheridan, an employee of Kirk’s:
https://youtu.be/IJZO1jG4Rlk?feature=shared
Hi Who Cares,
Thank you for posting that Stacy Sheridan segment. I agree, a very useful contrast. Interesting too that some of the mannerisms such as ‘eyes to heaven’ were also present but with Stacy they didn’t feel contrived. That suggests that it isn’t the cultural aspect that I’m reacting to, it’s something else that just isn’t sitting right as regards Erika’s communication.
I must admit, similar to some other commenters, I feel guilty almost for analysing Erika in such horrific circumstances and comparatively, these really are unusual and almost unprecedented circumstances. That said though I also ask myself how many times I have made excuses for what I actually did see. How many times I explained away behaviours as just ‘ him being under stress’ or ‘him having a bad time at work’. When is a good time to spot red flags and question a person you trust or feel compassion for? I don’t think there is one.
I agree with Leigh’s comment about Constance Martin. I would have said, only a narcissist could neglect her child in such a way. Empathy erosion and vulnerability to a predator somehow doesn’t feel like enough to excuse that behaviour. Constance Martin isn’t a narcissist, I would have got that entirely wrong. The starting point for me though has to be spotting the red flags, accepting that something feels off, not disregarding something we see or feel because it might make us appear uncaring or judgemental.
Erika Kirk does unfortunately provide opportunity for analysis and the fact that doing so makes us feel uncomfortable is quite possibly a valuable learning point in itself.
Do not underestimate the impact that certain external stressor can have on a person to cause them to leave, what you would consider, their humanity behind. With some people, it does not take much at all for that to happen, with others it takes a lot, but it has happened many, many times. There are numerous examples.
Hey HG:
There is a mother’s instinct. She wasn’t intellectually challenged. She could have given her baby to social services. Left her baby at a hospital. But instead she went bus to bus to bus with her baby screaming, not clad for cold weather, witnesses observed. She wasn’t a schizophrenic not aware of her circumstances. She was able to move around. She was educated, from wealth, worldly. I don’t buy that she didn’t know her baby was in distress or that she didn’t know she was unwell and her baby needed help. She killed her own innocent baby. Yes mentally ill but a woman with options. The baby had NONE. There was a mother’s instinct in America who is in prison for life for drowning 4 kids. Obviously ILL, but did she not know she was killing them one by one by one. Good she won’t see the light of day. Removal is a good option.
I was just coming to say about the impact of emotional erosion due to sustained abuse from her partner, and saw what HG said too above on this. It’s not an excuse obviously but I imagine with pre-existing cptsd and a loose grasp on reality and the ongoing impact of her relationship on her, she was just “gone”. It does seem mad but i can see how that sliding scale could happen.. 😔
Hi Jade,
Please see my comment directed to TS. I had some thoughts on Marten’s empathy as well. I wondered if there was some feelings of inadequacy at play as well.
HG,
Thank you and you are correct in stating that I underestimate the impact of an external stressor, particularly where there are children involved.
It isn’t that I don’t believe your analysis. It isn’t that I don’t view Constance Martin as a victim, I do. It’s the lack of maternal instinct, the failure to put the life and wellbeing of her child first. That’s what I find extremely difficult to reconcile.
Indeed. I understand the lack of comprehension with regard to her behaviour. I am not defending her conduct, I am simply explaining based on experience, I have seen people who I know have emotional empathy become something devoid of emotional empathy owing to a particular application of an external stressor.
TS, HG and Contagious,
Your conversation about Constance Marten has made me want to add some points that are additional to narcissism, or outside the scope of narcissism alone.
From the outset, I realise you will likely think my thoughts are trivial or irrelevant – however, please keep an open mind.
1. Constance Marten was born in 1987. This makes her Chinese astrological birth year the Year of the Rabbit.
Other people born in the Year of the Rabbit are Brooklyn Beckham, Johnny Depp, and, as it happens, my father.
One major trait attributed to people born in the Year of the Rabbit is that they do not like conflict; they retreat from battles or arguments; they retreat from the spotlight; they are generally quiet, sensitive and thoughtful; and they value harmony and peacefulness. They are not typically extroverted or loud or boisterous.
2. After learning of the Dynamic Maturational Model (DMM) of Attachment created by Patricia Crittenden, this model has given me helpful insights into human behaviour.
One particular ‘attachment strategy’ that Patricia Crittenden describes in the DMM is ‘compulsive compliance’ in relation to a child’s instinctive strategy to remain attached with an early attachment figure.
For example, if a child has an early attachment figure who is angry or threatening, the child may adopt an instinctive strategy to inhibit their own negative emotions in order to appease the attachment figure and prevent potential danger. It is a strategy that aims to be self-protective.
Patricia Crittenden explains that if you see a child who is excessively polite; or seems to have a happy personality; or praises/loves their caregiver even when suffering abuse – it is a sign that something is very wrong. The child is adopting a positive front while ignoring his or her own suffering and negative emotions in order to prevent angering their attachment figure. This unconscious strategy adopted by the child provides the child with a way to remain attached while also trying to prevent further abuse.
My comment here is to say that it has helped me to consider information and insights that are outside of the realm of ‘narcissism’ alone.
Narcissism is definitely a very valuable and relevant aspect of someone’s personality. It can provide much very helpful and telling insight and information.
To understand and recognise someone’s personality in a broader sense, I find that it’s also helpful to gain insights in addition to narcissism; or outside the scope of narcissism.
This has made me think that categorising someone as to whether they are a narcissist or a non-narcissist is a black & white analysis. While definitely helpful and relevant, it also misses some of the ‘grey’ aspects or colour that may add to the overall picture.
If I relied on assessing somebody´s behaviour based on their Chinese astrological year rather than the actual evidence of their past and current behaviour I suspect I would be dead.
A question, HG …
How many ‘normal’ women have five babies while on the run – having one after the other even though each baby is taken away, with the fifth baby dying from neglect?
Make that ‘normal’ women with financial means and an accessible family.
I imagine that telling the authorities the woman is a ‘normal’ would be met with some puzzled looks.
As noted, I knew my comment would be dismissed as trivial.
Also, I didn’t say you should ‘rely’ on astrology.
Whatever you may think, when I added the aspects in my comment above to your analysis of Constance Marten, it helped to interpret her behaviour.
You’re not relaying the assessment correctly in your question. This is either because you don’t understand or you’re doing it deliberately because you’re seeking to provoke.
Constance Marten was not assessed as “normal” but as “a normal” with regard to the concept of emotional empathy. Furthermore, she was assessed as someone with PTSD and in the grip of a sociopath. Those serious factors impacted on her as evidenced by her behaviour.
The evidence before and after showed just how she changed as an individual and how seriously those factors altered her.
I am just as entitled to regard the influence of astrology on behaviour as irrelevant as you are entitled to regard it as relevant. However, once again you indulge in your behaviour of maintaining that you are repeatedly allowed to advocate your view but nobody else is allowed to disagree with you.
*Puts fingers in ears* while loudly singing: “Lalalalalala!” & “Spoiler alert!”
I have yet to finish the last episode of Constance Marten!
Yes, I understand what you are driving at HG and agree that your experience of such matters will be far broader than my own.
Thank you for the clarification, I didn’t interpret your previous comment as defending her conduct but rather, explaining it.
I know you would recognise that I was explaining rather than defending TS, I made that point for other readers who do not know me as well as you do.
HG,
“This is either because you don’t understand or you’re doing it deliberately because you’re seeking to provoke.”
I fully understand the meaning of “a normal” with regard to your categorisations and with regard to the concept of emotional empathy.
Even with the full understanding of your definition of “a normal,” the actions of Constance Marten are unusual. It seems her ‘empathy’ (if you can call it empathy) was monopolised by Mark Gordon while those closest to her – her own babies – suffered. And this pattern was repeated.
Also, I was not “seeking to provoke.”
I was exercising my right to ‘free speech.’
From my experience here and elsewhere, it is clear to me that any views or perspectives that don’t fully align with a narcissist – or can’t be controlled as the narcissist wants – are automatically considered a ‘provocation’ by the narcissist. This is deluded thinking.
“However, once again you indulge in your behaviour of maintaining that you are repeatedly allowed to advocate your view but nobody else is allowed to disagree with you.”
People here on the blog have “disagreed” with me many, many times. If there hasn’t been open and explicit disagreement, there has been silence and stonewalling.
I have never said that anyone is “not allowed” to disagree with me. In fact, I now *expect* people to disagree with me.
I think it’s actually the case that nobody else is allowed to disagree with you, HG.
Of course you do not say that people are “not allowed to disagree with you”. The content of your responses demonstrates this but you are unable to see it. Similarly, you regularly provoke but again are unable to see it.
I also note your deflection – “I think it’s actually the case that nobody else is allowed to disagree with you, HG.” There is evidence of people disagreeing with me repeatedly across this blog, the fact that they are able to advance that disagreement demonstrates I evidently DO allow people to disagree with me. The fact that I allow your comments to appear in itself demonstrates the falsity of your suggestion.
People are allowed to express their views. That is one of many reasons why this blog has continued for over ten years. I point out where people are wrong where appropriate as this is also a place for people to learn.
I almost wrote a comment here simply agreeing that “nobody is allowed to disagree with HG” just to demonstrate that he would publish it and thereby prove the assertion wrong, but I do not think that is necessary. Testing him like that, i.e. making this statement when I know it to be false and without explanation, would be mean, and he does not deserve that. Most of the time, i.e. when accompanied by the requisite dose of fuel, he probably enjoys it, as it allows him to flex his intellectual muscle. It is a rare thing for HG not to publish a diverging opinion, and when it happens, there are always other reasons involved. Certain conditions must be met, disagreement alone is not the decisive factor. The interesting part is his reply!
HG,
“The evidence before and after showed just how she changed as an individual and how seriously those factors altered her.”
Well, yes … as the saying goes, “Hindsight is 20/20.”
All the evidence and commentary in the world doesn’t change the fact that Baby Victoria’s dead body was found abandoned under rubbish. It doesn’t change the fact that four children are wards of the state because their parents are in prison.
When I re-think my motivation behind my comments here, I am not questioning the facts and evidence as you have presented them. Rather, I am thinking about the facts and evidence and considering how the same situation could be prevented from happening again.
Another point, HG …
With regard to your analysis, while listening to the series, I had numerous questions about Constance Marten’s mother.
Her mother was described as “deeply Christian” …
Constance was educated in a very strict Roman Catholic boarding school with “endless rules” and a “strict code of conduct” that exacerbated Constance’s existing “rebellious streak.”
After her father left the family, her mother remarried after two years. At the time of the new marriage, Constance was living in the boarding school.
When Constance was 19, she was a naive teenager, accustomed to a privileged and sheltered lifestyle. She was described as “artistic” and “disorganised” and she did not have a grounded or stable plan regarding her further education or future career.
At this time, her mother took her to a religious centre in Nigeria. After two weeks at the centre, her mother returned to the UK leaving Constance to live there with strangers. It was a religious cult in a country known to be dangerous that had a very different kind of culture than what Constance was accustomed to.
What kind of mother would leave her teenage daughter alone with strangers in a religious cult in Nigeria?
While the above ‘facts’ about the mother’s actions were included in your analysis, HG, it seemed to me that they were described as relatively benign or inconsequential.
Meanwhile, Constance spent several months at the cult in Nigeria. It was this experience that was supposedly the main reason behind Constance’s PTSD and consequent actions.
To me, the months spent at the Nigerian cult were definitely traumatic, but was this relatively short span of time the main cause of the extreme behaviours that were to follow?
I think there were factors that occurred far before the Nigerian cult experience that forged her extreme behaviours and the way Constance reacted with fear and deep distrust regarding her family and authorities.
Thanks Leigh, I’ll check it out now.
TS,
I am glad you found Sheridan’s speech a useful comparison.
On the subject of guilt – I am feeling guilty for being behind on Constance Martin. Seems now that I am back to commenting here, I am behind on YT!
I will return to your comment though…
Be prepared, WC!. It knocked me on my ass!
I appreciate the heads up, Leigh!
Wow – you weren’t kidding Leigh.
I am still reeling from that one. That was a very grim tale of the relationship between those two…and those poor children. The part that gets me is: why continue having them? If you don’t care about them, why keep bringing them into the world…I understand why a narcissist would – but Constance must have truly been under his control/trying to please Gordon?
The trajectory of the change in Constance’s behaviour is certainly significant. And HG’s delineation of how this occured was excellent. Though it was a difficult story to listen to, I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis, HG.
Hi WC,
Ugh! No, I wasn’t kidding. I found it incredibly upsetting. Sometimes I have to tune it out. I did that with the Letby series as well. One of things that helps is how Mr. Tudor narrates it. There’s no inflection in his voice. No emotion. It’s just flat. I think if I heard emotion, it would be a lot worse.
Why keep on having babies then? I thought the exact same thing. She was so selfish.
I read your comment to Asp and your thoughts on normals is very interesting. I thought the same as you. Since they’re normals, their life must be easier because the machinations of the narcissist (or in this case the sociopath) effects them differently. It might be different, but that’s not necessarily better. Normals still have to worry too. That’s not something I had considered before hearing this series.
Leigh,
“Why keep on having babies then? I thought the exact same thing. She was so selfish.”
Normals and narcissistics are naturally more selfish. Personally, I would have thought this would play out as not caring if *other* people’s children are cold/mistreated but still protecting your own – at least in the case of a normal. I think TS made some interesting guesses and good points on how this might be impacted.
Hi WC,
“I would have thought this would play out as not caring if *other* people’s children are cold/mistreated but still protecting your own.” – I would’ve thought the exact same thing.
Hi Who Cares,
Ha, I know the feeling. HG is putting out some really meaty content. I listen, then I debate with myself for days afterwards!
Hi TS,
“HG is putting out some really meaty content”
Yes and I like to give it my full, undivided attention, which is hard these days. I like the TOW pieces because they are somewhat lighter listening. But the lengthy analyses and short series are often reserved for when I am doing stuff around the house and I can binge listen. The problem I have discovered, now that I have been back here commenting, is that you are all on top of things and already discussing the outcome! (Hence my other comment about *spoiler alert*). I have been trying to avoid reading comments that mentioned Constance, so as to not spoil the outcome for myself. But, in the case of Constance Marten I am not sure it would have mattered, now that I have listened, the whole thing is shocking.
“I listen, then I debate with myself for days afterwards!”
Indeed, I will be mulling this one over for a while.
One thing that is evident: just as there can be significant variation within ‘team narc’ or within ‘team empath’, there can apparently be huge variation within ‘team normal’.
Hi Who Cares,
Sorry I didn’t put on a spoiler alert. I’m glad you found the time to listen though!
Yes there can be significant variation within the groups and I think that hinges on upbringing and past experiences.
I have been wrestling with this since I heard HG’s video.
Constance Martin’s father left her. He chose to leave, he didn’t die. I think that would definitely instil a feeling of deep inadequacy. She wasn’t good enough, wasn’t worthy of his love.
The cult. The family she never had complete with a father figure. She would have been made to feel worthy, special but she was ultimately betrayed, possibly abused and managed to escape. Second loss of an influential male figure.
Mark Gordon. Martin calls him daddy suggesting that even subconsciously she sees him as a father figure. She desperately needs to hold on to him. From a privileged upbringing, Martin was likely unused to having to do what we might consider every day tasks. Keeping a house clean, cooking, washing, ironing, looking after children, even knowing what to feed them etc. Gordon doesn’t care about the children, they are an inconvenience and he is likely no more capable than she is, so it is reasonable to expect that social services remove the children particularly if they suspect Constance Martin is a victim of domestic violence. It might well be that Martin wanted to clothe her children adequately, feed them appropriately, but was prevented from doing so by Gordon. It’s possible she was devastated that they were taken from her.
Why keep having children? Martin wouldn’t be on birth control via the doctor because she wasn’t registered. This also prevents pre natal care. She can’t register because Gordon has her convinced that as soon as she does he’ll be arrested and she’ll be alone again.
They could have used over the counter birth control but Gordon has no accountability, is interested only in getting his sexual needs met. Birth control is not a priority for him, his own safety is. If Martin insists then she risks argument and possible violence. Therefore Martin might not have been falling pregnant by choice.
Baby Victoria. I think my disconnect comes because as HG pointed out I do underestimate the impact of external stressors. I also don’t have a clear understanding of how empathy erosion actually manifests. Under ordinary circumstances baby Victoria would be well within the circle of empathy for a normal. A normal’s emotional empathy for their children is very similar in strength to that of an empath. So in terms of empathy erosion, Martin’s emotional empathy for her baby should have held in my view, even with external stressors there should still be a level of emotional empathy for the baby.
I think this is where my confusion kicks in. I don’t really understand empathy erosion. I think I was imagining it as cold and almost absent rather than reduced, largely due to the death of baby Victoria and how her body was discarded. I see the stressors, I understand the impact of Martin’s background and why she would be so loyal and trusting of Gordon but the empathy erosion is difficult to quantify.
For me though, this actually doesn’t have to be all or nothing scenario. We know what happened in terms of them being on the run, baby Victoria dying, her body discarded on an allotment in a shopping bag. The baby was inadequately clothed, the tent would have been freezing so we know the key information but, we don’t know what was happening behind the key events.
It’s possible That Constance Martin did still love her baby. It’s possible though that her empathy for Gordon was greater and seen as being more of an immediate need than the empathy directed to her baby. So, the idea of Gordon being caught was more terrifying and of immediate risk than her baby being cold and underfed. Martin might also have felt protective towards Gordon. He had a rough upbringing. He was failed by the system. She possibly thought, “He’ll be failed again if we are caught.” Her empathy locked on to Gordon and prioritised him. I don’t think that has to mean that Martin had no empathy left for her baby.
Martin carried the baby against her body under her coat. She slept with the baby on her body to try to keep her warm. It’s possible her maternal incompetence was the issue rather than lack of love. Constance Martin might have thought that keeping the baby next to her body under her coat was enough to keep her warm. Cold and undernourished it’s also possible that baby Victoria actually wasn’t crying too much. Martin might have interpreted this as her baby being ok.
Again Martin might still have had empathy for her baby but being on the run, avoiding buying supplies, living in the tent was Gordon’s paranoia and Martin’s belief that this was truly the only option. Keep Gordon out of jail, prevent the authorities from taking her baby.
The baby’s body was discarded on an allotment. I don’t know the circumstances surrounding this. Again, this might not have been down to Martin. What if Gordon lied and told her he would take baby Victoria and bury her in the forest? What if Martin was so in shock, so upset, felt so guilty, that she let him? Gordon takes the body, dumps it because he couldn’t care less. Martin thinks her baby lies buried in the forest.
I don’t know enough about what was actually happening behind the events that took place during that relationship. I do think it’s possible though that rather than Constance Martin not caring about baby Victoria due to completely eroded empathy, it’s also possible that she did still have a relatively high degree of emotional empathy for her baby, she just had more misplaced emotional empathy for Gordon. This misplaced emotional empathy would come as a result of the external stressors. The external stressors were also doubtless causing extremely flawed decision making.
I think my issue is I don’t know enough about empathy erosion so I can’t estimate how it would make Martin feel. I can better estimate how the same events might have occurred through flawed decision making and with Martin still having some emotional empathy left for her baby.
Maybe it just feels better / easier for me to imagine it that way.
Hi TS & WC,
You really got me thinking about this. We really don’t know what was going on behind the scenes. Maybe she was begging Gordon to let her feed and clothe the baby. Maybe she was begging him to let her find a real shelter for them. When he said no, maybe she did the best she could with the resources she had.
You make a very valid point about feeling inadequate because her father left. That’s my problem. My father left when I was 14. If I’m so inadequate that even my father could leave me, then I must not be good enough for anyone. For me, it can cause me to question my actions. Am I doing the right thing? If Marten’s thinking was similar to mine, this might’ve caused her to believe that Gordon knew better than her.
If self doubt is the curse of the empath, what would it do to a normal?
TS,
Re: Spoiler alert; no problem. I was able to avoid most of the revealing comments – plus it gave me the kick in the pants to get my homework done!
You made some really good observations.
“Constance Martin’s father left her. He chose to leave, he didn’t die.”
That’s a good distinction, and it also happened out the blue with no warning, which may make it more impactful – add to that the abuse she experienced in the cult clearly exacerbated whatever wounds she already had.
And then the once in Gordon’s grip:
“the idea of Gordon being caught was more terrifying and of immediate risk than her baby being cold and underfed.”
While it’s hard to fathom or accept, perhaps it did come down to that. We know in the case of an empath & narc dynamic, that the empath’s addiction will cause them to make some very ill-advised decisions, however the addiction element is absent in this instance.
“…we know the key information but, we don’t know what was happening behind the key events.”
It would be interesting to know how Marten reflects back on this time, now that she has been out of the relationship for a while. (Although, I am not certain that a prison sentence would remedy the erosion of her empathy.)
Regarding the treatment of her child’s body (which is a particular piece of information that disturbs many):
“What if Gordon lied and told her he would take baby Victoria and bury her in the forest? ”
That’s entirely possible.
You’re right there is a lot of missing information that may help fill out the why and how.
The one thing that I also struggle with is letting your baby get cold. Perhaps, as you said, Marten’s lack of maternal competence contributed. I have trouble with that.
In my own abusive situation, when my son and I were isolated (and basically trapped) at camp in the winter, my ex and I still worked hard to protect ourselves and our son to keep warm. There was only a single wood stove, for a source of heat, within a fairly lengthy structure. (Yes, we had a small electric heater as well, but it wouldn’t do much given the layout of camp.) We had to obtain and chop wood on the regular…we had to get up in the middle of the night (okay, at that point it was mostly me doing this last bit) to load up the wood stove to keep it going through the night. I made sure my son was sleeping in an area closest to the stove. We made sure we had decent seasonal clothes and winter wear (despite not having a lot of money) – actually, this is one area where my ex narcissist excelled; he loved certain brands with good quality (I put this down to his somatic elements, although he is ‘elite’) and our son had a good sleeping bag and very warm winter clothes for outdoors.
All that to say; it’s difficult to understand the inability to do the basics to keep your child warm.
Oops – “…a prison sentence would remedy the erosion of her empathy.”
*Not – it would not remedy the erosion of her empathy.
TS
Looking at the different scenarios you pose re: Martin, (and of course HG’s analysis) certainly highlights the difficulty in differentiating between a narcissist mother in a relationship with another narcissist or a non-narcissist with significant empathy erosion in a relationship with a narcissist. I think most people could not comprehend that a non-narcissist’s empathy for their child would not win over at some point. Certainly muddies the waters for people trying to navigate their own personal family dynamic as there could understandably be some bias involved. That is why I advocate for people to use HG’s Detectors. An unemotional and unbiased view is invaluable and sets you in the right direction for further education and understanding of that individual and any further interactions you may have.
That’s a really good point, Leigh re her possibly feeling inadequate. We only saw the “snippets” of timelines of children being taken away and the tragic end result. She may have been trying to do things that noone will ever know. 😢
Hi Leigh,
I think there are all kinds of elements in play. Gordon is easier to estimate in many ways. He is a sociopath and in control of Martin. His behaviours are more predictable. Martin, having emotional empathy, subject to external stressors plus empathy erosion, a victim of physical abuse plus emotional manipulation, a history of abandonment and exploitation, we know her empathy would be reduced but we don’t know by exactly how much and exactly how that would manifest. No empathy is far easier to deal with than ‘some’ or ‘reduced’ empathy.
A key indicator is her lack of co operation during the trial. Her seeming lack of remorse. Strangely, out of all of it, I can understand that part better. That does clearly demonstrate eroded empathy. It clearly highlights how she was still very much under Gordon’s control but for me, it demonstrates misplaced anger. Martin was angry at the authorities instead of being angry with Gordon. In her mind it was the authorities that took her children, the authorities that caused them to be on the run and have to keep moving. It was the authorities that prevented her from being able to rent in one place and the authorities who wanted to take Gordon and ‘unjustly’ place him within a system that ‘failed him’ as a teen. The bravado in the courtroom I put down to this rather than absence of emotional empathy for baby Victoria. I also think her mind is protecting itself. To even consider that her own actions or inaction led to the death of her own child might very well break her. The brain is sophisticated in this sense I think. It will defend itself. Stay within the manipulation and function. Question it and break.
Martin’s father is clearly unfit to be a parent. In my view, it is him that is unworthy. Clearly we don’t know his circumstances either, his mental state, the causes for him leaving. He is the source though in my view. The tragedy that is Constance Martin’s story tracks back to him.
In terms of your situation Leigh, again I don’t know the circumstances behind your father’s decision to leave. I do know though that the sins of the parents belong to them and them alone. I understand why you would feel less than worthy when your dad left, but I sincerely hope that now you are older and have received your education here, you understand that your own worth is determined by you and only you. No one ever gets to determine your worth on your behalf, no matter who they are, or what the circumstances might be.
Xx
Hi TS,
My father left two days before Christmas and didn’t even say goodbye. We woke up and my mother told us he was gone and wasn’t coming back. Like a coward, he couldn’t even say goodbye. It was 4 years later before I saw him again.
Its interesting, TS. Somehow I’ve learned to use feeling inadequate to my advantage. Since I don’t feel adequate, it doesn’t matter what I say because no one takes me serious. So it kind of frees me up to say whatever I want. Its twisted logic for sure!
Is the trial online? I’m going to have to Google it. I’d like to see Marten in action. Its interesting that she blames the authorities and I think you might be right that her brain is trying to protect her from what she’s done.
Hi TS,
I wanted to say one other thing about my self doubt and not feeling good enough. It doesn’t always show itself. It happened a lot when I was raising my kids. I questioned myself a lot. I was always wondering if I was doing the right thing. The other time it pops us is in my career. Am I doing the right thing? I can second guess myself a lot. What’s interesting is that it doesn’t happen with my husband. I actually believe he’s not good enough for me and I’ve always felt this way, even before I learned of his narcissism.
My mother is a victim narcissist so at a very young age, I had to act as the adult. My father was an alcoholic and wasn’t around a lot either. I also had an older brother who was mentally disabled and a younger brother to look after. So I was in charge at a very young age. Since, I had to take care of my mother, I see her as beneath me. That same feeling happens with my husband. But because my father left, at times I can also feel like I’m not good enough.
Its a real clusterfuck, lol!
Hi NA,
I totally agree. Often with stories that appear in the news I might find them upsetting, but I can accept and move on.
This story has remained with me. I continue to turn it over because children were involved. That instantly dials the emotion right up for me. I’m a mum, I imagine, you can well understand how that will go.
I do struggle to see this story clearly, to accept it, though it’s far clearer post HG’s analysis.
If I struggle with this, then I’d struggle with a situation that’s personal. Emotions definitely muddy the waters and I would wholeheartedly agree with you. The detectors are a necessity. The only way to be entirely sure is to have a logical and unemotional mind review the evidence. Fortunately, we have access to that resource in HG.
Who Cares and HG:
I get it. She had mental health issues but for me, I care about the innocent helpless dead baby. The future of her innocent helpless children and any other innocent helpless children if permitted she would have. Does the eroded emotional empathy leave you brain dead? Psychotic? Diffused to the point of not seeing a newborn barely clad as you jump bus to bus to bus with the screaming child tormented child becoming sick to the point of death? Did she have zero clarity when social services and a team full of doctors offered help? Did she have no mental ability to know a baby needs warmth in the cold? No doubt Constance has mental problems but she is and was a risk to the innocent helpless people she brought into this world and might bring into this world. My concern is with those children without her adult intelligence, money and ability to clothe herself and buy a bus ticket to rush back to Gordon but somehow didn’t know a newborn baby ( after having 4 others) needs to be kept clothed in the freezing cold as she went bus to bus to bus to get back to her crazy man. HG says she had PTSD and emotional erosion. No judgment. I judge. I want innocent helpless children to not be near her. Not now and not in the future. Whatever it takes.
Hello Contagious,
I don’t think anyone is denying the horror of the treatment towards her children, especially the youngest. You cannot fathom such ignorance of the baby’s most basic need for proper shelter and clothing. Same here; I believe I conveyed some of that in my comments to TS. I don’t think in our consideration of further elements, that may have contributed to Marten’s behaviour, that we are making light of it or excusing it – it is the incredulousness of this case that causes the pondering.
I agree with you; it is near incomprehensible to conceive of neglecting a child’s needs in such a basic fashion. When I was a new mother and traveling with my son on public transit (bus & subway during our stint in Toronto) I was emotionally attuned to my son’s crying – but the crying of *other* babies on public transit would also trigger my emotions so strongly (in wanting to respond/help) that my eyes would uncontrollably tear up – and I was like: what the hell!? (Because this had never happened to me before being a mother.) It was especially acute if the parent was ignoring the crying… perhaps it was my sliver of Contagion, I don’t know. Eventually, as my son aged, it faded away. This still impacts me, when it happens on the bus, etc., but no longer results in involuntary tears.
I also agree with you that, given her track record, Marten probably shouldn’t be left with children in her care.
Hi WhoCares,
I struggle with that too. I think it’s instinctive for a mother to protect, to feed and keep her baby warm. I remember your story from the Successful Escapes series and your comment here also illustrates those maternal instincts in action. Incredibly difficult for us to understand Martin’s action / inaction here.
I remember reading that many people will estimate their behaviour in extreme circumstances but often the reality is quite different to the estimation. I think this is because we estimate in terms of our belief systems, our view of ourselves (often biased favourably) and we perhaps can’t estimate the impact those extreme circumstances would have on things like logical thought, emotions and empathy.
I was thinking about this today. Not to be flippant or downplay the severity of Martin’s situation. Imagine watching a thriller or a horror film. One of those where the heroine is being chased through the house by a masked intruder. She hits him around the head with something heavy. He goes down, the knife or the gun sliding across the floor as he falls. Often, she seems to just stand there looking, or, she carries on running or she hides herself. I watch scenes like that and shout at the TV “ Pick it up! Shoot him!” This is what I mean. To me, normal, at home watching the film, the behaviour seems utterly ridiculous. I’d pick the gun up. I’d point and shoot. But would I? Would I freeze? Would I be able to string those thoughts together when my life was hanging in the balance? I actually can’t know. I have no point of reference. I’d like to think I know what I would do in that situation, but the reality is, I probably don’t.
I think what Martin experienced is so extreme, that it’s a little like the horror film. I cannot reconcile her behaviour because there are so many elements that influenced her decision making. In actual fact I can’t possibly factor them all in. I can’t actually place myself in her shoes and get close enough to see it as it was, through her eyes.
Maybe I just have to accept this case is beyond my reach to fully empathise with her predicament. I can get part way but not far enough.
When I look at it this way I think perhaps HG’s analysis is enough.
Martin was a normal. Under usual circumstances she would have had empathy for her baby. Life events ensured she was a prime target for Gordon. He controlled and abused her. Her life history held her in place as did his manipulation of her. He was the primary external stressor. His paranoia gave rise to additional external stressors. Martin’s empathy eroded catastrophically as a result. She likely was unable to make decisions for herself or her baby. Gordon’s needs were prioritised primarily by him and by her as a consequence. The needs of baby Victoria were reduced to a secondary position and as a result, baby Victoria died. These things we definitely do know for certain.
I could try to estimate what happened until I’m blue in the face. I’ll never know. I can therefore only rely on what we definitely do know. Narcissists, psychopaths and sociopaths abuse and control. The external stressors do lead to empathy erosion and impaired decision making. Maybe that explanation is the closest to the truth we’ll get and therefore, it will likely have to be enough.
Hi TS,
I enjoyed the horror movie analogy, and imagining you yelling at the TV. 😊
You make a very good point about estimation; we often think we would know exactly what to do in a high stress, challenging circumstance. But once in the thick of things, we may get a reality check.
Hi Leigh,
Oh gosh that’s a horrible way for your father to leave. Even understanding lack of accountability, that’s brutal.
It is a kind of twisted logic. Similar to when you know you’re going to get into trouble as a kid so you might as well go all out and get into real trouble!
It’s easy to say that you shouldn’t undervalue yourself, but to my mind, what you have to say is always considered. I think you mull things over, ponder things a lot. Occasionally you might be more reactive but I think lots of us are if the right trigger is pressed!
In a world that often feels overrun by narcissists, I think it’s a relief to find a straight talker. 😘
No, the trial wasn’t televised. The behaviour in court I learned only from HG’s analysis.
Xx
Hi TS,
I’m not good at taking compliments either. It makes me feel icky, lol! But I’m going to graciously accept your compliment. I do try to be considerate and mull things over. Sometimes this mouth does get the best of me though. I think I’ve definitely gotten better with age.
LOL! Yes, its exactly like you describe. If I’m gonna get in trouble anyway, I might as well go all in.
Is my self evaluating logical or emotional? I love that question, TS! And that really is the gist of it.
I’m the opposite. I love test taking. If its something I’m good at, its a chance for me to prove myself. When I wrote that, I just realized something. I think I have another issue. It isn’t just that I think I’m not good enough, but its also that others won’t see me as good enough. It really is a cluster fuck, TS. Sometimes I have self doubt but sometimes I’m nervous others won’t see my value. My mother put me on a pedestal as a child. She told me I was beautiful and smart all the time. So there’s this piece of me that knows I’m good enough. But then there’s this piece that wonders if I really am. Then to add to it, if my father didn’t see me as good enough, what are others going to think?
This has been helpful though. Thank you for listening, TS.
Thanks for sharing Leigh. Life does shape us and our beliefs can be so hard to change, can’t they? I know other people reflecting our positive traits isn’t the issue, we also need to get it ourselves.
however I just wanted to say, I often notice and much more these days that the loveliest souls are often the ones that doubt themselves more, like you.
It’s ironic isn’t it? Anyway just wanted to say I can see how fab you are from here, even though we’ve never “met”. ❤️
Awww! Thank you, Jade! My parents have really shaped me more than I care to admit, lol! I’m so much better since finding Mr. Tudor and narcsite. He really has opened my eyes. It’s helped me to look at things differently.
I’ll give you an example. When I got my monthly phone call from my mother, she said to me, “Don’t be angry with me, but.” This is something she been saying to me my whole life The truth is that she wants me to get angry with her. She wants me to react in that way so she can’t get oodles and oodles of fuel from me. A couple of years ago, it dawned on me to stop getting angry with her. It must be working because the phone calls are less and less. Anyway, sometimes these behaviors are hard to break. But with being here and learning, I’ve realized its prudent to change my behaviors and reactions.
I think you’re a lovely soul too and I’ve enjoyed our conversations very much!
Hi Who Cares,
I can get quite drawn in to films! The one that springs to mind is Sleeping With the Enemy. Great film, quite accurate I think too. Quite possibly empath v psychopath.
We really don’t know how we would behave. I hope never to find out.
Hi Leigh,
I think it’s actually a really good sign that your self doubt about being good enough doesn’t show itself across the board. I would think that in some situations it might be a mindset issue. Your mind goes straight into a self evaluative state making you uncertain. There might be steps you could build in to offset that more self defeating thought process. A set of questions maybe. Am I prepared? Have I considered all of my options? Is my self evaluating logical or emotional? I don’t know, I’m no therapist but instinctively I would say that you have areas where you do feel good enough and that would suggest that you have a foundation to build on.
Some areas you might put your thinking down to self doubt or an underlying feeling of not being good enough, when in actual fact the uncertainty you are experiencing is perfectly normal. Take raising children as an example. Many parents question their own parenting and ask themselves if they are making the right decisions for their child. I think this is more to do with striving to be a good parent rather than necessarily being about self doubt.
It is hard to unpick why we are the way we are sometimes. I struggle with evaluation. It’s why I’m so scared of exams. I see them as pure evaluation. Similar thing, it boils down to are you good enough? It’s probably also why I don’t easily accept compliments. To compliment me you must first have evaluated me. I have to have a close relationship with someone before I can accept or enjoy compliments. My response to compliments tends to translate as internal irritation rather than reduced confidence. Similar issue to yours just a different response.
Xx
Hi Leigh, I agree, they can’t not shape us but I also think it’s pretty cool that we’ve kept our kindness *despite* them. Good on us, I say. ✊
I love how you’re dealing with your mum.. so brilliant! Her game is rumbled! Haha.
Mine’s around a lot less too now, I think when they don’t get what they want, they just go elsewhere. My OH says it’s like she’s fishing and when I don’t bite the bait, she just goes off to find someone that will!
Hi Leigh,
The test taking thing is an odd one for me. You would think that if I’m nervous for exams, I’d be nervous for interviews, presentations etc. I do get nervous beforehand but not particularly so. I perform well in presentations and interviews. Part of that I think is that my confidence in dealing with people offsets the task itself. I can better deal with evaluation if I’m present in the room and can face it head on.
I’m similar to you but an only child. More golden than scapegoat although I was also scapegoated at times. I was praised for doing well, and only doing well, despite my mum’s encouraging but empty, “Just try your best.” I think that caused me to equate academic success with worth. It also meant that academic achievement impacted more than just the academics. I was not punished for not doing as well, there was just an absence of praise and communication in general. If I didn’t do well anyone would think I just killed someone, that kind of response.
I saw NA’s comment to you. I think she’s exactly right.
Xx
I’m the total opposite, TS. I’m nervous in interviews and presentations. Even if I’m absolutely certain of what I’m saying, I still second guess myself. I worry that they’ll see right through me, think I’m inadequate and therefore won’t take me seriously. But once I get past that initial feeling, I’m ok. My current position really has helped me overcome those feelings of inadequacy at those times. I’m in front of people a lot. I also better about not worrying so much if I’m wrong because I can always fix it later.
My father cared about education but after he left, I didn’t try as hard. My mother didn’t care at all about education. She really had no idea if I was smart or not. I guess she said I was smart because I was painted white. When I was painted black she called me at a rotten child and I was just like my father, lol!
Thank you for saying you agree with NA’s comment. I really appreciate that.
Thank you, TS.
I can see what you’re saying. Is our compassion for what happened to her, causing self doubt? Maybe. That is a possibility. I’m trying to look to see if she has a pathological need for fuel and control. I don’t have enough evidence yet to say that with certainty. I’ve only seen the two appearances and watched Mr. Tudor’s video. I need to dig further.
As an alternative view, could she be high in Geyser? I’m significant Geyser and I can be dramatic. My daughter is majority Geyser and she’s a hundred times more dramatic than I am. Erika definitely has strong showcasing and vanity traits. Combined with Geyser, could that be why it looked like a performance?
I do agree that she does provide an opportunity for analysis. I hope Mr. Tudor does one on her. (There’s that false mistress again.)
Hi Leigh,
I agree, I think it’s very difficult to ascertain the need for fuel and control under these circumstances. Erika bolster’s Trumps agenda in this scenario so in many ways he will be running the show. In terms of fuel and control, I think Erika’s own personal history and her own social media posting would likely reveal more than any orchestrated event, certainly at this point in time.
I think if Erika was high in Geyser, her actions, mannerisms and emotions whilst magnified would still translate as being genuine.
If Erika’s emotional empathy is eroded, (as it definitely would be given the circumstances) I agree with you, her narcissistic traits would be more visible. Given her past in beauty pageants I agree that we would expect to see showcasing and vanity more clearly, probably pride also.
I’m not very good with empathy erosion. I would estimate that if the empathic traits erode, some would erode faster than others and the emotional empathy as a whole would be reduced with the circle of empathy quite probably closing in. (My interpretation of HG’s response on the other thread.) The remaining empathic traits we did see though, I think those should still appear as genuine.
Hi TS,
That’s true. If she was high in Geyser, her reaction would still seem genuine.
Maybe she’s a normal who was trying to put on a brave face and maybe she’s not a great actor so it looked disingenuous? When I rewatched her first address, I saw anger. Maybe she was trying to curb that anger and thats why it came across as disingenuous. She has a right to be angry but maybe she didn’t want to portray that.
I’ve noticed a change in my own empathy for Erika. After AV & Contagious’ comments, when I looked through there lens, it triggered my empathy. So I can definitely see how an erosion of Erika’s empathy could be at play here as well.
TS,
You had asked Mr. Tudor a question about mistargeted empathy I had responded to that as well. That’s what sort of happened to me, but in reverse. It took a minute for my empathy to be triggered probably because I don’t share similar beliefs with the Kirk’s. But once I saw how it affected Contagious & AV, it changed.
Hi Leigh,
I suppose I don’t see the two things as being mutually exclusive. I can have empathy and be saddened by the situation, the shooting of Charlie Kirk, wrong whichever way I look at it, shocking and concerning. The social media response just soul destroying and disgraceful.
Similarly though, I can question the behaviours of Erika Kirk whilst recognising the almost unprecedented nature of the circumstances.
I think whichever group Erika Kirk falls into, I would still feel sorry that she had to live through such an ordeal and her children are left without a father. A father taken away from them in an horrific way.
That still doesn’t prevent me from questioning what I see and I don’t view that as indicative of lack of, or mis-targeted empathy. Speaking for myself here, I’m not challenging or disregarding the way you yourself feel or experience your own emotional empathy!
That’s very true, TS. WN said something similar to me as well. I agree. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. I can disagree with their views and still have empathy. I also agree that doesn’t mean I can’t question their behaviors.
Its hard to explain. I wasn’t without empathy for Erika Kirk. But I certainly didn’t have the degree of empathy that Contagious and AV had for her. Maybe my empathy is more for them, then Erika. I don’t know. But it made me want to take a different approach.
Thank you for that comment Leigh. That is a reason I am glad to have stepped into this conversation.
Hi AV,
I’m glad you stepped in as well. Its always good to hear a different view.
Hi Leigh,
I totally understand. My comments here are just an opinion. I don’t intend to suggest they are the only opinion or even the ‘right’ opinion. If people see things similarly, great. If they don’t, also great. I’m not here to persuade, just to state my thoughts / concerns / questions / experiences, whatever it might be.
Hi TS,
That’s exactly how it is for me too! I just want to share my thoughts. Then if someone else wants to share, I’m open to discussion. I also can appreciate an alternative view. I like seeing how others feel about things. It widens my view. I really love that Mr. Tudor has created this safe space to do it.
Hi Leigh:
A mother’s duty is to protect the innocent child and there are strong biological and neurological links between a mother and a child. This mother ran bus to bus to bus to bus with a barely clad screaming newborn baby in cold weather when social services were in reach. Witnesses were alarmed. Worried for the baby. By the way social services workers are often empathetic and trained. While Gordon was an abuser, many women find that they put their children ahead of the abuser. It’s a basic instinct. While perhaps she was “eroded in emotional empathy”, she killed an innocent child. What about the baby? The baby is innocent, a life, the baby mattered. The woman had an education, intelligence, money, surely she could have given her baby to safety, to social services while she rushed back to Gordon. But she threw her children under the bus knowing there were alternatives. And how can you “ love a child” but run bus to bus to bus with a newborn barely clothed, screaming and in torment. Does a mother not know a baby needs food? A baby needs warmth? I agree she was sick in the head but so sick not to know the basics of a newborns care or needs, not to put her baby first and give the child over to save the innocent life? Was she in psychosis? If so how was she able to buy a bus ticket but not clothe a crying innocent helpless newborn? Sorry but where exactly is the love for this baby? Perhaps after it was dead? I agree with the verdict. My sympathy lies with a child who was so helpless it could not warm itself that is now gone. Never to see a life. I have seen other stories of women who torture their children because they are under the influence of a narc or psychopath or both. Think of the case in Perris, California where 14 I think kids were rescued who were isolated, chained to beds, starved to the point of mental and physical disabilities until one escaped and rescued them. The mother was governed by the father. They are both in prison. I don’t care if the empathy is eroded or if the person is a narc or psychopath, what people do to innocent kids, should remove them. If you are so damaged that you can torture or kill a child, then goodbye. It’s the same with pedophiles. I don’t care if they have empathy and a compulsive disorder they struggle to control if that… children deserve our protection. That’s my position. No mercy here.
Hi Contagious,
I can feel your passion in this comment. I totally agree with you, except I think Constance should’ve gotten more than 14 years in prison. To me, that’s not enough time. Your children come first.
The question was how it could happen considering she’s a normal and has emotional empathy. We were bouncing around ideas.
You often say that you don’t see your super. This comment is your super coming out. You’ve drawn a line with Constance and that’s that.
I hope I didn’t upset you too much, Contagious.
Am I right in thinking that Erika K made a subsequent speech a few days later which was very much about non retaliation and forgiveness ? Apparently even trump talked about reflecting on a different approach to his enemies afterwards? If true, that makes me think the first reaction was shock.
Hi Jade,
No, Trump didn’t reflect on a different approach towards his enemies. At Charlie Kirk’s memorial service he said he hates his opponents. I thought his speech was awful and embarrassing. People were actually walking out in the middle of it. SMH!
Hey Leigh:
I object… lol… not super… I still don’t see it… but a mother. I am a mother. Sorry but if you don’t have children you won’t understand that bond. I agree with you. If in the US it would have been life. All of these children from the “ weak” yet not incompetent men who put their children in hell need to be removed from society and their children kept safe. How many here do we read about an abusive father or abusive mother where the other spouse lets that happen. No way is that right. Stand up man and protect the children. Like the case in Perris where she was under the influence of a violent psychopathic man. I would be six feet under before I would let some man harm my babies and to Fu&$ing join him in harming the innocents? My babies?! . I see it equally wrong, sick and evil. Zero sympathy. I am on team babies.
Hi Contagious,
I have children and I absolutely understand the bond. I also had an abusive father and a neglectful mother and my mother enjoyed it when he abused us. Its unfortunate but I raised my children with a narcissist. I wouldn’t tolerate abuse from him though. No way, now how. And I didn’t know he was a narcissist at the time. They were in there late teens when I figured it out. He wasn’t abusive. He was more of an absentee father than anything. Anyway, I agree that children need to be protected. I’m not excusing Marten’s behavior. I’m curious how it happened.
Yes it’s true and it was beautiful. She spoke of Christ and forgave the man who shot her husband. If true, great. If not true, great. It means she is at better peace which is good for her young children. It means she is trying to stop more stupid violence….
Yes she did. She forgave the killer in the name of Christ. Trump did not.
Well said, TS.
Hi Violetfire and Mari,
Thank you. Many aspects of Erika’s reaction feel ‘off’ to me. Whilst they aren’t enough to be determinative, they would certainly be enough to make me extremely wary.
Yep! That was a hard ‘Nope’, from me 😀
Dearest Truth,
Lights, camera, action haha
Hey Bubbles,
Lovely to see you commenting regularly again. I always take that as a very positive sign 😉
Xx
Dearest Truth,
Awwww thank you oh lovely one, that’s a really sweet thing to say.
Ironically enough, Mr Tudor’s blog is a good distraction and helps me feel positive. I know, weird right, or maybe it’s my narcissistic traits that need soothing
I also love seeing your ‘Eye of Horus’ pop up, it’s comforting to see and other faithfuls
Oh myyyy, is Mr Tudor somehow Thoth ? 😂
Hi Bubbles,
No, not weird. On the blog you are amongst those who understand and the distraction allows you to remain in touch with your situation without having to keep facing it directly. I think being involved here is likely exactly what you need just now.
I’m glad you see familiar names as comforting. I often feel the same. Reassured. 😘
Thoth. My advisor and the restorer of my sight? Could be! 🌛
Xx
I’ve just watched parts of Charlie Kirk’s memorial service on the news.
HG,
With regard to Trump’s behaviour at the memorial, I am interested in your view. Could you answer a question, please?
As you have explained, narcissist’s don’t have emotional empathy, nor do they feel compassion or sadness.
Also as you have explained, Trump is a narcissist.
Therefore, since Trump is a narcissist and doesn’t feel empathy, compassion or sadness, what do you think he was feeling, or what were his thoughts, while he was consoling Erika Kirk during the memorial?
“When does my Maccies arrive?”
Thank you for answering, HG.
That’s amusing … although, also very inappropriate.
Trump doesn’t actually care despite Erika’s loss and the grim way Charlie died. It’s all about what it means for him.
Indeed, which is what I conveyed by my response.
WiserNow,
Why inappropriate? You have asked about Trump’s thoughts. HG has given a suggestion.
Hi Arya,
When I said it was inappropriate, I meant that Trump thinking about when his Maccies would arrive would be an inappropriate thought to have while consoling the wife of a murdered man during the man’s funeral.
By saying it would be ‘inappropriate,’ my thinking is that Trump – being a narcissist – was pretending to console Erika. It was a totally fake show of sympathy. He doesn’t feel sympathetic or caring at all. By being fake and pretending to care, he was manipulating Erika and everyone else at the memorial as well as the audience watching the memorial.
I’m not sure how you interpreted my comment, Arya. If you thought that I meant that HG’s answer to my question was inappropriate, then I think you may have misread my comment.
To clear up any potential confusion, when I read HG’s reply, I thought HG’s answer was amusing. At the same time, I thought that it would have been inappropriate for Trump to be focused on his Maccies while consoling Erika Kirk during a funeral.
Haha. I had to look that up.
I had to look it up too, WC.
Made me laugh.
Violetfire & Rebecca,
I don’t go often enough to have a nickname for it but have heard “Mickey d’s” in use.
I am more likely to go for a “Timmy’s” – and even that is less frequent these days, the one closest to me is soooo sketchy. They removed all the seating and installed security personnel instead.
Besides, I like a coffee shop with at least some ambiance…
WhoCares,
Same, I had no idea it’s called that, there. 😄xx
WhoCares,
I haven’t eaten there on a long time. I find the food too processed and bland. I don’t trust food that doesn’t break down over time. Xx
Haha
Narc Angel: I like liked your response no one here wants her to be a narcissist. That’s a good point. Murder is murder. A wife and two young children lost their lives. We live in a civil society that has laws and political views aren’t a reason for vigilante justice on this level. Maybe the French or Russian revolution but it’s scary to think we are at that level.
I find her reaction to be bizarre.
Generally people who believe they have literally been directed by god to do certain things, tend to come across as grandiose and exhibit strong narcissistic traits (unless of course they are suffering with a psychotic delusion which is different.)
I can’t imagine most people requesting to be recorded at a funeral. Yes, I understand that his fans may want updates but wouldn’t a picture of the casket surrounded by flowers or a video of the priest blessing the casket as it goes into the ground suffice and not videos and pictures of you?
The video of her talking was cringe..especially her whispering things. The first thing she did was thank his employees. I don’t know, it was strange to me. But they did suit each other I suppose.
“But they did suit each other”- there’s a back handed compliment, Witch, but your not wrong!
🤣 yes they complimented each other’s delulu perspectives such as Kirk’s belief that he possessed objective morality via his interpretation of the bible in modern English. I totally see why he debated students and not experts on particular subjects
Thank for creating this video, HG.
I know it would take further evidence to fully assess Erika Kirk – but watching her speak (I watched the whole speech) is really disconcerting.
The times where her voice “breaks” (if you can call it that) – or goes husky with emotion – are perfectly coordinated with key points in the speech. And, she is consistently able to rein her voice back into being normal immediately following these points. I did not witness any real tears or real tremors in her voice.
In my experience, when people are giving a poignant speech about someone they are very emotionally close to (dead or alive), their voice can often quaver or fail (due to being overcome with emotion) at inopportune moments – because their mind is going over memories in the background while giving the speech and a particular memory can suddenly overwhelm the speaker and result in unplanned breakthrough emotional responses which the speaker observably struggles to get back under control (often requiring a pause or few moments before they are able to continue.)
In my opinion, this speech sounded so practiced and the emotional moments seemed so contrived. Maybe she is putting on a performance for the legacy of her husband – but there definitely red flags here.
Well said.
Well said, WhoCares.
Thanks, Violetfire.
Hi WhoCares,
I’ve been wondering if when HG looks at people he homes in very, very quickly on signs of inauthenticity and this is one of the ways he makes very fast assessments of narcissism.
He clocked Erin Patterson’s narcissism off one short video when she really didn’t give much away and not much was known yet about the case. But in that video even I saw signs her emotions weren’t authentic.
If we see signs of contrivance or inauthenticity in Erika Kirk’s speech, what might HG see?
Hi annaamel,
“If we see signs of contrivance or inauthenticity in Erika Kirk’s speech, what might HG see?”
Indeed.
I am of the opinion that HG is able to make a determination of which team an individual is playing for much quicker than he lets on.
The evidence based assessments, of course, seal the deal and provide irrefutable evidence – if disputed.
WhoCares and annaamel,
I believe the response is buried in the Questioning Me tgread, but it also is implicitly shared as part of the When This One’s Wife Met HG…
Mr. Tudor can determine narchood within ten minutes.
Hello Dani. Yes I know he picks it up quickly. My comment was probably more about what kinds of clues he uses to make that fast assessment. I speculated it might be signs of inauthenticity. I guess that could mean things like words and body language not matching or lack of tears when crying. I also notice signs of inauthenticity in people (and it immediately makes me wary) but I often second guess myself or look for ways to explain it away.
“Mr. Tudor can determine narchood within ten minutes.”
Thank-you Dani!
Good memory.
Hi annaamel,
I agree. I second guess myself too frequently as well…I was recently tested on my ability to recognize the game being played. I don’t know exactly what kind of person I was interacting with. But there were enough clues to leave…even if only after a week. Red Flag and Manipulated are invaluable resources for people.
Hi WhoCares,
I remember that one particularly. I was new to the blog then, saw that answer, sent a response to it saying something like, “Mr. Tudor, you amaze me.” He gave me a one word response, “Understable.” which thoroughly tickled me.
Understandable.
Yes. Understandable. I had a typo. Thank you, sir.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a lovely example of HG killing two birds with one stone!
It’s very possible he was saying ‘understandable’ to the idea that one of his comments had tickled you, Dani. That seems very HG to me.
Mr. Tudor said: “But they did suit each other”- there’s a back handed compliment, Witch, but your not wrong!
I don’t know how to interpret that one, sir.
Hi Dani.
I don’t know if it’ll be helpful, but I’ll share how I interpreted HG’s response to Witch.
We tend to use the phrase ‘a couple are well suited to each other’ as a compliment (eg. they’re both nice, they’re both into musical theatre). However Witch’s comment suggested she found EK’s response after her husband’s death ‘bizarre’, ‘cringe’ and ‘strange.’ When she then said Kirk and his wife were well suited to each other, I interpreted this to mean Witch saw Kirk in a similar way. She could have been indicating they were similar in their very strong Christian faith, perhaps in their inclination to be very public people or maybe she just saw them as similar in their general presentation. But she wasn’t paying them a compliment – hence HG saying it was a backhanded compliment. (It could’ve seemed like a compliment but wasn’t.)
His subsequent statement that Witch wasn’t wrong suggested he agreed with her assessment of the couple.
Hi Annaamel,
I felt like the way Mr. Tudor phrased that was a clue about narcs and empaths or narcissistic cementation.
That’s how I initially read that.
Nothing definitive has been shared by the master of narc assessment… And I greatly appreciate the way Mr. Tudor strongly emphasizes time and evidence to his studeu.
I love Charlie and agreed with almost everything he said. He did come across as narcissistic to me. I’m not saying that to tarnish his legacy or minimize his impact. I mean, we love HG and he is helpful to us despite what he is. I don’t expect HG to do an analysis on him anytime soon.
Hi GP,
And narcissistic is not the same as a narcissist. We are all narcissistic at varying levels. So looking for signs of seeking the prime aims over a period of time is what I’m doing. I enjoyed reading your comment, truth about HG! 🙂
That’s a helpful reminder AV 👌
I have one family member who is quite narcissistic (I’m also beginning to wonder if they’re a super empath) and my mum is a narcissist and it does feel like night and day (now). The first is often demanding and blunt but I feel there’s a straightforwardness not present in my mum (who presents much more amenable) on the surface. The prime aims is a good reminder…
Hi Jade, I’m glad if my comment helped you. CoD’s can also have some very high narc traits, not saying that your family member is that, but my CoD daughter reminds me often enough so I thought I’d mention it. She is clear in what she’s feeling but not always straightforward about it, she can be quite passive aggressive. But she has a ton of emotional empathy that goes along with it, and doesn’t seem the prime aime, as a narc does.
I’ll have to learn more about CoD’s ..I hadn’t necessarily thought of them as having high narcissistic traits but now you say it, it makes sense A Victor.
This narcissistic family member is very straight forward, no passive aggressiveness but also seems to have good emotional empathy when necessary (tho not always self aware about her bluntness). She’s known for being a bit “scary” but I’m realising she dies what she says she’ll do and “it’s all out there”. Though I’m much more the softer end of things I’m beginning to appreciate her approach in some ways…
I can see a big difference between her and my mum who is passive aggressive but also gaslights, lies, blame shifts.. the whole kit and caboodle! It’s fascinating…
Dear Witch,
I feel you articulated what most of us would be thinking and they definitely did “suit each other”…….same same (I also feel they mirrored each other)
I came across a video of when they first met, very interesting.
Personally, I would’ve kept everything private and issued a statement instead, but then, that’s me!
This is a great dissect by our illustrious mentor Mr Tudor. Looking forward to more.
Thank you Witch and thank you Mr Tudor
Witch, this requires an understanding of and sensitivity towards American evangelical culture, especially of the more non-denominational variety. Also, divining her actions requires an apprehension of his organization as part of a movement. There’s context missing behind your observations which might help your understanding.
Personally, I’m suspending any nitpicking of the behavior of a young widow with two small children who in just the past few days saw her husband’s throat torn open by a bullet in broad daylight for speaking to people. I imagine myself in such a situation and I know I wouldn’t fare well under your scrutiny.The light is too bright and I’m better with candles. I might stick pins later, but that’s just me, Witch. You carry on.
Allison,
You may be better with candles, but Erika Kirk is clearly better with the bright light.
If she didn’t want to be put under scrutiny and have people talking about her, then why in the world would she have addressed the whole entire nation only 49 hours after her husband’s brutal death?
@Allison
“Witch, this requires an understanding of and sensitivity towards American evangelical culture”
It may be the case that I’m just too British for this but there are Americans who agree with me
please note Kirk was not particularly sensitive towards other people’s cultures, or really sensitive at all, he made a lot of inflammatory comments, “Palestine is not a real place, what is the ethnicity of a Palestinian?” not that I’m against criticising other cultures fairly
“I imagine myself in such a situation and I know I wouldn’t fare well under your scrutiny.”
Why? would you ask to be recorded at a funeral with the body for social media? And use it as an opportunity to further promote your nationalistic ideology?
“ The light is too bright and I’m better with candles. I might stick pins later, but that’s just me, Witch. You carry on.”
I don’t understand what this means
Allison,
Again I appreciate a comment you’ve written.
To all,
My daughter made an observation a couple of days ago that only a very small number of women have experienced something like this, as such there really is no precedent established for how one “should” handle it. Jacqueline Kennedy, for example, wearing her blood stained dress. I don’t know if she was a narcissist or not, I’m not concerned about that. I’m simply pointing out that no one on this blog likely knows Erica personally, no one knows how they themselves would react in the same situation and no one knows really how most would react in such a situation.
There is a comment under this video on YT that I thought was extremely good. It is from a fellow widow who said Erica looks to her to be a young, grieving new widow who is trying to keep her husband alive however she can. That’s the basics I took from it. That makes sense to me, the appearance was two days after his death, she was in a cloud, a fog, if she’s a normal person on any level. We are not in a position to judge her, I don’t think.
Also, as to the way she looks, she likely has people around her to maintain her wardrobe, hair, makeup etc. And she was a beauty queen, looking like this is natural to her. She would’ve wanted to do it to honor her husband I believe also.
I suspect I would’ve done things differently than she has but, I can’t judge her for it at all. Not at this point. If it turns out she or Charlie, or both, are deemed narcissists by HG at some point, I will watch those videos with some interest. Until then, I will believe she is a grieving widow.
AV,
“My daughter made an observation a couple of days ago that only a very small number of women have experienced something like this, as such there really is no precedent established for how one “should” handle it. Jacqueline Kennedy, for example, wearing her blood stained dress.”
Your daughter makes a good point.
I happen to be listening to some of the coverage of Charlie Kirk’s funeral (multi-tasking since I brought my work laptop home this weekend) – mostly because I want to see how Trump might try to make it about himself – so far, I think he’s late in arriving which makes everyone awaiting on him and, therefore, about him.
The commentators mentioned that Erika Kirk will speak at the funeral: surprising…or unsurprising?They also said she, in an interview, stated she is still wearing a pin, the same one worn the day her husband was shot and it still has some of his blood on it.
Mirroring Kennedy, possibly?
AV,
In follow up to my previous comment, I found the article that was referenced by the commentators – the ‘pin’ was actually a pendant Erika’s husband was wearing when he was shot. So, perhaps not mirroring afterall…
Hi WC,
I didn’t hear about that, the pin. I watched the entire thing, and I also watched for Trump to draw attention to himself. He did by being late, as you said, and I thought his speech was pretty terrible for the occasion, more attention on himself.
I have no idea if Erika is a narc, I don’t know nearly enough about her to make any kind of guess even. I stay on the side of, when in doing don’t, in this case don’t think she’s a narcissist. If evidence, or more evidence, shows up that she is, that’s fine too, I have nothing riding on it.
HI AV & WC,
I didn’t watch the whole memorial. WC, like you, I had it on in the background and only listened to a couple of speakers. I did make it a point to listen to Erika & Trump though.
If you ask me, I think Trump crossed a line. I know he was nullifying the threat to his control but I still found it in very poor taste. How do you say you hate your opponents at a memorial service for a Christian in a stadium filled with Christians? I’m seeing lot of comments about people leaving during his speech. This was supposed to be a tribute to Charlie not a political rally. Are people getting tired of him?
I hadn’t heard of Charlie or Erika Kirk before all of this either and I’ve only seen Erika speak twice. Based off of the first time I saw her speak, I did make a snap decision. Not necessarily that she was a narc, but I did see some narc traits. But after your comment AV, I took a step back and decided I wanted to try and keep an open mind. I can be very quick to judge people. I’m a bit of a cynic.
I’ve been watching a lot of Kirk’s videos too. He was a divisive figure and I didn’t agree with everything he said. But I like that he was measured and calm. I think that’s why he was so successful at reaching people.
When in “doubt”, don’t. Not “doing”.
Hi AV,
I also ‘watched’ the entire thing – or at least had it playing in the background while I worked. The musical entertainment (while awaiting Trump) was not my cup of tea, so I searched and found a small news channel streaming it and there was actual useful commentary being made – this is where I heard about the pendant (I mistakenly said ‘pin’ in my initial comment). I also found an article, if you’re interested:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/charlie-kirk-wife-erika-reveals-233033739.html
“I thought his speech was pretty terrible for the occasion, more attention on himself.”
I completely agree with you about Trump’s speech. He certainly hijacked the moment. (Along with many members of his cabinet.)
“If evidence, or more evidence, shows up that she is, that’s fine too, I have nothing riding on it.”
When I read this statement, I thought to myself: what do I have riding on this?
I realized I have nothing either – except that I enjoy implementing exercising my learning and skills since having arrived on the blog.
I initially went in search of information on Charlie Kirk because I had never heard of him – and apparently he is quite the divisive figure. Being such a provocative speaker etc., I actually was thinking that maybe he is a narcissist, but after viewing past videos I am leaning towards normal to narcissistic. Anyway, my research (and the current news) led me, obviously, to watch footage of Erika Kirk and it’s hard to deny that there is something “off” there.
Hi WC,
I also didn’t care for much of the music, I also didn’t pay attention to the screen when it was on. I did listen to most of the speeches though, I missed one because the station I was listening on didn’t show it.
We do have building our skills at stake, in any situation I suppose. This is one I therefore should’ve stayed out of, I don’t need to build my skills around a couple who just suffered such a tragedy that I cannot even comprehend it. I wonder if the “something off” could be that she just lost her husband in one of the most public assassinations of the century. Time will tell.
HG tells us it takes time to make a determination. The murder was less than two weeks ago. In that time I have personally seen her maybe 10 times, maybe. I will continue to hold off judgement until I see more, over time.
I don’t understand why it seems that some here are, it feels like, almost wanting her to be a narcissist. That makes no sense to me. And I feel like the fact that he was killed for words has been dismissed, which I believe is quite a sad statement.
In any event, as I said, I have no skin in the game, didn’t know much about him, even less about her, if they turn out to be narcs, so be it.
WC,
Thank you for the link, that was interesting to read.
AV,
“I don’t understand why it seems that some here are, it feels like, almost wanting her to be a narcissist. That makes no sense to me.”
I am glad you said that. Truthfully, in my search to find out more about Charlie Kirk I wanted *him* to be a narcissist – I realize that now. But in my research of him, I simply didn’t find the manipulations. When I suspect someone’s a narcissist, I will usually go check out their spouse as well – because, invariably a narcissist is partnered with an empath, which adds more to the picture. I wanted Erika Kirk to be an empath, but I am not certain that is what I discovered. Although, I acknowledge that stressful circumstances can impact how someone presents.
“And I feel like the fact that he was killed for words has been dismissed, which I believe is quite a sad statement.”
The gravity of your words is not lost on me, AV. I haven’t missed that fact. Perhaps, I have been too zealous, to the taste of some, about my pursuit of understanding the personalities of Charlie and Erika Kirk. Recognizing the emotional impact of Kirk’s killing on people in general, but especially Americans, also factored in to my decision to watch the service – because I wanted to take part in/witness it. But for me, trying to understand something that seems senseless begins with trying to first make sense of the players involved. I apologize if that offended some here.
Av
I don’t see any evidence that anyone here WANTS her to be a narcissist. She either is or isn’t. Neither will change what happened, but it would be interesting to know. It would explain some behaviors. Anyone who listened but did not watch will have missed a lot, as there are so many more visual observances.to take into account. It is generally easier to read someone when you can see them. More context.
WC,
Wow, thank you for your comment! That was really like a balm I needed. I appreciate that more than you know.
I do understand our truthseeking trait and also that the blog is a place we practice that. Perhaps I have been too particular.
No need for an apology you, to me anyway, we were having a conversation, and I thank you for that.
Thank-you for the conversation as well, AV. 💙
NA,
“Av
I don’t see any evidence that anyone here WANTS her to be a narcissist. She either is or isn’t. Neither will change what happened, but it would be interesting to know. It would explain some behaviors. Anyone who listened but did not watch will have missed a lot, as there are so many more visual observances.to take into account. It is generally easier to read someone when you can see them. More context.”
“I don’t understand why it seems that some here are, it feels like, almost wanting her to be a narcissist…
In any event, as I said, I have no skin in the game, didn’t know much about him, even less about her, if they turn out to be narcs, so be it.”
I didn’t say “evidence”, I said “seems like” and “feels like”, to me. Maybe it was the timing, maybe it was the words used, maybe it was the proliferation, or a combination of these things, that caused me to feel this way.
I am aware that, “she either is or isn’t”, and I agree it would be interesting to know. I don’t need to know, maybe that’s the difference between us, I don’t need her behaviors explained at a time when no one would be “normal” and there is no real precedent set for what normal even is.
Fwiw, I did watch most of the speeches, and certainly Erika’s and Trump’s, with interest. Those I know to be narcissists already were very interesting to me when viewed through that lens. The rest, I do watch for signs, believe it or not, I haven’t learned nothing during my years here. The biggest message I’ve been stating is that it is as HG says, over a period of time. Time will give more information on Erika, then it may become clear in one direction or another. Until then I observe and withhold judgment. I should not have become involved in this conversation.
Hi AV,
I’m sorry you feel like you shouldn’t have become involved in this conversation. I’m assuming you mean because the conversation was upsetting to you.
I don’t know if this will help but it was your comment about Erika that triggered my empathy for her. When I saw the situation through your lens, it gave me a different perspective.
I think your input in this conversation was invaluable. Thank you.
Hi Leigh,
Thank you. But no, it is more a statement that, because this is blogworld, it just doesn’t matter that much in my life, what people here think is not something to concern myself with or spend my time on. It was interesting to me to see the en mass use of the word “performative”, a word is not heard prior to Erika’s first short speech. Then, my daughter was the first to use it and I’ve seen it everywhere since. To me, that does not indicate that her speech was actually performative, it indicates that someone said it and it caught on. I suspect the truth falls somewhere in the middle. Anyway, thank you for your comment.
Oh ok, AV. I misunderstood.
For what its worth, I still think your voice needed to be heard as well.
Thank you for sharing how you see things, AV. I agree. I should show her some grace and compassion.
I didn’t mean to suggest that I think she is a narc. Everyone grieves differently and I shouldn’t judge.
Hi Leigh,
You’re welcome.
I didn’t think you, or anyone, suggested she is a narc.
Pffft.
That’s what we do here. We consistently judge people and their behaviors. We’ve weighed in on the behaviors of alleged murderers, adulterers, etc, and with little evidence, before they were ever tried in a court of law, or categorized via Tudorscope. There has even been a fair bit of judging and labeling each other here. Lets get down off the mount.
NA,
Agreed. We consistently judge people and their behaviors and I am not above reproach. I have definitely done my fair share of judging and labeling. We already know that I don’t hold my tongue. I’m not on any mount. I felt bad that I judged Erika harshly and wanted to apologize. Why is that so terrible?
NA,
Judging behaviors, making determinations and negative comments can be all quite different things
Hey Leigh:
I don’t get it. Some may not like his political ideology. But a young man was shit dead leaving a wife and small children. He was political and I think his wife tried to honor him by speaking. I don’t know for me right, left, center, narc, nonnarc…. Sad… sad… sad. I found the innocent children shot dead in a Catholic Church… sad… sad… sad. We are the Divided States of America, where is humanity? Children lost their father. End of for me. I didn’t know who he was or what he said. It was sad.
Thank you, Contagious. I agree. We’re living in very sad times right now. A lot of hatred. And we can’t stop hate with more hate.
Thank you for your comment Contagious, that is where I’m at with it also. It’s just sad, regardless of who they were/are, regardless if we agreed or disagree with him..
Allison,
Aside from ideology and cultural differences, many longtime followers of HG’s work are primed to think critically and be keenly observant – which, for the most part, involves ‘nitpicking’ and scrutinizing.
“I imagine myself in such a situation and I know I wouldn’t fare well under your scrutiny.”
Putting oneself in Erika Kirk’s shoes is certainly helpful – but I wonder how many of us would choose to put on such a public display of grief. You reminded that she has two young children; to my mind these would be the individuals most needing consoling and comfort over and above a public show of grief to the nation.
I cannot help but think of QEII and how she was criticized for her actions of not addressing the British people sooner when Diana died in an untimely and horrific death. Where was she? She was with the two children who were the most impacted by those circumstances – and understandable so.
Perhaps Erika was more able to put her family aside to meet the demands of some kind of public expectation of a response from her – but, what about her personality makes it so?
Hi WhoCares,
You raise some interesting points.
When I think about Erika Kirk’s actions after her husband’s horrible and unexpected death, I think she is under a lot of pressure both in a public sense as well as a private sense.
Most people when grieving the death of someone close to them can grieve in private and have the space and time to process their strong emotions behind closed doors.
Erika is going through this enormously life-changing event in a very public way.
I think that anyone, whether they are empathic, normal, narcissistic or a narcissist, would have some form of a public-facing front or stance or attitude. I think this is inevitable and understandable.
In private, I think Erika may have a different kind of attitude and emotional response. Also, she is the mother of two small children who are very much dependent on her. She also needs to be strong and ‘in control’ for them.
I think the same can be said for the late Queen Elizabeth II. She was also under immense pressure in both a public and private sense.
When reading your comment, WC, I couldn’t help thinking that QEII raised two narcissists. In that respect, if she was to be judged as a mother and grandmother, there could be some questions asked.
Overall, I think that whatever QEII did and whatever actions she took, she would have been scrutinised and judged for them by the public.
It’s interesting that one of the things Charlie Kirk spoke about is single motherhood and the families of single mothers. He probably never considered that his own wife could eventually be a single mother herself.
WiserNow,
“Erika is going through this enormously life-changing event in a very public way.”
Everything about the circumstances surrounding Charlie Kirk’s death has been unusual and, basically, on display to the masses. It’s definitely a unique situation. But, if she had so chosen, Erika could have made more personal choices in how she grieved her husband – at least for a time. People with any sense of decency would have respected her privacy. (Yes, of course, everyone and their brother, would still have an opinion about this event all around the internet.) But I don’t think most would have made an outcry that she give a public video statement – with the exception perhaps of those desiring to capitalize on such an action. She chose to put her grief front and center on the world’s stage.
Regarding QEII raising two narcissists (she also raised two non-narcissists) – we know that simply the life circumstances of growing up as Royalty, and in a life of privilege, is sufficient to create an LOCE, and (with addition of the GPD) a possible narcissist.
I agree with you that no matter which actions QEII had chosen at the time of Diana’s death, she would have been on the receiving end of criticism. However, unlike in Erika’s case, there was a public outcry for a response – which the Queen chose not to immediately give in to.
“Also, she is the mother of two small children who are very much dependent on her. She also needs to be strong and ‘in control’ for them.”
In your opinion, WN, what actions of Erika Kirk’s demonstrates being strong and in control – for her children?
Hi WhoCares,
The point I was making was that women who experience a situation like the unexpected death of their husband in a very public way have a public-facing reaction and also a personal or private reaction.
If they have small children, their being a mother means they would need to help their children process the loss and grief as well.
Since her husband’s death, Erika hasn’t been in public every day. She has had private time as well. In my opinion, I don’t know what she has done in her private time with her children in order to be strong for them and to support them in relation to losing their father.
In relation to her public appearances, to me, Erika’s speeches since Charlie’s death have been closely intertwined with promotion of Turning Point USA.
From the initial speech and the way the memorial was staged and organised, there were clearly obvious and prominent marketing and promotional aspects included in both events.
From what I know of her, Erika is 37 years old and is involved in a number of different things. After reading Wikipedia, I learned she is the CEO of at least two organisations and she’s also a real estate agent. She is very much a ‘businesswoman.’
Since her husband’s death, she has also taken over his role as CEO of Turning Point USA.
Personally, I find it inappropriate that the ‘remembrance’ and memorial of Charlie Kirk was staged and discussed in a way that blatantly promoted a company and political party. That’s my personal opinion.
I can imagine though, that as a couple who were very publicly involved in the daily operations, promotion, and management of corporations, Erika and others at Turning Point USA would think that capitalising on such an event was an opportunity too good to miss. Despite what else is happening, no matter how shocking and unexpected, a business still has wages and overheads to pay.
I think there are also different ways that a person can be strong and in control. It may be that Erika believes that taking Charlie’s place as CEO and promoting the company which provides the family with their income and lifestyle is a way to be strong and in control for her children. This kind of strength may not have the immediacy of being directly with them but it does support them in the sense that it provides for them.
WN,
“The point I was making was that women who experience a situation like the unexpected death of their husband in a very public way have a public-facing reaction and also a personal or private reaction.”
I didn’t miss your point. This is true regardless of whether the unexpected/tragic/stressful event took place in public. One need may need to put on a brave face for the public or just day to day life in order to get by, or for their children – and reserve their own personal feelings for when in private. I know something about this.
Alternatively, some are not able to deal with the public at all for a short time or even a long time.
“I think there are also different ways that a person can be strong and in control. It may be that Erika believes that taking Charlie’s place as CEO and promoting the company which provides the family with their income and lifestyle is a way to be strong and in control for her children. This kind of strength may not have the immediacy of being directly with them but it does support them in the sense that it provides for them.”
Providing for one’s children in times of stress and instability is a good example of being there and being supportive for them. Protecting them from the sensationalization of their father’s death would be another.
Hi again WhoCares,
I’ve read your message here in which you apologise in case you have offended anyone. Please don’t feel you need to apologise as far as I’m concerned.
I’m sorry if my comments came across in a contrary or argumentative way. It wasn’t my intention at all. Instead, I thought I’d comment about the way grief can make people react in various ways.
I actually agreed with your comments about Erika’s speech delivered in the days after Charlie’s death. I found her to be disconcerting as well. I thought her words and mannerisms were strange and contrived. It also surprised me that she had the ability to deliver a 17-minute speech so soon after the shooting.
With regard to some of the things Erika said in her initial speech, I thought they were charged with religious fervor and an angry tone. While I can understand that she was very angry and upset, I don’t think it was a good idea to vent that in a public address. It seemed to me that it only fuelled more political vindictiveness.
The reason I replied to your comment, WhoCares, is because the more I think about Charlie Kirk’s murder, the more I think how terrible and heartbreaking it is for a wife and mother of small children to witness and experience that. I also think that such a traumatic event would affect a person’s reactions, making them say and do things in the days following that they wouldn’t normally say and do.
When I think about the shooting and the public reactions and all of the various aspects surrounding it, as well as information that came to light, it’s a lot overall. It makes me consider Erika’s behaviour in more detail as well.
Having said all that, Erika Kirk may be a narcissist. Considering that the discussions here on the blog are often about whether or not someone is a narcissist, to comment about whether Erika is a narcissist is standard conversation. You didn’t say anything offensive at all. Your comments were in keeping with the kinds of discussions that are on the blog all the time.
I think it’s the way discussions can go sometimes. Please know that you didn’t offend me at all.
WN,
“Considering that the discussions here on the blog are often about whether or not someone is a narcissist, to comment about whether Erika is a narcissist is standard conversation.”
That’s an accurate statement.
“Your comments were in keeping with the kinds of discussions that are on the blog all the time.
I think it’s the way discussions can go sometimes. Please know that you didn’t offend me at all.”
Happy to know I didn’t offend.
Had never heard her speak before. Watched here, and then the entire 17 minutes. All I saw in my introduction to her was performative propaganda, but as HG teaches, it takes a study of a number of behaviours over an extended period of time, so I will stay tuned. At least I hope I can.
NA – agreed. Her speech felt performative, promotional and practiced.
Thank you for handling the Charlie Kirk assassination in such a logical way. It has been like a light in the darkness listening to your videos on the matter.
Thank you AV.
You’re welcome HG.
Dear HG,
Thank you again for covering this horrific case. Xx
My emotions are still high, so I haven’t been able to bring myself to view these videos yet. I’m lacking the courage. Not because of any fault of the material; I know it must be excellent and that it strikes the perfect chord. It should be widely seen and it will be of immense help in fostering understanding. But it hurts when I see Charlie’s image, and when I think of him. My tentative interactions here on the blog regarding the aftermath of the assassination are my limit.
Charlie spoke on my campus last year and I admired him greatly as an intellect and autodidact. I found his ability to engage with those who disagreed with him with curiosity, immense patience, good faith, and respect to be a sterling example. He offered so much to the culture and, as I sit in the midst of the ideological pit that is postmodern academia, his actions gave me strength and encouragement. I feel sick thinking of his family, and of the devastation of the father who turned in his own son for the killing. That took tremendous rectitude.
I cannot imagine the depth of the pain of those who knew Charlie are going through. My own comfort is in bearing witness to their grace, and to the amplification of Charlie’s life and message. But I still wish he were here.
I look forward to viewing the material in future because I’m sure it will be greatly helpful as always, but I’m so wounded right now. I can’t bear it just yet. What a shit day.