Cold Therapy Seminar BOOTLEG: Introduction Lecture

Okay, who am I? Before I tell you who I am in sentences, I want to introduce you to a fact.

The first IQ test was designed in 1905 by two delectable Frenchmen. One was called Théodors Timon, who noticed the correct pronunciation.

These two Frenchmen came together, which if you know France is a miracle. They came together and they created an IQ test, a typical French version.

This was the title of the IQ test. I'm kidding you not. New method for diagnosing idiocy. And I'm kidding you not as well. New method for diagnosing idiocy, impersonality, and moral studies.

You need to know that I scored very high on this test. So this is the best activity to know about me. I scored high on this kind of IQ test for the masculinity and moronic studies.

And the second thing you need to know about me is that I'm an author, 60-something books, also made with my normal version of this, but it's not so loud.

Now this is a revisitor. Some of you have been exposed to my YouTube videos, can you repeat it in your sleep?

My name is Sabaty, and I'm from Switzerland. I have to make your life useful.

So, and another thing is that I'm a professor of psychology. I'm Tim June, I was a professor of psychology in Russia University, Southern Federal University in Mustogon, and then there was a conspiracy against me and they invaded Ukraine. So it was only intended to get rid of it, but no more.

So in June I lost my position there, luckily I retained my position with a few other minor universities such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton. There's a consortium of CIAPS, and it has an outreach program. It's called CIAPS, Center for International Advanced Professional Studies.

I wrote the curriculum for psychology and I wrote the curriculum for finance, because I used to read economics. So, this is my status right now, I'm a professor of psychology in CIAPS, which is the outreach program of these eight units.

I mentioned software. So this is, and the last thing you need to know about me for disclosure sake, those of you who still don't know this, is that I've been diagnosed twice with narcissistic personality disorder in the eighties and then in the nineties.

So I have first an intimate acquaintance with the disorder, which gives me an edge, gives me an advantage, but it also, of course, a decent advantage. It's going to be a breakthrough.

So now this is a very bad reality and even much worse with self-evaluation. We'll talk about this a bit later, but I compensate for this. I compensate for this by practicing psychology for 26 years and by retaining the largest database of narcissists on earth. It's a database of 1,000 almost 2,000.

People diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. There's nothing remotely close to this.

The biggest study ever conducted on narcissism comprised 43 individuals. I will know she cannot forget.

To offer my database to a major university, which should be the name of me, because there's nothing remotely close to this. It includes well over 1 billion data points. So it's a serious database.

A lot of my insights, all my insights actually, derive from this database and this I do believe give me a certain advantage over on-chair psychologists and observers, however disinterested they may be.

So this also you need to know about me and we can start if you give your permission.

You know, my other head, my PhD actually, is in physics, and my other head I'm an astrophysicist. My theory in astrophysics is now gaining some revival. Many scientists over the world are working on it, some support. I'm very proud that you took on it 30 years.

So I'm an astrophysicist. And you know what's happening in astrophysics? I don't know if you noticed, we are making the universe in astrophysics darker and darker. We have dark energy. We have dark matter. We have black holes. The universe is becoming a seriously terrifying place.

Not only that, but the overwhelming vast majority of the universe is not observable or measurable. We can only discern the existence of these alleged entities by monitoring their impacts on bodies, for example planets or stars.

It reminds me a lot of the narcissists.

Very often to understand the narcissists or to understand the dynamics of narcissism. We need to monitor or observe people around the narcissist.

Not the narcissist himself, but people around the narcissist.

This is extremely similar to dark matter or dark energy or black holes.

So the universe is becoming darker and darker.

But you know, astrophysicists are looking in the wrong direction.

But they need to look downward because the darkest of all dark corners in the universe is right among us.

These are the narcissists.

These are not only narcissists, these are what are known as dark personalities.

Now dark personalities, there are two recognized dark personalities and one dark personality is the dark proposal.

It's not yet mainstream.

The first dark personality to have been described was the dark trial.

The dark trial, everything I say by the way, normally I would write it from a flow chart, but we don't have a flow chart. So everything I say, you can Google later and then you're discovered that I'm misleading.

So dark trial, dark trial personalities are personalities which have three characteristics.

Number one, subclinical narcissism. Narcissism that cannot be diagnosed, that is on the threshold, on the verge of being diagnosed, but doesn't make the cut. It's not enough to be diagnosed. That's subclinical knowledge.

So we're talking about ables and germs. People who are power-hungry, conceited, people who are exclamative, lack empathy to some extent, do get empathy, but lack a lot of it, like reduced empathy, hence malignant and so on.

This is subclinical.

Second element in dark trial, subclinical psychopathy. These are people who are almost psychopathic. They are less considerate.

When they have a goal, they will travel over you and your interests. They would not take into consideration your needs, your fears, your emotions, your preferences, your priorities.

Subclinical psychopathy cannot be diagnosed. They're almost there, almost nauseous, almost nauseous.

And the third element is machiavellianism. Machiavellianism is a fancy term for manipulative people. People who are manipulative, or who use manipulation, it's a main life coping strategy.

Put the three together, subclinical narcissism, subclinical psychotherapy, and machiavellianism, and you have the dark trial of subclinical.

These are lovely people to be with, and they strongly recommend having an intimate relationship.

And new development in the field of dark personalities, and by the way, this is all introductory material. This is not the seminar yet. You have been warned.

Dark, the next development in dark personality study occurred a few years ago when the profession came up with the idea of dark tetrahedra, not dark trial, but dark tetrahedra. I hope I'm pronouncing it right. Tetrahedra.

The dark tetrahedra is everything delightful in the dark trial is lust, sadism, subclinical sadism. Someone who takes joy, enjoys other people's humiliation and discomfort, but would not inflict it on them deliberately. So, someone just busts in other people's pain, but wouldn't inflict on it actively.

This is the dark tetrahedra, and I'm proposing a dark pentagram, going back to my roots in black theistic.

The dark pentagram is everything the dark tetrahedra is, lust, dysregulation, also known as borderline. I think ultimately we should settle for the dark pentagram, because we definitely have people with all five. Definitely real.

And these are the dark pentagrams.

So, why go up there, close to God, and look for dark matter, dark energy, black bones. When you have one right here among you. Me, for example. Studying me.

Okay. What if you remember that of Orson Wentz? He was the icon of obesity. One obesity was yet not an epidemic. So he was an harbinger of obesity.

Orson Wentz was the famous movie director. He made the inevitable movie, Citizen King and others. And one day he went hiking. He went hiking where? In Germany, of course. Because Nazi Germany was deeply forgotten.

So Orson Wentz went to hiking Germany, Nazi Germany, mind you. And what does he come across in his letter of obesity and everything? He comes across Adolf Hitler.

Now that's not an apocryphal story. It's a true story. There are many apocryphal stories about Adolf Hitler. He loves Orson Wentz.

But this one happens to be true. So he comes across Adolf Hitler, and they look each other in the eye, and they exchange middle and middle class greetings to the core. And they pass each other and they go home.

And then Orson Wentz runs an interview in 1978, a bit after Hitler died, to be on the safe side. So he runs an interview, and here's what he had to say about Adolf Hitler.

By the way, it's Adolf Hitler. Everything up. Yeah, that's a very important one. I'm going to pronounce names and words in the original.

So I'm not going to end this up. French names and German names and so on. It's a seriously bad habit in my opinion, which is very misleading.

So it's Adolf Hitler, not Hitler. So he was asked, what did you feel? How did you experience Hitler when you came across him on the hiking trip?

And he said, I'm quoting, this guy had no personality whatsoever. I think there was nothing and nobody there.

Brilliant encapsulation of Nazism, as we should see.

Because narcissism is about the void. Narcissism is another name for what Köntler called autokontler, the father of many personality disorders. Autokontler called it the emptiness. It's a void. It's a humbling void.

In this emptiness is all pervasive. The narcissist is not a presence. The narcissist is an absence.

Here is where language breaks down. Language breaks down when I try to describe myself as well.

I have of course privileged access to myself, as only I know myself. None of you can know me.

In principle, no one can really know me more.

We rely on such reporting. So I have privileged access to myself. I have a way with words, not with women unfortunately, but with words.

And so, supposedly, I should have been able to capture the essence, my essence.

And yet, there is nothing to capture.

How do you describe a non-being, a non-entity? How do you describe a narcissist? How do you talk about narcissism?

All the words we have are ontological words. They are words that describe something.

We don't have words that describe nothing. Even when we say zero, it's something. Those of you who know mathematics know that zero is possibly the most important nut that there is. It's very much something.

We don't have language for nothing. To describe narcissism, as you will see in this seminar, I was forced in the 1990s to come up with a completely different language. Completely new language.

Neurogates. Hundreds of them. Many of them caught on. And they are now used widely, but no one knows the source.

But with me, because I have no language.

And yet, I did fail. And yet, I cannot capture what it is to be a narcissist.

Because how I describe, how I tell you, how I communicate to you, that I am not.

Not that I am. That I am not. Here I am. Here I am. You know, I am. I wish no one to believe that I am reasonably charming.

I am awakening on the spirit. I am, I gave it a level. Wonderful. You won. I communicate. I make you, I make you smile. I elicit, I elicit reactions from you, which is a major test. It's a goal. I succeed to elicit reactions.

And so I know how to manipulate your effects. I know how to, if I want you to smile, or if I want to shock you, I know how to do it. If I have some type of empathy, you will come to it. It's called cold empathy. And yet, I am telling you, no one is talking to you. You are faced with nothing. You are faced with absence. It's a manipulative absence. It's a little akin to, let's say, an artificial intelligence program. Future artificial intelligence programs will be device-independent. They will be ambient. They will run in the background. So you will not be able to catch a program, to put it in your pocket, to interact with someone, to just be there managing your life somehow, managing your preferences, telling you what to do, providing, feeding you with that advice. This ambient artificial intelligence is the closest simile that I can come up with to describe the analysis. It's like a complex algorithm, hyper-complex algorithm, for example. It's not called analysis. Many of them are even stupid, which is difficult. So many narcissists are actually, how do we name them? That was an idiocy in passivity in moronic status. It's many narcissists. But some of them are hyper-complex, I think. And so that will be a sophisticated third generation artificial intelligence program. But it's a program. It's a code. It's an algorithm. It's a set of symbols. You need to understand it. You need to assimilate this insight, because if you don't assimilate this insight, it will have been nothing to listen to. Nothing. You will not even understand how code therapy works. Code therapy is a symbolic, a system for simple manipulation. It is not like any other therapy you've ever come across.

And I know what I'm talking about, because I'm applying this service on a daily basis. It's nothing like anything you've ever come across. It's a departure from anything we know about therapy, because there is no way to access or to penetrate the narcissists for intersectional illusions, except by departing from everything based on existence, everything based on ontology. We need to depart from that, as you will see a bit later. This absence, this artificial intelligence program, this algorithm, well, it's among you. It's among you, masquerading as human beings. Now, that sounds very ableist. I was invited recently to write an article for an extremely prestigious medium in the United Kingdom, and they told me that my article is ableist, because I kept disparaging the narcissists, claiming that these are not from the human people, if they're able to tell. That's ableist, because they're disabled, sometimes disabled. That takes about disabled people. The disability of the narcissist consists in disabling you. I will take this. The disability of the narcissist consists of disabling you. That is disability. It is a disabling agent. Does it bring anything to mind? Let me help you. A computer virus. My word. My word is a computer program, for those of you who don't know. It's a code. And the main function of this code is to disable other goals, to disrupt the functioning of the goals. This more or less is the narcissist. Similarly, a virus, a real life virus, is not technically a life form. Again, I don't know how many are going into this guy. Technically, not a life form. And yet, it's a code. It's an absolute code that is intended to invade, colonize, perpetuate itself by destroying, essentially, the host. The aim is not to destroy the host, but it's the unfortunate side.

Someone here thinks that it's not nice to attack viruses.

So these are black holes in human form. You know black holes in physics. Everything gravitates towards them. And they let out nothing.

Well, they let out something. It's called radiation remember. They let out nothing. You can't decide.

This is a narcissist basically. It consumes you. It's a consumption metaphor.

Why narcissism did become a buzzword is because narcissism is a form of consumption. We live in a consumer society. The ethos is consumerism. The religion is consumption. Our new churches are shopping malls. This is a new religion.

Narcissism fits perfectly. Narcissism is the consumption of human beings. As you consume smartphones and artillery, the narcissist consumes people. It's a consumption organizing principle. It's a devouring, consuming, hermeneutic principle, explanatory principle.

Narcissism helps you to make sense of this civilization we live in, which is a death cart. The civilization we live in is a full fledged death cart.

Why is it a death cart?

Because it much prefers objects to people. It much prefers the inanimate to the inanimate.

When this happens, you are living in a death cart.

And in a death cart, there are two kings, only between definitely the narcissist and the psychopath. They are the kings of the death cart. And of course, they rise to the top. Normally. So they are among you. They are among you and they are out there to consume you.

How to communicate, how to verbalize this? It's a major task, as you will see.

How can we struggle in front of your very eyes to try to communicate to your insights, including personal insights, not as a minority, general insight. It's a struggle and very often unfeeling.

This language is done simply. There's a language barrier to this.

Let's go to the subject method itself.

Before I proceed, people like to classify. So they try to classify me.

Even in academia, academic institutions, they try to picture me. So some of them are saying, oh, it's Freudian or it's object relations, or they're trying to fit me into a school.

It's very unfortunate because I belong to another. As you will see, my work is totally eclectic. Totally eclectic.

When I see feet, I borrow from early psychology. And that would be William James, Freud, Jung, Adler, Fermi, United. When I see feet, I borrow from object relations theories, or predecessors like Melanie Klein, country, Winnicoat, Fairbairn, others. When I see feet, I borrow from neuroscience.

I think this clannishness in psychology, this turf wars, territorial wars. My school is more insightful than your school. My school is right. Your school is wrong. Your school is not scientific. My school is not.

This is pure. This is adolescent. Science does not progress via territorial skirmishes. This is not possible, will you pray? Science progresses via integration and synthesis. That's the only way forward. Albert Einstein, when he created his relativity theories, he didn't say, oh, I'm going to ignore all my predecessors because they were wrong and we've met my own school, which is what most psychologists are doing all the time.

Of course, consequently, psychology is a suite of science. It cannot be a science in principle because the subject matter is malleable, mutable, you know, it's all over the place. So in principle it can't be a science.

But even the little that psychologists could have done to be more like physicists, even this, they're undermining with this stupid war and conflicts and struggles and arguments.

So for example, in many, many prestigious Western universities, like unique universities, such as the one I'm affiliated with, I'm forbidden to teach, forbidden to teach anything before the 1990s. I'm forbidden to teach even cold. I'm forbidden to teach Freud, of course. Freud is another one. I shouldn't mention Freud. This is sick. This is utterly idiotic.

Why is war? Why is, seriously, why is geniuses? And even if they want to draw 90% of the time, there is still 10% valuable material to discard the baby with the water, with the bathtub, with the bathroom, with the building. It's a bit excessive in my opinion.

So I will not be doing this. So don't try to kind of identify where I took one from. I took everything from everyone, as you will see.

This is an important little module.

Let's start with what we think we know about this.

So now the seminar, finally we are at the seminar level. We have also a few stragglers on the way.

But we start with the seminar itself.

Now we're getting serious. We are serious. And you need to get serious. No more smiles. Why do smiles not be racist? This is a serious seminar.

What do we think we know about last? And is what we think we know right?

Let me help you with those of you who want to go over it.

Most of what we think we know about last is probably seriously wrong. And I will show you the various schools or the various approaches to analysis. Everything I will introduce you to is necessary.

Before I proceed, just to be clear, this is not a certification seminar. So you're not going to come out of here. It's called therapy

therapists. I do give a certification seminar. I gave ones in Vienna. This is not one. This is seminar open to the public.

So a lot of it is background information that we analyze for therapy. It's more like a supermarket than a specialty shop or boutique.

So in this supermarket, we are going to discuss this is the structure. We are going to start with cluster B.

Cluster B personality disorder. We are going to discuss mainly the etiology of cluster B personality disorder. Geology probably come about. The causation, the causes, alleged causes.

Next module, we are going to discuss trauma. We are going to discuss trauma.

Thank you very much.

So I needed a new form. Thank you.

Oh, what? She doesn't know that when an Israeli takes something, they never give back.

So the first module is etiology of cluster B personality disorder.

The second module is trauma background studies. The third module is narcissism therapy.

Our narcissism reacts to therapy, react to therapy, generally.

And the last module is called therapy, techniques and concepts.

So these are four.

We start with cluster B personality disorders and within that we start with narcissism.

Now, I said grandiosely that everyone before me got everything wrong. And it's a grandiose thing.

Not everyone got everything wrong, but I would say that they got it mostly posh.

So inside the famous story of the elephant with the three wise men, you know the story? There was an elephant and the three wise men blinded, blinded. And then one of them held the tail of the elephant, one of them held the leg of the elephant, one of them held the trunk of the elephant, and then the fourth one, we would have entered the realm of pornography.

So each one described the elephant differently, of course. One of them said an elephant is an elongated, rigid structure. Get your minds out of the garden. The other one said an elephant is something, you know, round and wide.

Each one of them described, that's what happened with narcissism. There were many wise men and they were all over the elephant. But each one of them saw a certain sensation.

And so this created a lot of misunderstanding and mischaracterization of narcissism.

The first attempt to describe narcissism was, of course, Freud. Something you may not know is that narcissism was a result of a fight between a Jew and a German. I know a fight between a Jew and a German are unheard of. But it was a real one.

Freud was a Jew and a Jew was a German. And they were fighting. And they were fighting about schizophrenia, actually. They were fighting about schizophrenia.

But the schizophrenia is a little bit of a technique, a little bit of a technique of narcissism. So they were fighting and then Freud wanted to make a point and he invented narcissism. That's how narcissism was born.

In 1914, Freud published an essay titled, very imaginative, on narcissism. And in this essay, for the first time, he described emotional investment, inwards. Emotional investment, that is not directed at other people, but is directed inwards.

Now Freud did not use the term emotional investment. He used the term libido. Libido, as opposed to what most of you think, is not about sex, regrettable. Libido is the force of life. One component of libido is errors, which, I'm glad to say, is all about sex.

And so there's libido. The portion of that is errors.

And then there is standardness, which is the force of death.

So when he was fighting with Jung, he said to Jung, listen, it's possible for energy to be directed not only at other people. It's possible for energy to not be object directed. Objectly. It's possible for this energy to be inwardly directed. And he called it narcissistic libido.

And that's how narcissism was born.

So the first attempt to describe narcissism was about the economy of energy. The economy of psychological energy.

So that we all have a limited amount of energy. Some of it we externalize. Some of it we introvert or internalize.

And Freud called this portion narcissism.

But it created a hell of a mess. Created a nonsense.

Because what is an object? It tells you a lot about psychology. That we don't call people people. We call them objects.

In psychology, we don't have people. We say object.

So when we say relationship with people, we say object relations.

It shows you how psychopathic we are now.

So what is an object?

I'll give you an example. Mummy's breast. Is it an object?

It depends how Mummy looks. To me, it would be an object.

But to the baby. To the baby. Is Mummy's breast an object?

When the baby starts to suck on Mummy's breast, what do you mean? Is this an object?

No. So it's a debate. So usually debate.

Another example. When the baby perceives itself for the first time. We'll talk about it.

It's called separation and degeneration discussions. When the baby perceives itself, does it perceive itself as an object? And then does it have object relations?

And if it does have object relations with itself, is this narcissism? Or is this object relations?

So the term object was very fuzzy. That's why I think the definition of narcissism is non-object libido or non-object energy. Energy that is not directed at objects sucks because we don't have a good definition of object.

For example, as you would see when we continue, the narcissist most definitely perceives himself as an object.

Narcissists are sexually aroused by their own bodies. For example, this is known as auto-erotism. Not auto-erotically. Auto-erotism. Narcissists perceive their bodies the same way you healthy, normal people, but some people perceive other people as sexually attracted to themselves.

Is this object relations? Or is this narcissist libido?

To cut the whole story short, I would dispense with this. I think this distinction between inward energy and outward energy doesn't matter. It's wrong. It's problematic.

So I don't choose action.

Nextaction. Next. Much later, Freud suggested that the child comes to realize its separated existence from the mother and then begins to fall in love with itself. That of mine on the process, we'll talk about it much later and later.

So when this happens, it's called primary narcissism.

Primary narcissism is healthy. It's part of the development of every religion, of every human being.

Primary narcissism underlies much later such esteem, such confidence, and the ability to regulate sense of self-worth.

The major work on the value of primary narcissism is healthy narcissism.

What's done by hindsight in the seventies and eighties? Substantially, the value of narcissism is healthy in every religion and in some of these.

But Freud said, when you come across a crisis or an obstacle, when you as a child develop, you develop from stage A to stage B. He had very vivid descriptions of these stages, the oral stage, the anal stage, don't go there, and so on. So he said when the child transitions from one stage to another, sometimes the transition doesn't work like in many Austro-communist countries. So the transition doesn't work. The child gets stuck.

When the child gets stuck, the child regresses, goes back, goes back to primary narcissism, but this time, it's secondary narcissism. It's unhealthy. It's ontological.

So Freud's definition of ontological narcissism was regression, owing to developmental crisis.

Much later, he became known as arrested development. We don't use this term anymore, but much later.

So arrested development leads to regression, also known as infantile regression, to secondary narcissism.

And he apologizes in narcissism because when you are in a doubt or when you are nine years old, you're not supposed to have been.

The narcissism of an 18-month-old, or something's wrong, doesn't fit. So it's ontological by definition.

But that is also a serious problem. It's also a very flawed definition.

As Jung himself immediately noticed, Jung suggested that each and every stage in personal development involves actually narcissism. He said that the self develops, the whole self develops, via a process called introversion. And introversion involves narcissism, must involve narcissism.

He said, so Freud and Jung said, essentially, there's no such thing as ontological narcissism. We use narcissism to heal. Even when we are faced with obstacles, we use narcissism to heal. We use narcissism to form the self, to overcome the obstacle.

So Freud said, to suffer, Freud said, when you come across an obstacle, you regress, you become a crying baby, and you become a pathologist of narcissism.

Jung said, when you come across an obstacle, you introvert, you look inside, you use your narcissism to fix yourself, to heal yourself, and to move on to the next thing. That's a related theory.

And there are good empirical evidence to support Jung.

So we're faced with a problem.

This definition of narcissism is very, very lucky. It does describe certain types of narcissism. Later, it came to be known as Peter Pan.

Peter Pan, it does describe this kind of narcissism, immature, immature, infantile, and so on and so forth, but not all narcissism is different. Definitely not all, by far, not all.

So it's a very lucky definition.

The next definition was, it's a defense mechanism.

Narcissism is a defense mechanism. Which one should I go for?

Thank you. I don't know what to do with narcissism.

The next definition was, it's a defense mechanism. Against what? Against shame.

Shame. The child, abused, traumatized, feels ashamed. It's all pervasive shame.

And to defend against the shame, and now, today, the child develops pathological narcissism.

The child develops grandiosity.

To discuss all this, it may not detail. Until you fall asleep, you have no word. So this is actually, this seminar is about sleep therapy.

A gender image, because it's always a hidden agenda of course. A world of conspiracy. I was hired by a sleep therapy company to see if I can put you on sleep. So, and I hope to succeed because I don't need money.

So, we discussed all this in great detail. But the general idea was, the child is ashamed, and he develops an imaginary world, a parapossum, a virtual reality. And in this world, there is an imaginary friend, also known as transitional object, who comes with it. And this imaginary friend is everything the child is not.

The imaginary friend is omnipotent, or powerful. The child is helpless. The imaginary friend is omniscient, or just like me. The child cannot predict the future. So it is limitation of knowledge.

The imaginary friend is perfect and brilliant. The child is told in the abuse and trauma phase, that he is inadequate. The child is told that he is less than perfect. In other words, the child is told that he is a bad object.

When you come to bad object internalization, as I mentioned here, is lower, when you go into detail, and more different. So, it's a defense mechanism.

Again, that's a problem. The problem is that defense mechanisms act against instincts and drives. There is no such thing as defense mechanism against emotion. Simply, I'm sorry.

The definition of defense mechanism is a psychological process that is intended to mitigate or ameliorate a drive or any instinct that threatens to dis-regulate the person.

Freud gave an example. The id, never mind, is sexual, in essence, because Freud, everything was sexual. So, he said the id, you want to go out to the street and rape beautiful women in the water. You want to rape even more beautiful women.

But, then there are defenses.

One of most famous defenses is actually the ego. That was Jung's observation. He said the ego is a defense.

But there are other defenses. And these defenses keep the id, suppress the id, so that you don't go out and rape women in the street.

What do you do instead? You write books and give seminars. This process is called sublimation. Sublimation is a defense mechanism. You convert the socially unacceptable impulse, for example, to rape women, not depends on which country, you convert this impulse into a socially acceptable form.

Write the books and give yourself. And this is sublimation.

So, defense is only, only against instincts and drives. You cannot have a defense against emotion.

So, the whole thing falls apart. It's not a defense. Maybe it's something else.

For example, it could be refraining. Refraining. It could be fantasy. Fantasy is a defense mechanism.

But, fantasy starts as a defense against something else, not against the shame. Again, we've talked about it.

Defense mechanism, it's not. It may be something else, but it's not defense.

So, this was a problem.

Next idea, to remind you what I'm doing, because I'm a cell phone, to remind you what I'm doing, I'm reviewing all the approaches to us, all the narratives about consciousness. And I'm demonstrating to you the shortcomings of each and every one, because I want to aggrandize myself and my history.

Of course.

The next one was that narcissism is a personality disorder. Autological narcissism is a personality disorder. That is actually cold in Belgium. Cold came up with the phrase narcissistic personality disorder.

But in cold, narcissistic personality disorder is a defense, is a reaction to improper parent.

So, when the parent doesn't mirror you, when the parent doesn't allow you to idealize the parent, because the parent is made of frustrating, so you can't idealize the parent, the parent doesn't mirror you in your needs. And the parent doesn't allow you to be with people who are like you.

These are the three mechanisms. It's called the trilateral model of the self.

So these are the three mechanisms of good parenting. When the parent doesn't feel these three, there is a reaction. And the reaction is to make believe that the parent actually was a good parent.

So I'm going to repeat this, because you will immediately realize it. It's nothing to do with personality. He called it personality disorder, but actually it's not to do with personality disorder.

First of all, it has to do with self. If we want to be strict, we should have called it narcissistic self disorder. And even then, it's inaccurate, because it's a reaction to parenting. And a reaction to parenting is one of like 200 reactions, two million other things. It's just one strand. It doesn't characterize the personality disorder.

So I repeat this, because he is the father of narcissistic personality disorder. So it's important to repeat what he said.

He said, when you grow up, your parents need to mirror you. They need to be empathic. They need to empathize with you.

Next thing they need to do, they need to allow you to be among peers. Which is another way of saying they need to allow you to interact with reality. To interact with reality and grow.

And these parental functions, if they are not properly fulfilled, they create reactions. They create compensatory reactions.

So for example, if the parent doesn't mirror you, you will go out all throughout your life, looking for other people to mirror you. Which is a good description of vagueness.

But as you see, it's a reaction. It's a compensatory reaction. It's not a possibility. It's absolutely not a possibility. And it has to do with the formation of the self.

If the parent doesn't allow you to idealize them, because the parent is then frustrated, punitive, sadistic, or what Andrei Green called, psychoanalysts called dead mother, absent mother, increasing mother, selfish mother, immature mother, narcissistic mother, my mother.

So why not?

So it doesn't work.

So if your mother doesn't allow you to idealize her, you will try to idealize her into the partners. So these are compensatory reactions.

You need to be mirrored. Because you are not mirrored. You need to idealize mother figures. Because you are not idealized.

But that's all any of these have to do with the surrounding. It's not that it's almost surrounding. It would have been much more appropriate to call it narcissistic self-discipline.

Assuming there's a self.

Another very unsafe assumption. We come to it.

Fast forward a few decades, and we come to the belief that only abused or traumatized children develop ophthalmic embosses, caveat or clarification.

When I say abused, I'm not talking about sexual abuse. I'm not talking only about physical abuse. I'm not talking only about verbal or psychological abuse. I'm not talking about being forced to attend a cell number or a cell number. It's a classical form of egregious abuse. I'm talking about any breach of the child's boundaries not allowing the child to separate. We will come to it later, probably tomorrow.

When the child is not allowed to become an individual divided, then this is abuse.

If you parentify the child, if you force the child to act as a parent, that's abuse. If you put the child in a pedestal, pedestal is the child. I provide the child.

It's abuse because it's not about the child. It's about an ideal figure.

If you prevent the child from gaining access to reality by, for example, smothering the child, spoiling the child, tempering the child, telling the child that he can do no wrong, this is abuse.

Very often I get questions from bewildered viewers. My husband's mother was the best of all mothers. She costed him. She never allowed him to go out in the street. She kept him. She was all the time with him 24-7. She couldn't find him anymore.

That's a great description of abuse.

There is a difference between good enough mothers and two good mothers. Two good mothers imitate some kind of romantic ideal of mortality. A romantic ideal of mortality was seriously sick because it was invented by Germans. I'm politically ignorant.

But in the case of Germans, I can be excused. So it's seriously sick.

A good enough mother is actually a mother who frustrates a child. A mother pushes the child away. A mother provides what would be called a secure base, allows the child to separate and return to her without any punishment, without any fear of repercussions. That's a good enough mother.

A bad mother doesn't allow the child out of her sight or out of her control. She doesn't allow the child to evolve because she's afraid to lose the child. She blackblades the child. Sometimes she institutes emotional incest. Sometimes she treats the child with a substitute spouse.

It's a very sick dynamic.

But from the outside, she looks like the ideal mother. A perfect mother. Serious abuse. It might be owned by the way.

This is much worse than physical abuse. It's pernicious. It's pernicious. Poison is toxic.

So this is abuse and trauma.

And in the 1990s, and even more so in the 1990s, we started, the profession started with trauma schools or trauma studies. So we had, for example, in 1992, Judith Herman.

Judith Herman came up with the concept of CVTSD, complex post-traumatic stress disorder or complex trauma. We'll discuss it later.

Other trauma schools spread out. And trauma became a buzzword to this very different, by far, of course.

So trauma became the thing and everything was reinterpreted as trauma.

I belong to this stream, to this strand of trauma.

And we tend to reconceive of some, so-called personality disorders as actually post-traumatic conditions.

Not that. Sounds like splitting hairs, whatever I impression, but actually is super critical.

Why? We don't know how to treat personality disorder. We have no effective therapy for personality disorder.

Don't listen to the self-conscious bed-driven trauma.

The speaker want to make money. Of course, they will tell you they can cure you and your dog if you have a dog. You don't have a dog anymore. So don't listen to any of this. We don't have effective methods to open personality disorders.

At least not with the core. We can modify behaviors in the best ways.

But we do have extremely efficacious treatments for trauma. Very, very efficient.

If we suddenly reconceive of narcissism as a post-traumatic condition, we would apply totally different tools than we are doing now. We would use trauma therapies, not personality therapy or cognitive therapy. We would switch completely our thinking and we would be a developer or successful.

Indeed, core therapy is constructed on this premise that narcissism is a post-traumatic condition. Therefore, it's actually a trauma therapy.

Because I am who I am. It's a cruel and sadistic trauma. It's very cruel and very aggressive because there's not a way to get to the narcissism.

Narcissism is a formidable defense against therapy. In cold therapy, there's a reconception of narcissism as post-traumatic condition, an attachment disorder or attachment disorder and an addiction. We have effective cures for addiction sometimes and for trauma therapy. We're not as successful with attachment styles, but we're much better at it than with personalities.

There's hope in this message.

Sometimes if you look at something from a different angle, you find solutions. Just looking at it from a different angle is the solution, actually.

I suggest that this is the case.

Moreover, the huge mistake in all treatment modalities, which we currently use with narcissism, is that we all these modalities assume that the narcissism is an adult.

For example, cognitive behavior therapy assumes that the narcissism is an adult.

Not to mention psychodynamic therapies or psychoanalysis, for example.

All therapists assume the narcissism is an adult. They have therapeutic alliances with the narcissist or they try to appeal to the narcissist reasoning.

The narcissist is not an adult. The narcissist is an infant.

The emotional development of the narcissist in a very good case is 24 months.

Emotionally, the vast majority of narcissists are 18 months old for reasons which I will explain later.

I'm not talking about skills. I'm not talking about cognition, intelligence, intellect, distant life evil, extremely evil. I'm talking about emotion.

How stupid it is to try to treat an 18-month-old with cognitive behavior therapy. Who are you talking to? Who is there to respond? How can the narcissist grasp what you're saying? He can grasp it on the cognitive level, but never on the emotional level.

Freud suggested that insight is not transformative unless it has an emotional coordinate.

For an insight to work and change and transform, you need to react to the cognitive insight emotionally.

Narcissists are not capable to react emotionally to anything, let alone cognitive insight.

It's a waste of time. It's exactly like bringing an 18-month-old to the office and then conducting a therapy session with the 18-month-old.

Contarity is a form of child psychology. Contarity is a combination of trauma therapy and it's completely founded on child psychology.

There's not a trace of a down therapy in content. It is trauma therapy for children, as you would see.

Of course, that's a summary. We would need to go very much deeper to understand how, why, how everything fits together, and so on and so forth.

But in a nutshell, I treat the narcissist as a case of arrested development, no longer used in academia, arrested development, and I interact with the narcissist as I'm a child, a truculent child, an atropicious child, a probabilious child, an atropicious child, a pain in the head, but still a child.

Not a very nice child, not just a child, as you can see, but still a child.

This is a critical insight, of course, because all other treatment components make this mistake.

They are negotiating with the narcissist, compromising with the narcissist, reasoning with the narcissist, agreeing with the, contracting with the narcissist as if it were an adult.

Narcissism is a positive adaptation. You need to wrap your heads around this.

Narcissism, pathological narcissism, is one that allowed the child to survive the abuse and trauma. The child had adopted positively to his over environment. It worked.

Narcissism among you are the ones who survived. Why did they survive?

Because they became narcissists. So narcissism is a positive adaptation.

As long as a narcissist is 18 months old, narcissism is a positive adaptation. It's wrong to take away the narcissism from the narcissist. It works. As long as you're 18 months old, narcissism works.

Now, this is a rich revolution, for some reason, for therapists.

And with regard to therapists, say, narcissism, a logical reason. No. If you don't somehow cure the underlying emotional illness, as long as there is this disability, the only solution, the only real solution, a vacation solution, is narcissism. It's as simple as that.

You need to change the narcissism for narcissism to become the wrong solution. Not the other way. You don't need to take away the narcissism from the narcissist because you will be exposing the narcissist.

So life in the narcissist is not ready for this. It will become actually borderline with this narcissist.

When you take away the narcissism from the narcissist, which can be done, the narcissist is straight with this. It becomes borderline. That's what's on top of you. That is grocery.

So you don't take away the narcissism from the narcissist. You change the narcissism so that the narcissism becomes unnecessary.

A negative adaptation.

And that is the core of core therapy.

In core therapy, we make narcissism unnecessary. An obsolete solution.

Now there's a rule. It's known as the rule of mental economy. The minute something is not needed anymore, the brain or the mind, whatever you want to call it, doesn't invest energy in it. Let's it die.

The term is atrophy also in medicine. So there's atrophy. If narcissism is not needed anymore because the person that changed, then narcissism will die because it will not get energy. So this is atrophy. It's same with the body part. You don't exercise the muscle. It dies. It's atrophy.

Narcissism is a muscle. Muscle. To change the environment, you don't need to use this muscle. It dies.

Then this is ulterior.

So narcissism I mentioned before is a form of dependency or a form of addiction. We need to tackle this aspect too.

And this is something, again, neglected in most therapies. They treat behaviors. They treat commissions. They treat effects sometimes, but they don't treat addiction. They don't treat dependency.

Narcissists are dependent on people. Because narcissists are dependent on people, actually the vast majority of narcissists are pro-social. They are what I call at the time, the communal process. Narcissists depend on people. And they can't afford to alienate. They need at least a group of people to provide them a supply of the process. And this becomes an addiction. They're jockeys.

So a segment of ulterior has to do with addiction and porous techniques from addiction therapy. And these are the three pillars for ulterior.

Child psychology, trauma therapy, and addiction therapy. These are the three pillars. Put them together. You are supposed to be the perfect solution to narcissism.

To make clear, therapy does not cure narcissism. In narcissism, co-therapy dispenses with the need for grandiose therapy. So after co-therapy, the narcissist doesn't need grandiose therapy. Doesn't need to be grandiose. And it doesn't need the constructs that support grandiose therapy. Most notably, the false self. So it doesn't need the false self. And it doesn't need grandiose therapy.

And that government is not dependent anymore on narcissistic supplies. But everything else remains is like co-therapy. Or co-therapy is exploitative. All these elements remain is envy, negative affectivity, inability to access positive emotions, inability to love, all these elements.

The only thing that disappears is the compulsive pursuit of narcissistic supply is need for grandiosely cognitive distortion without it. Is need to be grandiose. He reverts from Donald Trump to Abraham Lincoln. And is the false self.

The false self is a construct, dissipates. This is a major danger.

And that's why in level one of co-therapy, in 40% of the cases, there is compulsive suicidal ideation. When you take away the false self, nothing is left. You remember the absence? You remember the void? Remember the emptiness? That's what's left. When you take away the false self.

In a transitional process which I will describe tomorrow, the narcissist merges with the false self, fuses with you, becomes the false self. I call it human sacrifice. I will describe it tomorrow.

But it's kind of human sacrifice.

The narcissistic child, when the child is about to become a narcissist, comes to the false self and says, I will sacrifice myself to you. And you will be my world. You will be, we merge, we become one.

The minute you take away the false self, nothing is left behind. Nothing is left behind. The suicide is perceived not as an act of annihilation, but as an acceptance of the fact. The narcissist feels a nod. It's like the painting by Dallin Galatier, where she dissolves into molecules.

The narcissist feels no longer there. And so to affirm that.

Level one of co-therapy requires close division by the patient. And 24-7, for example, when I gave level one co-therapy, I cohabited with the patient. We shared the same problem.

For instance, we're going to make co-therapy and we're going to share the same problem with the patient. That's level one.

Level two is really good. But level one is seriously good. I help patients who try to fix it. This is really, really good.

However, once they pass level one, level two and level three, they are changed completely. And we'll discuss it when we use it.

And another 18 patients is a small sample to warn you. It's not representative. It's self-selecting. These are people who need to walk bottom. They need to walk bottom, which is a dynamic concern. It's a giving dynamic.

So we can't say exactly what contributed more, eating more bottom or co-therapy. We don't know. So there's a self-selecting sample, therefore not representative. It's very slow, so we cannot normatively validate it.

Those of you who are not statistics.

And so there is huge disclaimers and developments, but it is a fact that all 18, and what I said for a second, 79are leading a life that has nothing absolutely in common with their previous work. And these are people who are, you know, and co-therapy cost of motion. These are people who have been extremely impoverished, successful, and most important to me, rich.

And so they are not. They're not an easy push, you know. They're tough folks.

And yet their lives have been transformed completely.

So I think this is contrary.

Because I've seen many narcissists eat more bottom by self-including. With low tension. With short tension. Not long tension. And if we are talking about people, for what? Any or for what?

People, you know, already in nine years? Ten years.

The first one is ten years. A change is preserved.

Formal shows there's no remission for nothing. Same thing, they're changing. They do so.

They don't see. They're sticking out nicely. But they definitely changed.

For the first time in their lives, they have it.

They are, well, subjectively, they describe the condition as heavy.

And in their lifestyle, the choices are strikingly, dramatically different. For example, from being a vocalist to becoming an artist. From being a corporate mogul to just riding the world in the yard in a gorgeous region. Ten years.

Do you know them? Not why do you know them? Making peace with your family after 25 years of estrangement. Amazingly changes.

And this is because grandiosity is a cognitive distortion. For example, it's the biggest obstacle by far to the narcissist function. It removes the greatest impediment to the narcissist's ability to interact with other people beautifully and to acquire a monochrome of what we call the ego symptom.

Being comfortable in your own skin. So it's a major thing. Don't underestimate what culture does.

But it's not a cure. You're looking to get a nice and puffy, loving, touchy-feely, tree-loving person. Nothing new about alterity, I think it's a Jewish thing.

Because I'm going to read to you the words of another Jew.

Sigmund Freud. And Freud invented a rule. It was called the rule of abstinence.

And here is how we define the rule of abstinence.

The treatment must be carried out in abstinence. Analytical technique requires of the physician, the therapist, that he should deny to the patient, who is craving for love, the satisfaction the Jew demands.

So the patient wants love. The physician, the therapist, should frustrate you because of being. Make you suffer.

And if you think I'm inventing this, allow me to continue.

Here's what he says.

If owing to the symptoms, having been taken apart and having lost their value, their cranios, his suffering becomes mitigating.

So if you take care of the symptoms and the patient suffers we must reinstate the suffering elsewhere in the form of appreciable prevention. Otherwise we run the danger of never achieving any improvement except quite insignificant and transitory ones.

That's for proceeding me by a mere hundred years. So Freud sets it up and it's called therapy. This is called therapy. Make the patient suffer. Take away the symptoms.

And if then the patient doesn't suffer, make her suffer. Suffering is a crucial tool of the therapy, as we should see in a minute.

So this is for them. Tomorrow I'm going to read to you a text about psychosis. And if you listen to this text, and I think you're not going to believe it here because it's a great description of narcissism.

And this affinity between psychosis and narcissism is much greater.

The only person, the only scholar, to have alluded to the connection between narcissism and psychosis was Otto Traver, mainly in his work in 1975, where he suggested that narcissistic disorders of the self and borderline disorders of the self are two sides, flip sides of the same coin, and that both of them are on the border between neurosis and psychosis. That's why it's called border line, imagine.

So he was the first to hint that narcissism is a form of psychosis. I'm going much further.

I think narcissism is psychosis, but a very attenuated and very special form of psychosis will come to you. It's a major insight on the line called therapy because of the process called micro-reflexing.

But this I will do tomorrow.

What are the goals of co-therapy?

How are we doing?

To process trauma via what I call skilled breathing, I teach narcissists to go through the trauma game to relieve it.

The clinical term is revealedness. You heard of flashbacks? Flashbacks? Flashbacks are a form of revealedness. So flashbacks is not exactly, not fully clinical terms, clinical terms revealedness. I'm actually creating a controlled flashback in a narcissist.

Now, flashback is not an emotional connection. An emotional connection can be very great for you. It's an art of narcissism. It's a kind of internet narcissism, like emboss or shy border. There's a lot of these narcissism coming off, which I resent greatly because it makes our whole very different.

There's lots of shrinkage emotions. Flashback is when you confuse reality with narcissism. When you think that you are back in Vietnam, shooting in the air, not when you recall Vietnam and you think better about it, that's not flashback of any country. That's a bad memory. Flashback is when you, for a minute, lose touch with reality completely and you think you're there in Vietnam with your mother, being raped, being subjected to incidents, whatever the case may be, you're back there. You're two years old. You're a 19-year-old soldier, you're a 20-year-old soldier, you're there.

It's the only form of flashback, so there is no such thing as an emotional connection. It's complete, utter, unmitigated narcissism.

So what I do to the narcissist is I create flashback, not the emotional connection.

In level one, I create a flashback. I bring him back to the trauma and I force him to relive. I call it skin reliving because I give him some skills. It's a little like, you know, Second Life or online games, multiple player games, where they give you a sword or a saber, a lightsaber or whatever, and they send you into battle in the ritual world. The same.

I give the narcissist the saber line, the lightsaber or sword or whatever, whatever I tell him, not go back to the war.

And so he experiences the trauma and he's a little more equipped, a little more equipped to experience it, but it's a trauma. It isa trauma.

It is not a memory of the trauma. It is not recalling the trauma. It is not processing the trauma. It is not remembering the trauma. It's not thinking about the trauma. It's not analyzing. It's the trauma.

I want him, and I'm also accomplished, I always have conditions. I want him to grind and disintegrate in front of my eyes because of mistakes, because it's the only ordinary way to penetrate the stiff, rigid defenses and resistances of narcissism.

I am sorry, but there is no other way to ask any therapists. Therapists, to be honest with you, would tell you, I never work with all the lines of narcissists. There are devil's photos of the audience. There are.

We need to break through. It's a fortress. It's a firewall. We need to hack, hack into the process. And hacking is always a blessing and often criminalizing.

So it's a bad story, though. All therapy is bad. Bad, B-A-D. Seriously, bad.

And it's not only because of a bad job, but it's simply the problem.

Second thing, second goal of co-therapy is to foster adaptive function.

You remember that narcissism is positive adaptation. Because analysis is 18 months old.

So the co-therapy reverses the paradigm. The paradigm is if you make the patient grow up, if you mature the patient, it's a little bit thicker. It will ferment the patient.

Then naturally, somehow mysteriously, the patient will develop skills. So if you transition the patient from 18 months to, let's say, 36 months, the patient mysteriously will be deputized and separated and happy go lucky. And well, I reverse the paradigm. So I think this paradigm is mistaken as any theoretic interaction. There's a gap. There's a break between therapists and therapists.

The non-community. It's exactly like in physics. Experimental physics and theoretical physics. The non-community.

So the therapist can tell you that a lot, a lot of what theoretical psychologists say is trash. For example, the concept of an immutable life-form setting. It's talk of trash.

But no one is listening. So I'm reversing the paradigm. And I'm saying it's not that when I mature you or transition you acquire skills. It is by skill acquisition that you mature. I give you the skills. Using the skills will cause the maturation process. It's a total reversal of the paradigm.

So this is the third point.

The next point is replace negative with positive coping strategies. Let's close it. It's done in many ways.

The next one is integration of distressing material. Mass system is a dissociative condition. One of the main features of mass system is dissociation. I'll tell you a personal story.

Whether you like it or not, I'm not interested. I'm still telling you a personal story.

Once I sat down, after my first wife wisely got a family, I sat down and I wrote down everything that I recall from our marriage. Our marriage was surprisingly shocking with eight years. And I don't know anything of them. But I remember making toast together, traveling around, fighting. She cheated on me. I didn't want to. And then I allocated time, like making toast five minutes. I don't give you time.

I remember that. And I was very obsessed with the break out. So I did a good job. I dedicated my days, at least.

I summed it up. Eight years. I summed it up. It was far less than eight hours.

I remember that about eight hours. From our honeymoon, which lasted three weeks, in four different countries in Europe, from our honeymoon, I had two memories. One about one minute long and one about five minute long.

Where I brought the jacuzzi in the room and went out in so beautiful glory. That's all I remember.

The second memory is that we go out to the hotel and we have a debate. These are the only two memories I have from my honeymoon.

Not that I haven't tried. It's a malicious station. Exterminification of dissociation.

Last is in the post-traumatic condition. Post-inforced massive dissociation.

So the major part of our therapy is integration data. Integrating distressing material and so on, which is, again, classic.

Starting with psychoanalysis everyone is doing this. Everyone is doing this. This is all solved.

And then the next goal is to lead to internal resolution on your status equilibrium. Your racism is an unstable state. Racism is an unstable state.

Why? Because it's reactive to mass and mass. Yes? You have supply. You stabilize. You don't fluctuate. You don't have supply.

Your sense of self-worth is up and down. You are depressed.

So mass is a very unstable state. You are crucially dependent on external stimuli.

One other condition is crucially dependent on external stimuli.

And in post-disregulation, yes, you guessed it right. Borderline personality disorder is reactive to external stimuli.

For example, rejection and abatement really proceed. And borderline personality disorder involves internal dysregulation in reaction to external stimuli.

And in this sense, lots of things are different. But there are some things that come to play there.

But creating equilibrium simply means self-regulation. You are limited to self-regulation without external stimuli.

You asked me what you should ask me. Why is it so important to get rid of the grandiosity?

Because when you get rid of the grandiosity, you are no longer reactive to external stimuli. You are able to create an obvious study, equilibrium with the inner state. You are no longer dependent on input from the environment. You don't need it then. You don't need supply.

So it's a dream. You are no longer dependent on the alcohol or the drugs. You are able to create a more stable body.

The next and last goal is to aid in the growth of skills.

Again, I reverse the paradigm. I don't try to mature the narcissism. I don't try to help the narcissism to grow up from 18 months old to 18 years old.

So what do I do?

And to do this, you need to have what we call a holding environment, a containing environment. In other words, a loving-driving environment.

Humanistic therapy, for example. Carl wrote a book. Not my thing. Not my thing.

I don't love it. So I can't help you to grow. But I can help you with skills. I'm going to be considerable. So I can give you skills. Use these skills. Trust me. You will grow.

So this is what I do in the narcissist. I then equip the narcissist with resilience, kind of regulation, and so on and so forth.

And this, because he's forced to use it. It's part of level three. He uses it.

And the usage creates spurts of growth. The growth is massively accelerated.

Why? Because the narcissist has tools that the child doesn't need.

For example, the narcissist's internet is way more developed. So the narcissist can use these tools to accelerate the process of growth.

In traverse, what would take the child one year, traverses it sometimes in a week. It's amazing to be home. I want to read to you. I want to read to you a summary. And then I want to discuss retraumatization.

And we are moralistic. So I'm going to read you a definition of that.

The competency is based on two premises.

The narcissist's disorder is actually a form of complex post-traumatic conditions. And the narcissist's are the outcomes of a restive development and attachment dysfunction.

Consequently, contrary to moralistic techniques from child psychology and from treating modalities used to be with PTSD, contrary to the retraumatization of the narcissist's mind in a hostile, not holding environment, which resembles the ambience of the original trauma.

The adult patient successfully negotiates his second round of pain and hurt and results early childhood conflicts, achieving closure and rendering it not validating narcissistic defenses, redundant and obsolete, and therefore a trophy.

All therapy makes use of proprietary techniques.

When I learned to be exposed to 25 techniques that I invented and the context is in the other three.

Some of these techniques are good.

For example, the lack of happiness is a great tool, so you can respect your music on yourself.

So it makes use of these techniques. Other techniques also include it.

And it's also a philosophical trait in a way that is physical.

I suggest that the client should regard his or her life as a movie.

The main goal in life, the core task, and the engine of meaning is to direct the movie so as to render it and accomplish it.

A work of art, a masterpiece of art.

At every inflection point, when faced with any critical decision, a client should truthfully answer the question, Would I have made movie? Would I have made money to watch it?

So this is the definition, and now I want to talk a bit about ritualization.

The core of goal therapy, as I told you, is to force the narcissist to experience trauma, to realize trauma, to force the narcissist into a state of flashback, which every other person is trying to allocate.

So it's a bit non-conventional, shall we say.

And this involves the ritualization.

As we heard, ritualization is very, very, very odd.

Freud himself recommends to make the patient suffer, presumably the patient being paid.

But suffering has been a critical part of many treatment modalities.

The difference in core therapy is that it harks back to another theory.

In the beginning, suffering and trauma were considered therapeutic tools, legitimate therapeutic tools.

For example, Freud forced his patients to recall trauma, simply forced them to remember trauma, and he created what he called an upreaction, a release of energy, which was healing and therapeutic.

And the upreaction got rid of what he called conversion signals.

So that was the paradigm, Freud.

So it involved trauma, it involved suffering.

But at some point in the 1990s, we became politically correct, and then we became woke, and then we became lean, too, and there was a movement, Patient Life's Letter.

So we were not allowed any ethically to traumatize patients, which took away a lot of the attractiveness of the profession.

I mean, professors were traumatizing their students, the stunt from the experiment, the power law.

Professors were allowed to traumatize students.

And when we allowed to traumatize, there's such injustice, it's horrible.

So, you know, it went out of favor.

It was considered unethical to traumatize patients.

So we're not allowed to use these things.

Great traumatization, as it is used in core therapy, was not intended by me.

I regret to say. It was first described by two scholars, four F.O.A. and Ozak in 1995.

We discussed that one.

This is a kind of survey of the terrain.

We come to each of these points in the video.

So there were two schools at the time.

There was Van der Kolk, Van der Kolk, who is still the dominant voice in therapy, who is more semantic, in the sense that he connects bodily functions and trauma.

So there was Van der Kolk, there was Herman, Judy Herman, and others.

And there was another school, F.O.A. and Ozak.

So F.O.A., Van der Kolk and Judy Herman, they tried to get extra trauma, to tackle trauma, in a variety of cognitive ways, or environmental ways, or through the body.

Through bodily details, so what you did.

But it was always in therapy, in therapy.

Foreign course up, went for the job.

They went for the baby.

They said, no, we need to traumatize the baby.

Consequently, they were blood-listed and forgotten.

No one heard of foreign course up.

I found a cognitive state and I won the game.

This was politically great.

But I'm using the word.

The word involves traumatic reenactment, not in a safe environment, and without neutral fun.

I love this definition.

Traumatic reenactment, not in a safe environment, and not involving neutral fun.

Sine drachula.

So this is rate traumatization in all therapy.

Studies in the 80s, and a little into the 90s, because this technique was used, actually, believe it or not, was used for about seven years, or eight years, with hundreds of patients, and of course there were test studies, so we know what happens to patients when we use this technique.

There was a sufficient basis for me to recover from what I'm doing.

What I would have done in therapy.

So we know the outcomes, and these are the outcomes as published in the seminal paper for foreign course in 1985.

Rate traumatization had been shown to resolve early conflicts and rechargeable.

A chief closure, counter avoidance, helplessness, and depression, and so on.

So it had very beneficial outcomes.

And it became a hallmark and a main thing in therapy.

While Foa and Kozaka traumatized the patient very primitively, because they were not unique and sophisticated, they traumatized the patient very primitively, by essentially verbally attacking the patient, verbally abusing the patient.

Which again is very fun, I regret this.

So I've traumatized the patient very differently.

I traumatized, as you will see, in the main course of the whole process.

So I traumatized by re-enacting the primary trauma through processes which are very counterintuitive.

For example, in all treatment technologies, without a single exception, the patient is encouraged to talk.

That's why it's called talk therapy.

In my therapy, the patient is silenced, aggressively silenced.

This in itself creates the groundwork for trauma.

One of the main issues of trauma is silencing.

We know this in clinical literature about trauma. One of the core issues of trauma is the feeling that you can't talk, the silence.

I created this silencing experience, but in a highly specific way.

I think it's ingenious, because it's mine.

But it's really strange, when you will see how it's done.

It's really strange.

And it creates very effective silencing.

There's an example called therapy difference dramatically from all other therapies.

In most other therapies, not all, most other therapies, active transference is discovered.

In psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapies, transference is used as a therapeutic tool.

We use transference to achieve some therapeutic goals.

But then clinical transference is discovered.

In other words, the transference relationship is never allowed to mature or to be completed.

Transference is one direction.

For those of you who are not aware of this or can't speak, that's what we should know.

Psychologies use these words.

Because we want to appear very scientific and very, very important.

So, everyone, I'm going to run you off right now.

Transference is simply when the patient begins to see the therapies as a very significant figure.

Like, he begins to see the therapies as a model figure.

It's a simplification.

But it's a good simplification.

Countertransference is when the therapist reacts emotionally to the role assigned to him by the patient.

Cleaning the rhythm, countertransference is a form of projecting identification.

Which was first identified by a non-psychologist, Melanie Cline.

I don't know if you know, but seven of the ten most important psychologists before 1980 were not psychologists at all.

Melanie Cline was not a psychologist. And she is definitely the mother of object prediction.

William Otto was a pediatrician. When he wrote most of his words in psychology, he was a pediatrician, not a psychologist. Simon Freud was not a psychologist.

Shoshanim Simon Freud was a neurologist.

So, of seven most important psychologists, in the history of psychology, of ten, seven were not psychologists at all. They had no degree of psychology, or education in psychology.

Now, that tells you a lot.

Insight can come from anywhere. Innovation can come from anywhere. And the propensity nowadays to ask, do you have a degree, is very limited.

Because I had another surprise for you.

The same applies to a majority of other disciplines.

In physics, for example. I would say that of the twenty most important contributions to physics, about seven at least, came from all of this.

Now, many of them were chemists.

Okay.

So, ritual monetization is a pillar. I'm doing it in a very special way, as you can see. It's very counterintuitive.

So, I mentioned transference and countertransference.

In psychotherapists, psychotherapists, psychotherapists, for example, humanistic therapies, and so forth, transference is used, and used for good results.

Countertransference, except in humanistic therapies.

Countertransference is strictly discovered. It's considered a contamination of the therapeutic process.

In contrary, this is the goal. Both transference and countertransference are similar conditions.

You must implement transference and countertransference.

In order to traumatize the patient, I must become the patient's mother. I must not reject this role. I must not reject countertransference. I must not say, I'm not your mother.

Here is my boundary. I'm not allowing this. I'm saying, no, I am your mother.

What did she do to you? I'm going to do it to you again. I love her. I'm going to do it to you again. What did your father do to you? Tell me in detail. I'm going to reenact. I'm going to do it to you again. And I'm going to be your mother. I'm going to be your father. I'm going to be hostile. I'm going to be abusive, egregiously so. I'm going to make it feel insecure, and I'm going to negate the secure base.

Because in every therapy, there's a recreation of the secure base. I'm going to negate this. I'm going to create a totally more moving environment for the patient.

I've become this primordial object. I've become this primordial abuser.

Even I would say archetypal abuser. There's an archetypal abuser.

So, I need counter-trans. And I need transfers. These are tools.

Also, different to most of the therapy.

So, alterity is a radical, not because I'm deadly, but it is a radical object.

From everything you think you know about therapy, radical.

And I will have to justify myself to do. I will have to explain to you why I'm departing to that extent.

From generations of therapy, wisdom about therapy. Why do I think this is the last system? We need this radical object.

Lasting is problems and failures in contract.

That's a very short section. There are none. It's perfect.

I'm going to just read the list to you, because it's not my favorite section.

So, we need to leverage the false sense, grandiose, in the initial study.

So, we actually encourage cognitive distortion. We encourage departure from the reality of testing. Which is a pathologic process.

A pathologic division is inferred by leveraging grandiose, using grandiose.

Second thing is, we have to dismantle or disable every defense mechanism.

And there are quite a lot.

And so, we induce a state known as decompensation.

These are seriously, seriously dangerous exposures to grandiose.

Suffice it to say, for example, that we modify this nowadays.

Decompensation proceeds acting out.

The borderline decompensates and then shuts out.

So, it could be totally self-destructive, self-defeating, reckless, dangerous behavior.

Because the nonsense becomes linear.

So, what I'm trying to say is that the foods of my disposal are not subtle.

This is not sculptable. This is an icy storm.

And accommodate the formation.

Number three, I need to tackle aforementioned cognitive deficits and distortions.

I need to disable infant-advocates mechanisms, such as splitting, magical thinking, errors, thinking errors, and so on and so forth.

Policy and so on.

And this leads to total divorce from reality.

At some point, to cut a long story short, I push the narcissist into recognizable, diagnosable, psychotic territory.

I induce psychosis.

It is in this state of psychosis that I traumatize the narcissist.

Do you understand how dangerous it is? Seriously.

That's why the certification process takes six months and you're not.

It's not easy to do this. I've been doing this, myself and them, for 12 years.

I think to do this. Absolutely difficult. It's a very painful therapy.

For the therapist, that way there's a section to discuss it.

What does it do to the therapist?

Do you think the therapist is immune to all this?

The therapist is not immune.

The serious damage to the psyche of the therapist.

Like if you have no soul. The serious damage.

I'm beginning it. I'm getting excited.

The next thing is that the narcissist reacts initially to all this mayhem.

He reacts by emphasizing, amplifying radiosity.

That's the only defense he has.

The only way in the back of this crisis is radiosity.

You know, breaks through the wall.

That makes it extremely difficult to communicate with him to reach any type of alliance. It's extremely difficult.

So his radiosity is all over the place, all over the map.

And if the narcissist is not a good psychopathic substrate, he can and does become physically bad.

I've been attacked by patients last time immediately, and not because I'm an Israeli. I've been attacked by patients physically.

So it's also serious damage.

That's why I think Richard Brennan is the best student.

Another defense. Another defense that narcissists adopt in the face of this also is the victim's stance.

So we get you. We've activated the victim.

And it creates the secondary delusion.

The narcissist lapses into clinical paranoia.

Now, this is exactly entangled in psychosis.

The psychotic disorder has a component of paradigm, which we used to be called paralyzed isoprano. It's a component of paradox.

The secondary delusion mesh well with the psychosis in other ways.

The psychosis becomes the secondary.

The content of the psychosis is paranoid, the secondary.

Again, it's very dangerous.

These are all the shortcomings of culture.

By the end of the list, probably you'll just go home and come up to this.

So, there are narcissists, perverts, and schizoid reactions, and new automatic negative thoughts. Contracting and alliances are impossible.

We're living with an 18-month-old traumatized.

No way to contract, make a violence. Agree on treatment goals, so we forget all this shit. There's no one there. It's a baby, traumatized, terrified baby who wants to jump out the window.

It finds what the treatment goals are.

So you need to manage and contain the transference and how to transfer it to the infected.

And fine tune, and so on.

There are some inherent limitations in case of medication.

If the patient comes on a medication regimen, for example, if the patient is on antidepressants, changes the therapy a bit, but not anti-psychotics.

Medication is an input into the therapy, a limiting input.

And sometimes, irresponsibly, I tend the patient to go off with medication.

But I think it's irresponsible.

Because I can't do it at all.

I can't.

Maybe I should choose.

And sometimes I can't.

I can't tell the patient, for example, of anti-psychotic medication.

The condition is managed primarily psychopharmacologically.

The question is a different story.

I have long views about anti-psychotics.

I mean, they are very daily.

But anti-psychotics are re-medication with re-defense.

Not like anti-psychotic medicines, which are bordering on scalp.

But anti-psychotics are real.

To take away anti-psychotics, you immediately induce psychotic stasis and so on.

There, I can't say you don't stop. But anti-psychotics affect crucial mechanisms, which I use in co-therapy.

For example, hyper-fixing.

So it's a limitation.

Next thing is that co-therapy is confrontation.

It's adversary.

So it immediately creates all kinds of defenses.

Even in other people, for example, if you're going to do co-therapy, you begin to resent me.

Because you'll attack me, counter me.

So there's a lot of aggression management.

And you need to manage aggression.

Now aggression is like water.

It goes where there's a child.

And if there's many guises, aggression is many guises, it can be overt.

But it can be covert. It can be passive aggression. It can work other guises.

For example, a biting sense of humor. A sudden bound of honesty, brutal honesty, is all forms of aggression.

You need to manage aggression.

Because, you know, if a patient attacks me, so he says it out loud, it happens to be real, but still I'm excited.

So I have to hope with this.

In other words, to use clinical, I don't know how many of you are therapists, or psychologists use clinical language.

There are ego defenses, which are provoked by the therapy.

And there's a negation of some ego functions.

So to use Freudianism.

Next is, at some point in co-therapy, there's narcissistic rage.

And can't get in touch with the underlying shame.

So there's a huge reservoir of shame.

When the patient gets in touch with the shame, he wants to die. She wants to die. That's for a suicidal negation.

There's no defenses, remember? Took away all the defenses. She's decompensating.

Now she's facing the shame, and has no way to go with it. That's how she wants to go.

And the last one is, there is a problem distinguishing bribery from the secondary trauma.

It can be useless to live with secondary trauma. It could lead nowhere in the century. And it could be with a primary trauma.

But how to identify?

So that's why I invented about ten proprietary techniques, whose only role is to identify primary trauma.

That's crucial. It's a crucial statement.

People are exposed to pain and hurt. People are even exposed to trauma. We only use the word trauma. Everything is a trauma. There's no coffee. Oh my god, a trauma.

So we only use the word trauma.

And people are exposed to real trauma. And sometimes they're exposed to multi-control.

Especially in the dead.

So we need to identifywhich trauma started in order, and which is a Christian trauma.

Christian trauma. Secondary trauma.

That is not as easy as you think. And you will see that about half the treatment is identifying the primary trauma.

Using a variety of techniques which cross with each other and verify each other's bloodiness.

You finally set up on the primary trauma.

And then it's easy. Once you know the primary trauma, you create an environment where none, people ask me.

They're stupid enough to ask me because then it goes off.

So you're clever. You're an intelligent audience.

You ask nothing. You don't want this to go on.

So you ask me the problem.

What you do is the primary trauma is sexual invasion.

You know, this is not very challenging. That's an easy one. It depends how close. It's not very challenging.

I say we because they're already in the center.

We then use a variety of techniques that create the original trauma, of course, without the penetrating afterwards.

They use themselves, but definitely only emotional reactions and compliments of the act. So we may, for example, use sexually suggestive language or create an ambient, incestuous relationship.

This is walking a very thin line, ethically. Hoping outside, it may be seamless crossing these lines.

But as long as street boundaries are contained, for example, not physically detached, we can walk to the beach.

Why do we need all this? Why do we need all this mess? What's wrong with you? It sounds horrible. What is this mess?

Last is this meanness.

If you're a therapist, I don't know. Anyone here from the therapist who is a coach?

Sorry, you're a therapist. You're a psychologist? You're not?

I'm recently...

Because you're not even the right person. Anyone who's a therapist who is a coach, you're all right. You should be.

I should run away. I'm not treating you. I would tell you that not this is a personal disorder. It's not just a borderline disorder. I'm inaccessible. Simply inaccessible. Excellently, exceedingly difficult. It's not borderline. You think you make progress. You think you're making progress. It's like two steps forward. Then she comes back the next week, and it's like 17 steps back. It's like sizefian. It's totally sizefian.

With narcissists, you don't even make the two steps forward. Narcissists immediately devalues you. You make my devalues you. Why are you? What's your potential for when you're studying?

I disagree with you about transfer and so on and so on. And so narcissists are... even much more hopeless than normal.

By the way, borderline is a good prognosis. If you went into your 45, you have an 81% chance of total remission of the disorder. You can't be diagnosed with borderline personality disorder in 81% of the cases after age 45.

With dialectical behavior therapy, 50% of clients lose the diagnosis within one year. All they like is really good prognosis.

Convert to narcissism is serum.

What's in this bloody serum? Nothing works.

You can modify a grazing and anti-social behaviors of narcissists to teach them how to act, to be nice, to pretend that they care about the human itself. And they're like... it's operant conditioning. They're like buffalo's dogs.

If it's gone, or if you see the supply at the end of the rainbow, never react.

But that's the extent of it.

That nazis itself does not benefit from this, except that there is industrial peace around it.

There's not something that can benefit.

Nothing happening inside.

So you need to break through.

What do you do?

You need to break through.

Simply need to break through.

And so this is a nuclear weapon.

And that's the catch of this.

The nuclear.

So I'm borrowing this.

And so I don't accept a client who hasn't...

who hasn't eaten from home.

He still has reserves.

He still has emotional reserves to cope with.

It's like he needs to eat from home.

He needs to eat most everything possible in his life.

I haven't been there.

I mean, I lost everything.

It's not going to be there.

He needs to lose everything.

And then he's so weakened that he doesn't want even to go back to...

I mean, many nazis come to therapy and say, I used to be so efficient.

I used to manipulate people so easily.

Now it's not working.

Can you fix me?

I want to manipulate people again.

But that's not wrong.

Wrong bottom is defeat.

Unmitigated, all pervasive, ubiquitous, total, all-consuming defeat.

The nazis comes to you so depleted that you can't even wish to revert to worry easily.

Then you have a chance.

Not a big one, but a chance.

And then what do you do?

You say, can you tell me about your trauma?

I say, time is your worst enemy as a therapist. Time is your worst enemy because all the system defenses reconstitute.

It's like the Terminator. You remember this metal that we came again. It's a Terminator.

So time is your worst enemy.

You have to act instantly. You have to...

There's no window of opportunity. You have to attack. You have to attack from the inside and destroy everything.

If you don't do this, the method will reconstitute. The fluid is very curative by the method. It will reconstitute.

Before you know it, you have a Terminator in your face.

Well, that's for Schweizer, maybe, or Richard Brown. Let's make a noise.

So thank you for those of you who survived.

I'm going to start with this lengthy introduction. It was named as you will see.

So if you don't have the knowledge, you can get most of the details. I hope I gave you some thoughts of what we're faced with for six days or so.

So I hope that half of you will survive. That will be a major achievement.

It's traumatizing me.

Thank you, Richard.

So I will stop here, so I don't forget about it.

Everything comes to an end.