We have recorded one error.
Oh, yeah. Well, Mr. Vaknin, it's been a pleasure to get you on there. I've been following you when I first came out, when I got introduced to the information on narcissists. It was through your information, and that's what I want to make clear here today.
Many people don't know, but you basically pioneered a lot of what this in this community came from you. And this is one thing that I see now with a lot of these newer coaches on YouTube in the narcissist community. They're using a lot of the terms and stuff, and they're not really realizing where this came from, who basically pioneered this. And then they're taking it as it's theirs, and they're running with it.
So I just want to get that out there first and foremost. You pioneered a lot of this on you way before narcissism was even being spoken on and even talked about. And before people knew about narcissistic supply and all this stuff, this is the source of where it came from.
So I want to make that clear to people and let you go ahead and go in from there.
Okay, that's extremely kind of you to mention. I've been a consumer of your videos, by the way, from the moment you had started. I think the first videos were in a car. I started to watch these videos when you just started. And I've been following you ever since.
Yeah, I started the whole thing in 1995. There was no internet. 1995, there was no YouTube, no nothing. I mean, it just started. There was a smattering of things and I ran the first website and the only website for nine years on narcissism and all six support groups for narcissistic abuse. And I coined most of the language in use today.
So narcissistic abuse, somatic narcissist, a rebel narcissist, flying monkeys, narcissistic fleas, hoovering, all this. These are my grandchildren.
And most of the experts and coaches and self-styled experts today, they've been teenagers when I started in high school. But on the other hand, it's gratifying to say that because I coined, for example, the phrase narcissistic abuse, and now it's like a major phrase all over. So it's gratifying to see my work, you know, make headway. Even being used by, you know, people, you know, peers in the psychological field, they're using the same terminology that you first came out with.
Yeah, I'm a professor of psychology in several universities and in textbooks and academic papers and so on, my language is used. Yeah, I've seen it. I coined about 90% of the language in use today. I borrowed many terms. I hadn't come up with everything, you know, numerous. I borrowed many terms from earlier psychoanalytic literature. For example, I borrowed narcissistic supply from a paper which was written in 1938. I borrowed the term false self from a guy called Winnicott who was a pediatrician and psychologist. So I borrowed many terms, but I imbued them with the meaning they have today. I sort of redefined them.
And so that's been my contribution. I've branched out since then. I now deal much more with borderline personality disorder, cluster B, social implications of narcissism, technology and narcissism. So I've moved on.
And speaking of that, that's where we're going today with this conversation, social media and the impact of where it seems to be almost like molding people's mentalities.
So you see so many people who are almost like no self-identification. They're all a conglomerate of everything that is on social media.
What have you say about that in that regards to what we're witnessing now in today's society, most of today's societies?
Well, I think it behooves us to make a distinction between the technology, the philosophy behind the technology, the unintended consequences of the technology and the intended consequences of the technology.
Now, there's a God-awful mix up of all these issues.
The technology is extremely basic. It's actually the most basic conceivable computer technology there is. It's very simple, a series of databases they call less. And it's a no-brainer in terms of technology.
However, behind this technology, there is pernicious intent.
The technology was designed with addiction and conditioning in mind.
Now, this is not a conspiracy theory. This is based on testimonies provided by the engineers who had originally come up with the platforms, the multiplicity of them.
The Google engineers, the Facebook engineers, the Twitter engineers, they had testified in front of Congress, they went public, they repented and confessed and so on and so forth.
When these platforms had been designed, they've been designed with two things in mind, to condition and addict people, to constitute virtual or digital drugs, and to encourage base instincts such as aggression.
Because these are very conducive and very good for viewership, monetizing eyeballs. It was an advertising-based model.
So the idea was to increase the number of views. To increase the number of views, you need bad things to happen. You need envy. You need aggression. You need ill will. You need conflict. You need fake news. I mean, you need all this. It's inbuilt. It's baked into the platforms. It's an integral part of the philosophy of technology.
Now, there's been intended consequences. Of course, people got addicted. People had been conditioned by the platforms.
The rise of emotional negativity, or negative emotionality to be more precise, things like relative positioning, competitiveness, bad type of competition. The rates of suicide among consumers of social media has skyrocketed by an average of 15 minutes. The rate of depression has quintupled five times higher. The rate of anxiety has tripled in a period of 10 years, within 10 years.
So among social media users, there's a pandemic of mental illness propagated by the platforms intentionally. It's shocking, but it's intentional.
There have been unintended consequences. There have been unintended consequences. These platforms have been leveraged by terrorists. They've been leveraged by state security services. They've been leveraged to disrupt elections. They've been leveraged for hacking. These were unintended consequences.
But when it comes to the psychology of users, the abuse of the psychology of users, and the perpetration of a crime against humanity, that's the only way to describe it.
There are 2 billion people. This has been intentional. And it's not a conspiracy theory. I detest conspiracy theories.
So to add to that, how much of that do you think contributes to the lack of identity and individuality to people today, through social media? How much has it possibly stripped away people's individuality?
I think there's a double effect here.
On the one hand, people escalate behaviors in order to attract attention, to get noticed, to get likes, etc. So this causes behavior escalation. And by definition, if your behaviors are radicalized, if they become idiosyncratic, if they become unique, by definition it forms part of your identity.
The concept of individual, indivisible, means that you stand apart. You're distinguishable.
So if your behavior becomes radical and extreme, and attention-seeking, and so on, by definition you are more distinguishable. So by definition you are more of an individual.
The problem is that you are more of an individual only in a highly restricted sense. In other words, not all the areas of your personality flourish and develop and evolve and grow.
But a tiny sliver of your personality is emphasized, and all your energies are focused on this tiny sliver, and the rest of your personality are trophies, decays, and dies.
So social media is what it does. It creates substantial imbalances between training behaviors in the personality, so that you actually do become more of an individual, but a two-dimensional individual, a cartoon figure, an animated cartoon figure, rather than a human being.
And is it so that because of the attention, right, that they get, it incentivizes the behavior to become more extreme and others see it, and then they want a part of the attention, and so there they go following with the same type of, you know, these radical behaviors.
But of course we call it positive reinforcement. There's a positive reinforcement loop. The more radical you are, the more inane, the more insane even, the more aggressive, the more conflictive, the less compromising, the more outlandish, the more attention you attract.
The more attention you attract, the more of an influencer you become, the more of an authority figure.
That started not with YouTube and not with social media. It started with Google. Google's ranking algorithm had placed emphasis on popularity rather than quality. And that was a decade before social media, like the first search results, the number one and two search results, were the most popular ones, not the most qualitative ones, not the most authoritative ones, but the most popular ones.
So popularity was a gauge, a gauge of dissemination of information and influence long before social media. Social media just incorporated it into the algorithm.
But yes, you're absolutely right. We feed on each other and we create these infinite feedback loops, which only escalate and radicalize and extremize. God knows where we're gonna end.
It creates conditioning, no question.
And to kind of go off of that, what we're seeing now was specifically on YouTube.
And I've been saying that the new currency, attention is the new currency. It seems to have more value than money now. People will do almost anything for attention, views, likes, which again, as you said, it was intentionally set up that way for people to seek that.
Now you're getting a plethora of individuals that are coming out in different communities that are, you know, pseudo experts with stuff. You just see it's just everywhere now, you know, is that part of the that is that all intertwined within that where you have all of these individuals now that see one individual doing something and it's like, oh, here they come.
How does that play? How have you seen that play out over the years throughout social media and the stuff that, you know, including online dating and stuff?
There's a policy, a natural policy. If you see many people running one way, you're gonna join. You're gonna join. You don't know what they're running to, what they're running from, why they're running, you're gonna join the crowd.
So people confuse the number of likes, the number of views, the number of subscribers with authority. They interpret it as authority.
So they exchange quantity for quality. They conflate quantity with quality.
They say, well, if she has a million followers, or if he has 300,000 subscribers, he must know what he's talking about. 300,000 people can't be wrong. A million people can't be wrong. There's something there is a kernel of gold, a morsel of truth, and we got to pursue this, not to miss the opportunity.
So social media leverage policies. They are policy and policy engines. They are constructed on policies that propagate and perpetuate policies.
And one of the policies I'd mentioned is this confusion, conflating the quantity with quality.
But there are many other policies that are perpetuated through social media. Social media is constructed on our cognitive deficits. It is intended to divorce us from reality. And above all, it is intended to divorce us from sane voices from other people who might balance us.
They want us to get enmeshed in infinite feedback loops, which push us in one direction.
Think about it. Intimacy is the worst enemy of social media. Worst.
Because if you're paying attention to your wife, if you're paying attention to your girlfriend, if you're paying attention to your child, these are a few minutes taken away from Mark Zuckerberg. These are a few minutes taken away from his bottom line.
Because these very few minutes, you could have clicked on three ads, and he could have made $1.50.
You're paying attention to your close ones, to your nearest, to your loved ones, to your dearest. This is taking away money from social media.
They don't want you to do this. They want you to be atomized and isolated. And they're going to feed you through their algorithms. They're going to feed you. They're going to feed your confirmation bias. They're going to push you with like-minded people. They're going to encourage herd mentality, not herd immunity, herd mentality. They're going to encourage what used to be called the madness of the most, or the madness of the crowds.
Because it pays. It pays.
And so their first task of social media is to separate you from society, from reality, and from your loved ones. That is the first overriding task of social media.
Well, you know, Professor, every since stuff came out, right, with social media and all this, even you talk to any family law practice and attorney, the divorce rates have been skyrocketing.
And now no one wants to really get married anymore because they're anticipating the inevitable what's going on. People get married only a year. It's over with. It's done.
And most of the cases, it's from someone, some infidelity or something, through social media. They're hooking up with somebody. It's so accessible to now create different connections with total strangers and then build from there. And the accessibility to be able to do that is so much more now than what it was, say, 20 years ago.
And that's another thing I would say. I want your opinion on it, how much it's played into the decline where marriage and stuff has been more so it's outdated now, almost in a sense.
Well, social media and technology more generally, they fed into existing trends, social trends. What they did, you're right, they catalyzed them. They sped up the interactions.
So where in the past you had to work very hard to find 10 strangers to interact with, today a thousand strangers are nothing, the push of a button.
Where in the past, in order to date, you had to go through a series of processes and steps and so on and so forth and still ended up dating.
But today, to date, all you have to do is swipe left or swipe right or whatever. So it's a catalyst. It's not a cause. It's not a prime cause. It didn't cause anything, but it catalyzed to the point that quantity became quality and speed became quality.
So that if you can do things much faster, you do them more often. And if you do them more often, the damage is compounded, the damage to social fabric, damage to social institutions, damage to hope and to anticipation.
Today, young people, for example, fully expects relationships to fail. Less, fewer than 6% of young people try to attempt to have a relationship. 81%, 81% of young people, when I say young, under the age of 25, 81% of young people, this, the exclusive sexual modality is hookups. They have never had any other sexual experience with an intimate partner. One night stands. That's it. Nothing else. That's 81% men.
So the situation is such that the ability of technology to fast forward, to speed, to accelerate, had been translated into qualitative changes in institutions, in sexual scripts, in behaviors, both romantic, sexual and intimate, in workplace relationships, in everything, in politics, in everything.
You can't blame technology for just emphasizing existing social trends, but you can blame technology for not building in safeguards, because it would have been extremely easy to build in safeguards, extremely easy, but not profitable.
For example, I'll give you two examples of safeguards.
One, limit the number of hours you can be on social media. Have a clock. Have a clock. After two hours, that's it. That's your allocation. End of story. Number two, you cannot have as friends, people you don't know. You can have as friends, only people who know you, and supply a written attestation that they know you.
So then you have real friends on Facebook, and you spend two hours on Facebook. These would have been massive safeguards against conditioning, against adultery, against cheating, against addiction.
Only these two steps that I've just mentioned would have solved 90% of the problems we're discussing. But of course it would have cut down the profit of Facebook by 90% and Facebook shareholders, and Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't have it.
It's all about money, and the hell with humanity. We are living in a death cult.
Western civilization has become a death cult, where we sacrifice human values, human institutions, long-held traditions, and human bodies, human beings, for the sake of money.
Look what's happening with vaccination.
We don't abrogate vaccine patterns, because pharmaceutical industries would make, instead of $16 billion that Pfizer made, Pfizer would have made $6 billion. And that's not enough, $6 billion. They want to make $60 billion.
So the hell with the dying Indians, 4,000 of them a day. So we sacrifice human beings and everything human to the monarch of material goods and money, and that's a death cult, because material goods are dead.
It's a fanatic society. It's a society built on the death instinct, not on the life instinct.
And the greed of society now seems to be more overwhelming, more people are into what they can get, and instantly, and never mind the consequences.
And you know where I'm going with that, that seems to be kind of along the lines of the cluster B typical narcissist, they don't care, they see this money, and by any means necessary, if they can get it, they're going to do it.
Even if it means people have to die. Even if it means that you're corrupting minds, they're going to go for it.
It's not only money.
You see a sexual partner in a bar. You got to go for it. You got to consume him. We consume, we consume money, we consume material goods, we consume other people, we consume them and spit them out.
We don't bother to build long term relationships.
So one might think, sex is one might think, and relationships are a two night thing, if you're lucky.
I mean, we are consumers, we simply consider the main mode of the main mode of interaction in modern Western civilization had become consumption.
And the second mode of interaction is simulation. So, we either consume, or we simulate.
When we consume, we consume everything, we consume other people, we consume money, we consume our time.
When we simulate, we simulate things that we used to have.
So we simulate traditions, we simulate emotions, we simulate relationships, we simulate political activism, we see relating, we see related gender relationships, everything our fathers and forefathers used to have took it for granted.
Today we have to put an effort into, we simulate it, it's not really even, it's fake.
But we're trying, we're trying to fake it. We hope to make it, we'll never make it.
And speaking of it, because you now you see so many, and I get this a lot, especially with a lot of my followers.
They wonder about why is it so bad in the dating field now, you know where most people, people are busy now so yes they're going to go to social media. They're going to go online dating, and I say that it's a trap that some of the most vile people are on there.
I'm not saying all, but a high proportionate amount of individuals. These are where the sexual predators are and the psychopath, sociopaths, all these types of individuals prey on individuals that are on there and it's a practice ground for them.
They get tons and tons of practice, not just people in their local area but all over now. So now people are saying, well how do I date, how do I get to in a social media driven world. How do I, how do I, you know, properly vet someone who I may have to go through that channel or that route in order to find in order to meet someone, because it seems like everyone's getting burnt.
They're not going out and having the belief that they can somehow even change someone on there and this is my opinion.
Most of these individuals are like you said they're consuming your like food, and they see you and they come on there.
What do you say to people who are still having the belief or some people are addicted to going on these social media platforms to get to find dating that's the only way they know how to find a date.
What do you say about that.
It's a problem because all alternative institutions have crumbled.
You used to find a date because your friends had introduced dates to you, but we don't have friends anymore. We used to find dates because your auntie knew someone's auntie who knew someone who might have got through family, family channels, we don't have family anymore. We used to find dates because you lived in a village or in a town or in a city even or in a neighborhood where everyone knew each other, you know, and they knew singles and they introduce singles to each other. We don't have neighborhoods anymore. We don't have communities anymore. We hardly have nation states even that probably, you know, we don't have alternative channels, we don't have alternatives.
It's not only dating, you're mentioning dating, it's not only dating, it's everything. You don't have alternatives for empathy and support.
So people go to therapies.
Psychotherapy is a symptom of an exceedingly sick society because only atomized, alienated, broken, damaged people who have no one to talk to go to psychotherapy, attend psychotherapy.
Psychotherapy is a major indicator of a breakdown of society. That you need to pay for someone to listen to you. That's bloody sick. That's seriously sick, you know, that you need to go online.
Among millions of sexual predators, you're absolutely right, and pray to God that you will find someone who is not. That's an indicator of sickness.
People refuse to have relationships.
There are studies by Lisa Wade as to what's happening.
People think that people are afraid to tell each other that they're looking for a relationship because it's not cool. It's not cool. They fake casualness.
Well over four-fifths of people under age 35 get drunk to the point of unconsciousness before they have sex with another person. That's four-fifths. That's four-fifths.
Why? Because the experience is horrible. It's disgusting. Less than 10% experience orgasm. It's a disgusting experience. Casual sex is a disgusting experience. Never mind what anyone tells you.
And so people have to numb themselves. They have to get themselves unconscious to do this.
And then it also signals to the other party, don't worry, I'm drunk. I don't know what I'm doing. I'm not threatening you with an intimacy. I'm not threatening you with a relationship. Don't worry. It's just sex. It's meaningless. It's emotionless, you know?
So we have come to a point where the disintegration of social institutions means that we have to act. We all are on our own. We have no guides, no help, no nothing. It's a jungle out there and you're all on your own.
And so where do you possibly see?
Because it looks grim. If it keeps going this way, it's only going to get worse.
Where do you possibly, just from a forecast or a guess, a guesstimation of where this may end up leading 10, 20 years up the road, if it's already trending in this pattern?
What are we in, what are we in stake for?
There are two possibilities, of course. One, the backlash.
People say they have with social media. We want love. We want warmth. We want empathy. We want acceptance. We want friends. We want community. We want, you know, and there's a backlash. There's a social revolution and we reassert ourselves as human beings.
Possibility, number one, we are seeing maybe hints of that in some forms of social activism, environmentalism, Black Lives Matter, etc. That's one possibility.
But I'm not very optimistic because these movements are hijacked by narcissists and psychopaths. The minute they acquire a critical mass, narcissists and psychopaths infiltrate these movements and take over.
That's not me. These are studies, recent studies that have demonstrated the preponderance and prevalence of narcissists and psychopaths in these movements. Explodes exponentially once these movements become a critical force.
So I'm not very optimistic. I think these movements are going to be hijacked and compromised by psychopaths and narcissists, as politics has been. Politics used to be a social movement, you know, in the 60s, for example, used to be a social movement. But look who we ended up with. We ended up with Nixon and Donald Trump. I mean, psychopathic narcissists.
Right.
So I'm not optimistic. I'm not optimistic about the chances of a backlash.
The other option.
How are these?
Okay.
There's two options.
So the other option is that we can extrapolate this trend line. And we can say at the very, very, very end, we're going to become 100 percent so sufficient. We're going to avoid other people altogether. So we're going to have Japanese sex dolls. We're going to have virtual psychotherapists. We're going to have zoom bars. Everyone will go to a bar and zoom.
Already you have zoom orgies. I'm kidding or not. We're going to have a full fledged life online. And already companies like Google and Facebook and Twitter, they say, wow, the pandemic has been a blessing. We're going to abolish our offices, our physical offices, and everyone's going to work from home.
So the last vestige of socializing, which was the workplace, it was the last place you socialized with people. This place is going to be abolished and eliminated soon. You're going to be stuck at home. You're going to have a work life, work life from home. You're going to date from home. You're going to have sex probably from home.
And what is pornography?
Pornography is outsourced sex. It's having sex at home.
Rather than going out to someone, you bring someone to you, visually at least. Shortly pornography will be via holograms, so you'll be able to project the characters into your living room.
Then there will be a technology which will allow you to touch them, and that'll be the end of it. And we're going to have virtual sex. And sex is only one thing. You'll work from home. You'll have sex from home. Everything will be delivered to you and taken from you.
You know, you have already Uber, Uber Eats, and Amazon, and you name it. We are constructing knowingly, knowingly. We are constructing a society based on alienating, isolating, atomizing, self-sufficient, self-contained technologies. We're all becoming unibobers.
Simple.
Yeah, I was going to say, that's not a good thing. It makes people that don't get enough social interaction become socially awkward. And worse.
Antisocial. A-social.
Right.
And that's what we're seeing today.
Look at the mass shootings that are going on. They're starting to happen every week now. And they're happening way more frequently.
I think in France there was a stabbing or something like that in Europe or something. They're starting to happen with more frequency.
Allow me to correct you. Not every week, every day. You have 400 and something school shootings a year.
Wow. Wow. Every day, 1.4.
And that's just, you know, especially with the pandemic that had people locked down.
You mentioned porn. I think that the porn site, the top ones, it was so much it broke their bandwidth. It broke their bandwidth. I mean, so that people are finding different vices, you know, to cope. These are coping mechanisms.
People gave up on each other. Men gave up on women. You have mixtiles, red pillows, insects. Men gave up on women. Women gave up on men. I mean, the heck with it. The genders gave up on each other.
Then people gave up on each other as friends and so on. People don't get along with each other. They have no patience. They are intolerant. There's a lot of aggression, much more than ever before, if you ask me. It's sublimated aggression. It's not open or hurt, but it's passive aggressive.
So people are fed up with each other. Quite a long story short.
The social experiment of humanity, which had lasted only 10,000 years. The social experiment is 10,000 years.
The concept of society is very new. It's about 150 years old.
The first city was established 10,000 years ago, Jericho, and probably 7,000 years ago was the first real city. So it is a very new concept, exceedingly new concept.
The agricultural revolution started 5,000 years ago, and it was the first time that people had to collaborate in a structured way, year-long. Hunter-gatherers, they were like ad-hoc combinations of people hunting a mammoth or a deer, I don't know what, and then disassembling.
So the social explosion phase of humanity had lasted, in the best case, 5,000 to 7,000 years, which is nothing in terms of the existence of the species. And I think we had failed. I think the social experiment had failed.
We are perhaps constitutionally not built to be with each other. We are built to collaborate on short-term goals or even long-term goals. But we are not built to cohabit. We are not built to be together. We don't have the emotional equipment, the cognitive equipment, and we definitely have the wrong instincts and reflexes, as social media is demonstrating.
Given the opportunity and so on, people will do amazing antisocial and psychopathic things. I mean, we have studies, for example, that men, given the opportunity, would sleep with women even if they are unconscious, drug and drunk, mentally, evidently mentally ill, sick, and that's the majority of men in studies.
We have other studies that show that given the opportunity to steal money from your fellow students, 9 out of 10 students would steal money.
These are the done and really studies. We have other studies that show that one way or another, we lie about 90% of the time, one way or another, not overtly, not directly, but small lies, white lies, fudging.
So these are all psychopathic things. These are all antisocial things, but the vast majority of people do them all the time. 60% of men cheat, commit adultery. Officially 30, 40% of women, I believe the number is equal to men, at least.
So it's not working. We tried. We tried with religion. We tried with constitutions. We tried with enlightenment and science. We tried in a variety of ways. It's not working. We are not built to work to be together. We are built for ad hoc collaborations on specific projects, sending a man to the moon, inventing a vaccine, but nothing beyond it. Anything beyond this, which is emotional, romantic, and so on, is bound to fail.
We have people, Sam, that would say, but why? Because there's so people that believe so die hard and that a marriage will bring everything together. And if they do it under the auspices of religion, that marriage will work better than someone opposite of that who's just together.
But from what I gather from what you're saying, the human nature trumps both of those scenarios. Human nature is going to prevail with the trending pattern of how it is, and neither one of them will work out in the end.
Well, first of all, it's not working. It's not speculation. It's not working. The rate of demand is very high. By the way, it's high among religious couples as well. It's lower than among non-religious couples, but it's still very high.
So the thing is this. We are a social animal in the sense that we do collaborate to take goals.
But when you look at other social animals, for example, elephants or dolphins or other social penguins, other social animals, they live in relatively small groups. A typical herd of elephants would never exceed 20 or 30 members. I mean, the groups are small.
And when we don't, we live in groups of 20 million or 30 million in a typical city in the world, you know, 20, 30 million.
That raises a serious problem. There's been a series of experiments with rats and mice.
What happens when you put too many mice or too many rats in an enclosure? They go, they become psychopathic. They become antisocial. They kill each other. They burn each other's eyes. I mean, horrible things happen. Fraternity collapses. Females become super promiscuous and slip around with all the other mice and all the other rats, where actually rats are monotonous.
So the rat utopia or mice utopia experiments, which were conducted in the 60s and 70s and so on, they showed us the basic fallacy in assuming that we can cram together many people and still retain their social instincts and humanity.
It's not working. It's not working. We are too many. Our habitation is too dense.
We had failed to create institutions that can cope with masses of people.
Our institutions, remember that all our institutions, including marriage, they were constructed, they were designed when our number was 100 million worldwide.
We are now 80 times this number. We are now 8 billion people. These institutions were not built to support such a weight.
Also remember that when we had constructed these institutions, our life expectancy was 35 years. We now live to be 90.
What monogamy can survive this? What marriage can survive this? What institution can survive this?
Also remember that the pace of technology is now thousands of times faster than it had been in the 60s by many measures.
So the change is normal because our entire environment is technological. We no longer live in the jungle. We no longer live in the woods or the forest. We live in a techno forest, in a techno wood.
So if the wood changes, imagine a wood that the trees change location every few seconds. Would you survive in such a wood?
It's a problem.
And the fourth element is inflation.
Throughout human history, until about 100 years ago, prices were stable. The price of bread in 1600 was the same as the price of bread in 1700, and not much different than the price of bread in 1800.
That's a crucial point. As people could plan ahead, there was predictability. Prices reflect supply, demand, economic activity and so on.
Inflation is a pathology. It reflects an inherent pathology in the way our economies are constructed.
Our economies are constructed on the premise of infinite growth, growth all the time.
Of course, if you grow all the time, you happen to destroy your planet. And of course, if you grow all the time, you sacrifice many other values.
And of course, if you grow all the time, you can't maintain social institutions because social institutions are based on stability and growth is based on change.
These are conflicting values you have to choose. Do you want growth or do you want stability? Do you want change or do you want predictability?
And we had chosen growth, we had chosen change, we had chosen unpredictability and instability.
So no institution can survive this. Nothing, not marriage, not community, not nation state, nothing can survive.
And to further emphasize on what you're saying, we're witnessing inflation now.
We're seeing inflation right now.
Inflation is a pathology.
And of course, COVID has pathologized the economy in massive ways. And people were saying, oh, there'll be no inflation. And I knew there's going to be inflation because inflation is like fever. It's when the body is sick, you have inflation. The economic body is sick and it's going to be inflation, regardless of demand or supply or there's going to be inflation because of uncertainty. People don't know.
And say, OK, I don't know. I don't know what to charge for my product. Let me charge more.
What the heck? Let me charge more. So everybody's charging more. Everybody's charging more, you have inflation.
It reflects unpredictability and uncertainty, not supply and demand.
So all these together, when you put all these forces together, which are millennial forces, which culminated now, it's destroyed.
When I say institutions, I'm not talking only about marriage. I'm talking about what is it to be a man? What is it to be a woman?
Gender roles. These are institutions as well. They're cultural. So they were destroyed as well.
So now men don't know how to be men. Women don't know how to be women. Women are imitating, emulating psychopathic men. Women are more men than men now.
We have unigender. We have one gender, half of it with vaginas and half of it with penises.
That's the work to do.
Is that kind of why we see a growth in the whole Red Pill community?
And there's there's people like, you know, Kevin Samuels that are that's out now.
And then a lot of these other groups of men who have broken away and have, you know, a lot of having going to where these talking points are made, which I think some of it's kind of toxic in a way to be following these different, you know, red pill.
There's so many pills. There's red, blue, blue, blue pills. And it's just I don't know where they're coming up with this stuff.
You know, it's like a bag of jelly drinks from The Matrix, the movie.
OK, you know, it's all these pills now and all these pills have a different mindset of what.
What do you think about that?
Because I think some of it can get kind of on the lines of, you know, so extreme.
I blame the radical or militant variants of feminism.
Feminism started off as a social justice movement, a very justified social justice movement. The right women were enslaved, were discriminated against. Wasn't right. Wasn't OK.
So they start proto feminists, the feminists of the 19th century and well into 1940, let's say 1950.
These feminists demanded equality. If you do an equal job, you get an equal pay. You have the right to vote as a woman. You have the right to access to education. You have the right to medical degree, to medical degree. You have the right to be quoted.
So they were right. These were laudable votes and so on.
But then they went haywire. They went haywire because they were hijacked by narcissistic women and possibly psychopathic women. They went haywire and the message became everything masculine is dead. All institutions constructed by men are intended to enslave women. Men are evil. Men are slaveholders. You're living in a plantation called marriage. You know, you want to destroy all these institutions in order to liberate yourself.
And this was the first message.
And the second message is the only way for you to prevail in a man's world is to become men.
You also should become men. Not only should you become men, but you should become macho men. You should become psychopathic men. You should beat men at their own game by being more men than they are men. You should outman them, you know.
And so many, many women, especially after World War II, where women were forced to become men, they were forced to work in factories. They were forced because the men were away.
The brown women.
So these women, they didn't want to go back to the traditional roles. They were amenable to the message of radical militant, sick, poisonous, toxic feminism.
And so they adopted these two messages.
We're going to dispense with men because men are evil and we are slaves. And we're going to become men. And we're going to become hyper men, supermen. We're going to become psychopathic men.
And these women had daughters. And these daughters propagated the message to their daughters.
And today, today, the dominant strand in feminism and in the feminine mindset, the dominant strand is not only are we equal to men in many respects, we're superior to men. We're going to destroy everything that men had built because they had the ability to enslave us. And we're going to be more men than men. We're going to curse more. We're going to drink more. We're going to f more. We're going to do everything more.
And they used to have one-night stands. We're going to have one-night stands. They curse. We're going to curse. They drink. We're going to out-drink them. I mean, we're going to be more men than men.
And of course, where does this leave men? Men had mistreated women for millennia and they should repent for this. And they should atone for this. And they should restructure society to incorporate and include women.
I'm not saying otherwise. But where does it leave men?
It leaves men without women. There are no women left.
There's simply no women left.
Go into any bar, go to any pub, go to any restaurant, go to any party.
I challenge you to find a woman. There are many people there with vaginas, but I challenge you to find a woman.
None is left. Not one is left. There are only men.
The psychology of the natural woman is now been transformed into they have the bodies of a woman, but the psychology of a man.
They're masculine. By the way, it has a clinical name. Just for you to know, I'm just not talking off my sleeve off the top of my head. This has been studied and there is a discipline and there is a name, a clinical name for this. It's called the Stalled Revolution. S-T-A-L-L-E-D.
The Stalled Revolution. We have discovered in a series of studies, we have discovered that women now define themselves as men.
In other words, when we gave them a list of adjectives, they chose only masculine adjectives and not feminine ones.
And we are talking about tens of thousands of women in 21 countries.
So these are giant studies and we discovered that most women in most countries now identify as men.
They choose masculine adjectives, adjectives to describe themselves, and they resent and reject and abhor any feminine adjective.
So there is a process of masculineization of women.
And of course, many men say there's a process of effeminate, effeminate men, process of feminization of men. That is not true. That is not supported by research. That is not.
But you are right that there is and I mentioned it before, men are withdrawing. They don't want anything to do anymore with these fake women. These are fake women. Not because they gave up traditional gender roles. It's not that they gave up traditional gender roles. It's that they didn't come with anything instead.
The women said traditional woman, a traditional woman role, women's role. That sucks. We don't want to be like our grandmothers.
OK, fair enough. What do you want to be like? And women didn't come with an answer. They didn't come with an answer. They got rid of the old gender roles.
But their answer was to adopt a psychopathic man role.
So they became psychopathic men. And I'll say this to disaster.
I'll say this to them because you mentioned that they were hijacked by narcissists and psychopaths.
It seems that narcissists and psychopaths are now hijacking many different aspects of society and how they went.
And they seem to be there. They're more aggressive now in their approach.
So it's the problem.
Yeah, right.
It's glorifying. It's glorifying.
Yeah. And even then, you know, within the Black Lives Matter movement, they were in there. They get into everything and they twist it.
Even though we can speak on the online dating, it was intended to be something, you know, something, you know, for where people could, you know, kind of meet someone good, but they get in on everything. They get in on the YouTube community and the YouTube communities in this community, too, as well.
They come in and then, you know, no one sees it like no one recognizes it, even with the feminist movement and stuff like that.
But how are they so able to infiltrate and disguise and lure people we know that they have, you know, charismatic, you know, characters and stuff. But how are they able to get in so well and there's no opposition there's no pushback from their radical agendas.
In good people want to believe that other people are good. This, this, by the way, also is a clinical name. It is called the base rate fallacy.
We discovered in psychological studies that people overwhelmingly believe that other people are good and overwhelmingly believe everything that told people believe 95% of what they are told without checking it.
Site unseen, like, if someone tells me it's right probably right. That's the big this foundation of fake news.
So, people want to believe that other people are good. So if I come to and I say, Look, I'm so I'm buffing my mind your pain touches me. I love you. I want to help you. Let me help you. You believe me. 95% of the time you believe me, because you want to believe that I'm a good person who is really in traffic and trying to help you.
Know what's the big deal.
This psychopath one one, the psychopath tells youwhat you want to hear. The psychopath pushes all your buttons.
You want an empathic person is empathic you want modesty is modest, you want, I mean, ostentatiously modest you want to not really be charitable guy is altruistic and charitable, whatever you want him to be will be.
They don't have any core, they don't have any core, they have an empty schizoid eight core there's nothing there's nobody there. They shape shift. They penetrate your mind with cold empathy, and then they reflected back at you, they are blank screens, you see yourself, you fall in love with yourself. You get addicted to yourself, you travel bond with yourself, not with them, because there's not them. There's nobody there.
They are a mirror, they are whole of mirrors, and they idealize you and then you see your idealized image in all the mirrors and you fall in love with yourself.
Now, it's much easier to break up with someone else.
But it's very difficult to break up with yourself.
You fall in love with yourself. This love is forever is addictive, you can never extricate yourself.
You have a public intellectual with a solution to life's problems. Their message is consistent. I am empathy. I'm here to help. I'm here to share my experience. I'm here to, you know, and people buy into it, because they buy into anything they're gullible, gullibility has been documented in psychological studies to an amazing extent. People are gullible to an amazing extent, beyond the expectations.
Right. So basically, and speaking of the Indian grew up, I talked about the spiritual narcissist, the one that they start off basic and as they get more empowered. They end up being God himself almost at the end, you know, and people never challenge it. It's like where first he was normal. Now he's the one that know it though.
Even his name changes at the end, and people don't even pick up on, you know, they don't even pick up on.
Wait, wait a minute, he's just, he advanced himself to a superior position of power, and no one questions it.
There are two things here.
You need hope. You need to believe.
What is it to believe nowadays? In the past you could believe your father and mother in your community or family or village or town your neighborhood your neighbors. There's nobody there anymore.
What is there and who is there to believe these people online, these faces online, they are your new family, they're your new friends, they're new, they're new affiliation, there in your new reference group.
They are.
So it's a cult. It's a cult dynamic.
And the second thing is, so this is the first reason that people fall for it.
And the second is that the more exaggerated your claims, the easier they are to believe.
We discovered in psychological studies that if you make outlandish claims exclusively and you insist on these claims and you're very aggressively invested in this claim, the more, the more exercise you are, the more believable you are.
No matter how outlandish it is. The only parameter that we discovered that affects believability or credibility is intensity emotional intensity.
The content was irrelevant. We did not discover in any of the studies of gullibility. We did not discover that content had any impact on how much you believe the person only his emotional intensity that had an impact.
They love good actors. They're good actors, they cry on camera. They hug other people on camera, or they are very, very passionate and all over the place. So they're intense people.
They're all intense people.
And that of course, that of course I noticed that to Sam like when I started focusing more on a healing aspect and having people be more accountable. Being less likable on there when I started saying, like, you got to get it together. You know, they drift off to people who will, you know, buy into or basically patronize and implicate to what they want to hear you know like, oh no you are this and it's like, you can see it unraveling like I can see it.
But it's like, if you're trying to say, look, okay you went through something but it's time to get starting to move on. They don't want to hear that.
And so that's why it's big business for these individuals.
Yes, you touch upon two very important points.
The first important point.
The purpose of victimhood is very gratifying and lifelong victim mentality and victim position, the position of a victim is very gratifying because you're the angel, and there's a demon.
There's a morality play like medieval morality play where you are the embodiment of splitting, it's a splitting defense, where you are the embodiment of everything that's good, and your adversary, your abuser for example, is the embodiment of everything that's evil.
It exempts you from personal responsibility, accountability, the need for soul searching, and the need for change.
No, it's the lazy position, I don't have to change and perfect, I'm angelic. I didn't do anything. I didn't do anything. I was just there. It was an accident.
And so, when you demand responsibility and accountability from people, when you ask them to investigate their contribution to the situation and how they might avoid this in the future and so on. You are demanding from them to acknowledge that they had been party to what had happened. In other words, they were not 100% victims.
And you are demanding, you're demanding them to work, to invest work.
The two things people hate most.
They hate to admit that they're responsible for anything, or guilty, because they interpret responsibility as guilt.
And they hate to work, people are lazy, they hate to work.
Now all these self-styled gurus and experts and so on, they perpetuate the victimhood stance, because it makes them a lot of money.
I watch lectures, no names mentioned, but I watch lectures by these self-styled experts, which by the way, vast majority of them have no idea what is narcissism and so on. I watch lectures by these people.
There's one trick for me. They have one trick, and only one. You're a victim, you're a victim, you're a victim. You should remember your victim.
Come to my retreat, buy my book, listen to my, pay me for money, and I will continue to tell you that you're a victim.
And it makes you feel good. So many victims are actually grandiose, or even I would say covert narcissists. And their victimhood is their grandiose.
They're grandiose via victimhood. They're the perfect victim. Narcissism is about being perfect. So they're the perfect victim.
And there are competitions between these so-called impasse, and I don't know other nonsense. There are competitions between these people, who is more victim than the other, whose abuser was more horrible than the other, or more monstrous. And which one of them is the most righteous, and most morally upright, and compared tortures.
I was tortured more than you. No, I was tortured more than you. My abuser was unique. No, my abuser was unique. I mean, it's totally, it's a madhouse, and it's totally insane.
And there's the names that come with them. What is an ordained impasse? There's an ordained impasse now? What is that?
You can be an ordained impasse.
There's no such thing as an empath. empath is one of the nonsensical labels.
And I am just shocked that academics, I'm an academic, I'm a professor of psychology. I'm shocked that my colleagues saw the money, and forgot their academic degrees, forgot their integrity, and climbed on the bandwagon.
Now they're talking about impasse, and they know damn well there's no such thing, because they're professors of psychology.
So now they're talking about impasse, and they're distinguishing types of impasse and so on. And now they're talking about, and they're propagating myths and nonsense about narcissism and so on, because it pays.
They've been corrupted by money. Professors, doctors, totally corrupted by money.
Totally.
And I see it myself. I see it throughout. Everybody's jumping on the bandwagon. You made an important point.
There is a lot of pay also as well to anyone who, you know, sensationalizes victimhood. There's big money in that.
If you're going to play up on it, yeah.
Sensationalizes and perpetuates.
Because if you perpetuate, you make more money. I mean, if someone is a victim for five years, you can milk them for five years.
The marks are the victims. These are pseudo-psychopathic people, even those with academic degrees. They're pseudo-psychopathic, not fully psychopath. I mean, they're con-artists. I mean, I've watched lectures by so-called doctors and professors and so on. Con-artists have no idea what is narcissism.
And not painting myself in any way as the good guy, but as I healed, I started trying to take people to the healing where I was. And I started to introduce more laughter, and it kind of got off. I wasn't talking the language of victimhood anymore, and that's when the breaking away started.
The breaking away, I don't want to do it with him anymore. He's talking this funny laughter stuff and giving people humor. I don't want that. I want to hear how much I was hurt and all this stuff in grado a supply.
What do you say about that, too? Because that's being blown out of proportion, where people are selling the grade A supply as a way to say that the narcissist will always want you. They'll never get over you specifically. You're the only grade A supply they're ever going to meet and have, and they'll always be back.
They can't find another grade A supply. Isn't that to even to give people a false sense of hope and to, you know, they're overemphasizing that person's importance?
Like, there's no other person left for grade A supply.
There's no foundation for this.
Narcissists are promiscuous in the sense that they are indiscriminate. If you can provide them with supply, you're the next intimate partner.
Intimate partners are commoditized, commodified, interchangeable, faceless, impersonal. That's why it's very easy for the narcissist to jump from one intimate partner to another, sometimes within a matter of days.
Because you're meaningless. As an intimate partner with a narcissist, you're utterly meaningless. You're a service provider. And if you provide supply and services and sex, you're good to go. If you don't, he dumps you, he discards you, he moves on to the next intimate partner.
He forgets your name. There's no grade A and no grade B. There's only supply or no supply. Two states, binary machine. Yes, supply, you're in, no supply, you're out, someone else is in. Someone else is in who is as good as you or as bad as you. And that someone else would be discarded, prepared to move on.
You don't have any privileged position. Never have, never will. Not emotionally, not otherwise, because narcissists have no access to positive emotions. They don't regard you as a human being, but as a device.
It's like saying that my iPhone is grade A supply. It's not grade A supply. It's my iPhone.
The next version comes down to this iPhone or by the next iPhone, and I will never give a second thought to my previous version.
I hear it so much, Sam. I hear it going around so much and individuals emphasizing and telling people that which is misleading because if you're putting yourself in a position to say that you are a life coach in the expert in this subject, there's no way you should be passing this out.
But again, as you said, victimhood, playing into the victimhood, it makes money, people want to come back, they want to hear and be told how wonderful they are and that's what you touch upon.
Very important is that a lot of these so-called victims are actually on the verge of being narcissists themselves, or some are outright narcissists themselves, and not everyone is a victim of another narcissist.
But they're narcissists, covert narcissists.
Two narcissists and one got the bad, the worst end of the sick.
Yes, they are out-narcissized. Let's put it this way.
Right, right.
But yeah, for example, there are many myths, or one of the myths is that narcissists are attracted to co-dependence.
Narcissists are attracted to empathic people, or narcissists are attracted to accomplish strong people, or whatever. Narcissists are attracted to anyone who will provide them with narcissistic supply.
End of story. You could be co-dependent, you could be a grandmother, you could be a dog on three legs. I mean, if you provide supply, narcissists will be attracted to you as an intimate partner.
Your personal qualities, your psychodynamics, your psychology are utterly besides the point because you're a commodity, you're a grain of rice, you're a device, you're like a refrigerator.
Narcissists are not attracted to a specific type of refrigerators, and they're not attracted to a specific type of human beings. They don't see you as a human being. You're not a human being. You're a functional apparatus. You provide functions. As long as you provide them, you're good to go and you're transparent because our devices are transparent to us.
When you open the television, when you switch on the television, you don't go into the internal workings of the television. You just want to see a picture. That's all. You don't have sound. Picture and sound. That's all. You don't really care what Samsung puts in or what Apple puts in. Picture and sound.
Give me a break. That's what the narcissist wants. He wants supply, he wants sex, he wants services. He doesn't care what's your internal workings. Are you co-dependent? Are you traumatized? Who cares?
That's where I was wrong at in my infancy of coming into the knowledge.
I was thinking, well, there's these grades, but once I learned, and that's why I had to correct myself and put that out there, I learned that because I keep studying this. I don't just listen to people and I keep studying and researching and, oh, okay, I was wrong on that. I have to correct my position on that, stand corrected.
I agree 100% wholeheartedly. You're not in a special place. You're not in a special place because the narcissist got with you, you did all this stuff. It's you that think that.
The narcissist doesn't. You were just giving them supply. You just was giving them a certain amount of supply that they liked. Some people gave it better than the others, but if they're without, who's up next?
I'll tell you a story. I was in a seminar. I went to a seminar with Richard Grannon, who, by the way, has taken flack for the very same reason. Richard tried to transition to stop being a victim, stop watching narcissism videos, start working on your life, start looking at your contribution.
We no longer work together, but at the time, he organized a seminar. I was a guest in the seminar. I went on stage and I said, what bothers you most is that the narcissist hadn't seen how special you are, had regarded you as a commodity, interchangeable, dispensable, replaceable, substitutable, and you can't stand this. It's destroyed.
And one guy rose and said, you're a piece of scum for saying this. This is what bothers the victim most, that they actually never existed in the mind of the narcissist. That it wasn't a big love affair that went awry. That they were used as instruments, tools, devices, switched on and switched off at the blink of an eye, unhesitatingly and unthinkingly, never occupied any internal space in the narcissist's mind, except maybe as an internal object, an introject.
They can't fathom that. They need to feel special. They need to feel that they had a special place in the narcissist's life, history, memory, and identity.
Many of them even bragged that they had changed the narcissist, shaped the narcissist, affected the narcissist, or took revenge on the narcissist, destroyed the narcissist.
They had done none of these things. The narcissist is implacable, untouchable. That kills people.
That the narcissist, this monster, this abuser, actually never pays a price. He never pays a price. He's incapable of mourning, of grieving, of heartbreak. He never pays an emotional price for anything he does.
The only way to touch the core of a narcissist and to affect him is a process called narcissistic modification. It's when the narcissist is publicly shamed and humiliated in front of peers and people he values.
So when you do this, there's a process called notification, which destroys his defenses, and then he's very vulnerable.
But that's the only case. Otherwise, he's impervious and indifferent to all your shenanigans. I mean, who cares?
You're stopping a good supplier. You're out.
Next, next please. There's a queue waiting.
And that's so profound, Sam, that you say that because I see that is why a lot of people stay in victimhood and don't want to move on.
Because to face that means you have to stop crying over spilled milk. You have to leave all this alone and you have to go about accepting a loss.
It's not only a loss, but you have to accept that all your existence with a narcissist was a big lie. A big lie is self-deception, not deception.
Self-deception. You deceived yourself. You agreed to participate in the narcissist's shared fantasy.
So you suspended reality. You suspended your own judgment, your own good sense, your own common sense, your experience, your life to become a figment, an actor in someone else's theater production.
And then you said to yourself, okay, I'm going to become a part of his theater production. I'm going to be an actor. I'm going to be a figment of his imagination.
But he's going to value me for that. He's going to appreciate me. He's going to be grateful.
And then you discover it. There's not even that. There are no wages, no wages for this participation in the fantasy. You just wasted your time. You wasted your life. You destroyed your life. You ruined your mental stability and so on for nothing, for nothing. And it was all done by you.
You self-deceived. You brought yourself to this place. People can't accept this. They just can't accept this. It's too much for them.
Absolutely.
And I'll say to conclude here, Sam, because you've been a blessing on him.
I'm sure people are going to definitely love the array of knowledge that you threw out on here, as usual, as you've always been doing.
But to conclude, advice to people, especially those who are dealing with the hardships of having to accept this and especially deal with social media and how all this stuff is now.
What would be your advice just to people, a way to move forward and understand how the world that we live in, what it is, and to have more of an acceptance or a reality reference point to how to move, at least, with their lives?
Put all your efforts, all your energy into re-establishing meaningful, long-term, or at least regular and repetitive connections with living, breathing, sweating human beings.
What you have online, these are not human beings. These are avatars. These are representations. They are manipulated by real human beings, but they're not real.
Go back to reality. And you go back to reality by saying good morning to your neighbor, by walking to the grocery store and chatting for a minute or two with a grocer, by climbing a bus and sitting next to someone and saying, how do you reconnect to the fabric, defy the symbolic and the abstract and the virtual and digital and the imaginary, defy all this, defy the fantasy, reconnect with reality.
And as you interact with other flesh and blood people, you will suddenly feel flesh and blood again. Because right now, none of us feels real.
We all feel depersonalized and derealized, as though we are not inhabiting any reality and as though we don't exist.
Partly, we experience partial existence. We suspect that we may not actually exist. Maybe we are a figment in someone's imagination. It's very unhealthy.
When you connect with other people, their gaze, the fact that you are seen, responded to, gives you reality. Suddenly you exist again. Start small. Start small. Put a target of five interactions a day. Each one, two sentences. Don't go big. Don't be grandiose. Two sentences.
Good morning. I love you, though. That's all. Walk on. Move on. Interact with people.
Gradually we'll discover the intoxicating effect of interacting with flesh and blood people.
This effect dwarfs anything social media cannot feel. Anything online cannot feel. That's one piece of advice.
And second piece of advice. Trust judiciously.
Don't be paranoid. Don't be a conspiracy theorist. Don't distrust as a matter of policy. Trust is a matter of policy.
But trust judiciously. Learn how to trust and who to trust and never trust anyone about everything. Allocate trust.
You can trust some people for some things, but not for others. Distribute your trust. Create a distributed network of trust so that you always have a solution for a trust issue with a specific individual.
Create a trust network around you.
And then once you have this safety net of trust, which you can rely on, then you can venture out safely. You venture out. You take a bit more risk. You seek novelty.
You can connect with strangers and make them not strangers in due time.
Try to avoid casualness. Avoid casual sex. Avoid anything casual.
Take your life seriously. Invest in it. Consider it a business proposition. You wouldn't take your business casually or you wouldn't have a business.
And finally, the last piece of advice is what I call nothingness.
Ask yourself which of my beliefs, which of my voices are mine and which I borrowed from someone, adopted from someone, I'm imitating someone, I'm influenced by someone.
Consider yourself like an onion. Peel the layers. Discard the layers that are not yours.
And remain with the essence of the onion. And the essence of the onion is none of the layers. It is the smell of the onion.
Because once you have discarded all the layers, the smell of the onion lingers. That smell is you. Focus on the smell. Focus on you.
Sartre, Jean Paul called it authenticity.
Many of the things we do, many of the things we believe, many of the things we say, the ways we behave, people we attach to, etc.
This is not us. These are voices. A mother's voice, a father's voice, teachers, influencers, peers, society, government, and so on. Discard all this.
It's not you. It's dead weight. It's a burden. It falsifies you. Discard all this. That's what I call nothingness.
Throw away everything. Remain with three sentences, but they're yours. Remain with three behaviors or three traits or three people.
But they're yours. They're really you. Remain with the smell of you.
I'm very well put. Again, I want to thank you for taking the time out. You know, you bless us with a lot of gems today. I hope it resonates and really educates a lot of you, you know, to give you, you know, a reference point of where to start at, where to, you know, kind of come out of this, you know, sometimes that's what we need.
We need, we just need that that little pep talk to get us going. And again, Sam, as always, it's been a pleasure to have you on.
A blessing to thank you again.
Very kind of you to have me. Thank you.
We'll definitely be in contact. And again, enjoy your day. Everyone says, you know, please, please make sure you share the video once you get it. People definitely could benefit from this knowledge.
I've recorded the video. I'll send you the recording. Absolutely.
****REDACTED
Okay.
Take care. Take care.
Thank you.
Thank you.