Narcissism's Loose Ends

And so there are many, many studies of gold diggers and I refer you especially to psychology today.

Psychology today is a prominent journal of psychology. It's not precisely academic, it's more popular, but it's really, really good level.

And I refer, for example, to an article published in August 2019, Why many young women may prefer older men.

The assumption that every young woman who is attracted to an older man is attracted to him because of his money or position or status, or the fact that he's about to expire soon and live a rich widow. That assumption seems to pertain to a tiny sliver, minority.

The vast majority of women who are attracted to older men are really, really attracted. They are attracted. And they're attracted because in most cases, because they are highly insecure, highly codependent, and possibly all of them have daddy issues. They have issues with father figures. They feel safe. They feel ensconced. They feel protected. They feel led. They feel guided. They feel understood. They cherish and value what older men have to offer. And that's not an advertisement. That's a fact of psychological research.

Numerous psychological studies have demonstrated conclusively that there is a group, not a big one, but there is a group of young and even very young women who find older men severely attractive, irresistibly attractive.

Is this healthy? Honestly, I doubt it. I think it's a pathology, but this pathology exists. It's undeniable.

There is, of course, a group of gold diggers. Like every vocation and every avocation, there are psychopaths who infiltrate the field and leverage the attributes of the field in their favor. They are goal oriented.

So gold diggers leverage romantic relationships and emotions in their favor to obtain gold. They dig for gold.

But this is not the general rule. Absolutely not.

Psychology does not support the belief that this is the majority of the cases.

I would even go further.

Gold digging is a form of faking.

And first of all, there's the open question. I mean, people are attracted to each other because of how they look, but looks fade. People are attracted to each other because of intelligence, but you could develop dementia. Everything passes. Money is transitory.

And the fact that someone had made money is a prime indicator of his character, his ability to persevere, his commitment, his investment, his intelligence, his wits, his cunning. Money is a proxy. Money is like a psychological test.

When you're attracted to someone with money, there's nothing wrong with it. It's not only the money that you're attracted to, but it's that person's capability, capacity to make money, which tells you a hell of a lot about who he is and what he is and what are his prospects. Nothing wrong with that.

I see no distinction between no difference between being attracted to someone because of his money, being attracted to someone because of his mind, being attracted to someone because of his academic authority or being attracted to someone because he looks good.

Only body builds. I see no rigorous philosophical or ethical distinction between these points of attraction, but there's still this perception, possibly this perception, that there is faking involved.

The gold digger fakes it.

And I'm mentioning gold digging in this video because gold diggers tend to team up with narcissists, especially somatic narcissists, and tend to abuse and exploit narcissists. Not psychopaths, by the way. Psychopaths, he threw them.

Psychopaths are themselves gold diggers. They're gold oriented.

So gold diggers kind of avoid shunned psychopaths, but they target definitely gullible narcissists. And narcissists are very easy to manipulate, give them supply, services. We mentioned this. And they're yours. They're yours. They're your dormites.

You can do anything you want. And there's a lot of faking. But here's what I think. Faking is a form of virtue signaling. Faking requires sustained efforts, commitment and investment in the relationship, however full it may be.

Moreover, faking is predictable behavior. It conforms to social norms of conduct and mores. It is communal. It is pro-social.

We fake. We tell white lies, for example. We pretend because it greases the wheels of society and commerce. If we were totally honest with each other all the time, we would be at each other's throats within the hour.

If you're aware of what's happening, you can even enjoy the ardent courtship, the attention, the decor, the time together with the faker. You get to decide when and where to grant the thespian desperado his most fervent wishes.

The flip side is true as well. People who refuse to fake will not fake. My way or the highway. That's who I am. Take it or leave it.

People who refuse to play along, refuse to tell white lies, they are actually narcissists. They are sadists. Or they are, at the minimum, rabid misanthropes, haters of humanity. They're bad news in any way.

People who refuse to fake, refuse to faint, refuse to pretend, refuse to play along, they hold you in such contempt that they see nothing in you or in yours that is of the slightest interest of them. Nothing in you. Nothing of you. Nothing that is yours justifies the effort that should go into faking. You're beneath faking even. I mean, give me a break.

To fake? For your sake? No way. Refusing to partake in the social game of hide and seek is a form of grandiose hotiness and a resounding slap in the collective or individual face and in your face as well.

He who declines to even fake it when he's with you, he's sending you a message. Funny. No money. Your sex, your company, your mind, your love, your companionship, your friendship, even your money. They're not worthy of the effort that I have to make to feign the slightest interest in you and they're not worthy of the sunk capital that I will have to invest on my part. You're not worthy of faking. Someone who refuses to fake is rejecting you. Lock, stalk and barrel and probably enjoying your humiliation to boot.

As an interlude, I would like to read to you a fragment from Robert Audrey's book, African Genesis. We were born of risen apes, not fallen angels. And the apes were armed killers besides.

And so what shall we wonder, it? Our murders and massacres and missiles and irreconcilable regiments? Or should we wonder at our treaties, whatever they may be worth? Our symphonies, however seldom they may be played. Our peaceful acres, however frequently they may be converted into battlefields. Our dreams, however rarely they may be accomplished.

The miracle of man is not how far he has sunk, but how magnificently he has risen.

So it is rational to prefer to be with someone who feigns empathy and caring, fakes attentiveness and interest in you, pretends to have no ulterior motives, goals or an agenda. Even when you know for fact that the other party is attempting to manipulate you in order to secure sex for the night, gain access to your money, pick your brain or leverage your skills or power, it is irrational to turn them down just because they are acting the part.

Loneliness is a pernicious toxin with a high price tag, far greater than any alternatives.

Anyhow, that's my unusual take on the issue. I received a thought-provoking comment, or was it an email? I think it's an email.

Hi Sam, some indecipherable emoji. Love your work. If a narcissist makes his mate his mother, then could it be said that he creates siblings instead of children with her?

What an amazing thought. If the narcissist's romantic partner is his mother, then the children he makes with his romantic partner are not his children, they are his siblings.

Jamie continues, does he create playmates as a cruel older brother, giving him the freedom to feel no responsibility in raising them, instead the drive to compete with them? So he's like the older brother and he's creating playmates and these are his siblings, so he has no responsibility to raise them.

On the contrary, he competes with them, sibling rivalry.

Jamie continues, if so, would the way he embarrasses and degrades his children be experienced as mere sibling rivalry within the narcissist, instead of abusive acts of a parent?

Way to go. Fascinating thoughts.

I want to talk a little about ego.

Every self-styled expert online, and listen, let's get it, let's get it correct once and for all. No real expert is online.

Real experts on narcissism, I don't know, the likes of Twenge, of Kimbo, of Lachkar, of Akhtar, and there are many other names. The real experts, they're not online, they're not on YouTube. The ones on YouTube are not experts. They claim to be experts, they use the title Doctor, sometimes very misleadingly, sometimes they even fake it, but they are not experts, whichever way you look at it. There are no experts online, get it in your head.

So all of them, and in this I found no exception, all of them use the word ego completely wrongly.

They confuse ego with selfishness or something like that, and it's of course nonsense because ego is a clinical term, it's part of the tripartite model of Sigmund Freud.

Nature arranges itself in ecosystems. Humans have an ego system, like ecosystem, ego system, at least according to Freud. The word ego is egregiously misused by almost all so-called coaches and self-styled experts online.

Let's talk a bit about the ego.

The ego is of course an abstraction, it's not a real thing. You can't cut out the ego from someone's brain because it's not physical, it's not hardware. It's a way to describe things, it's a model, it's a concept.

So the ego is a group of functions, is another name for a group of functions.

The ego remembers, evaluates, plans, responds to the world, and acts in the world and on the world. It is a locus of the executive functions of the personality.

The ego integrates the inner world with the outer world, with reality. It also integrates the id with the superego.

Now the id is kind of the seat of all the primordial drives, hungers, like sex. And the superego is your conscience. These are the voices, the interjects of meaningful others who tell you what's wrong and what's right through the process of socialization. Your conscience, essentially, or your inner critic.

So the ego has another role to mediate between the id. The id is a savage.

You know, he wants sex now in the middle of a restaurant. He's a savage. The superego is the one who chastises you and criticizes you and humiliates you if he's sadistic and tells you he did wrong. What's wrong with you to have done this?

The ego tries to survive somehow in the middle. Also, he mediates between all the internal structures, internal objects, interjects, and so on, and reality.

Ego is a very busy body. Narcissists don't have an ego. That's why they are absolutely compulsive about obtaining narcissistic supply.

They use narcissistic supply to construct an ego on the fly all the time. Their ego is kaleidoscopic. All the time, their ego is kaleidoscopic because it is composed of numerous voices from the outside.

So the ego acts under what Freud called the reality principle rather than the pleasure principle.

And this means that the ego is in charge of delaying gratification. It postpones pleasurable acts until they can be carried out both safely and successfully. It contributes to self efficaciousness. It is an integral part of one's agency.

The ego, therefore, is in a very ungrateful position. Unfulfilled desires, urges, drives, they produce unease. They produce anxiety, you know, frustration, right meaning.

But reckless fulfillment of desires, urges, and drives is diametrically opposed to self-reservation. You do whatever you want. You'll end up in jail. You'll end up dead. You have to put, you know, limits to your behavior. You can't be impulsive. You can't be defiant. You can't have reactants.

This is for psychopaths and the psychopaths. And badly.

The ego has to mediate these tensions. In an effort to thwart anxiety, to reduce it, to ameliorate it, the ego invents psychological defense mechanisms.

On the one hand, the ego channels fundamental drives like sex. It has to speak the language of these drives. It must have a primitive, infantile component.

On the other hand, the ego is in charge of negotiating with the outside world with reality to maintain reality testing. He's in charge of securing a realistic and optimal bargain for the client, you.

Your ego is your chief negotiator, or shall I say, hostage negotiator. He is negotiating with reality to kind of optimize your outcomes, your favorable outcomes.

And he's also doing this on behalf of the id. The id is implacable, will not be turned down. The id insists on having sex, on eating, on breeding. The id is an animal, savage. No rules, no boundaries, no nothing. No society, no socialization, no mores, no norms, no rules, no laws, no values, nothing.

And it's the ego who has to kind of keep this savage at bay by throwing him a piece of meat from time to time. Some of these pieces of meat, are you?

These intellectual and perceptual functions supervised by the exceptionally strict court of the superego.

So people with a strong ego can objectively comprehend both the world and themselves.

And that's why narcissists actually do not have an ego. They have total, they are, they totally fail reality testing. They have extreme and severe cognitive deficits and they have no access to the vast majority of their emotions.

They are exactly the opposite of someone with a strong ego. In other words, people with a strong ego are possessed of insight, insight into themselves, insight into their place in the world, an insight into what they can do and accomplish and achieve in the world without endangering themselves.

They're able to contemplate longer time spans. They're able to plan, to focus, to schedule. These are all ego functions. They choose decisively among alternatives. They follow their resolve.

This kind of people are aware of the existence of their drives, but they control these drives. They channel them in socially acceptable ways. This is called sublimation. These people resist pressures, social or otherwise.

They choose their course and they pursue it. But this course is always self-beneficial. It's always, always realistic, always in full awareness of one's limitations, one's strengths.

And Narcissus doesn't have any of this. The weaker the ego is, the more infantile and impulsive the owner, the more distorted his or her perception of self and reality.

A weak ego is incapable of productive work. Sounds familiar?

But what's happening to us? All of us? Aren't we all becoming more and more narcissistic?

As I've been saying for well over a decade, well over two decades now.

I want to read to you a transcript from a recent PBS report.

Paul Sommon reports on Putnam's new book, The Upswing. This book was co-authored with Shailene Romney Garrett, The Upswing.

So it's a transcript of an interview.

Shailene says, I will never forget the moment when we were sitting at the dinner table with Bob Putnam and Rosemary, his wife.

Bob starts telling me about these obscure data sets that he has been tinkering with on Google. These data sets are called N-Gram data.

Robert Putnam says, the N-Gram program can tell you how often a given word has appeared in any book published in any year.

Paul Stroop says, so Putnam typed in the words, I and we. Putnam went to Google's N-Gram, which is essentially a frequency engine, frequency generator, and he typed I and he typed we.

Robert Putnam says, it was exactly the same curve as all these other curves we've been studying.

Solomon, the data punch line is that in the late 19th century, it was I, I, I. It then became more we, we, we until the 1960s.

And then in all the literature that's assembled, it becomes more and more I, I, I again.

So until the end of the 19th century, we've had a rise in gender pronoun density of the words I, my, myself, mine. It was a very narcissistic grandiose age.

Then we were humbled by the Spanish flu, a global pandemic which dwarfs COVID-19. And we were humbled by two world wars. And by the nutcases that took over, like Adolf Hitler. And by the clowns, like Mussolini, etc, we were humbled, discovered how deficient we are as a species.

And starting in the 1960s, up until the 1960s, this first six decades, we started to be much more prosocial and communal. And the language changed. We were using we, we, we much more than I, I, I.

And then in the 1960s, with the sexual revolution, with the youth revolution, we started to be again, I, I, I, oriented.

We, our narcissism is growing. Twench and Campbell discovered a long time ago that narcissism has never been higher. It's, I mean, the 19th century is child's play compared to today.

Social media is helping. But social media is a manifestation of the underlying tsunami of narcissism. It didn't create it.

Okay, but says, yes, it didn't hope or happen overnight. Of course, it's a gradual trend.

Shailene, you see a real shift, not just away from using the first person pronoun to the we pronoun, but in asking Americans to rethink what this nation is really about in terms of our core values.

She's talking about the first six decades of the 20th century.

And we saw a shift away from the social Darwinism, that sort of dog eat dog mindset of the time, into what historians call the social gospel, which was a movement that tried to get us to think more about what we owe each other, what responsibilities do we have to each other in society, rather than simply the idea that a society is one giant competition.

And she's of course referring to the New Deal during the Depression to the Great Society, LBJ, Johnson, etc. Someone says, that's where we are today. Society is a giant competition.

Putnam, we're even more polarized now. I'm talking about the data, even more polarized now than during the Civil War.

Solomon, the purpose of Putnam and Romney's book to depolarize, spur a new upswing to bring us back together.

Shailene, sometimes we look at the political polarization today and say, oh, well, that was nice that they did that back then. But we can never do that today, because nobody can agree on anything.

Well, the lesson of this book is we have been in that exact same place before.

This group of determined reformers managed to put us, pull us up out of it by immigrant activism, by worker activism, by muckrakers.

One of the most under-recognized at home is Ida B. Wells, a Black American engaging in a moral outcry against lynching.

Okay, so we live in a non-sucistic age, we live in a narcissistic age, and people are faking it. They're focused on themselves, and they're faking it. We're coming full circle back to the issue of gold diggers.

You see, the demonization of narcissists, which I am the father of, I started it in 1995. I was the first to write about narcissism online, and for nine years, I've been the only one. The only one. There was no one else.

You must understand this. It was the only voice.

And of course, I define the agenda. And I'm the one who demonized narcissists first, probably an act of self-hatred.

But the demonization of narcissists led to the point that you feel comfortable to behave with narcissists the way you would never behave with anyone else. You feel comfortable to tell narcissists everything they want to hear. In other words, to lie to them. You feel comfortable to egg on and foster and engender their fantasies and their grandiosity to manipulate them. You feel comfortable to take advantage of their gallibility.

You have not problems whatsoever to abuse narcissists.

You say to yourself, they deserve a taste of their own medicine. You hurt narcissists, you betray them, you cheat on them. You say to yourself, he doesn't mind. He doesn't care.

I can do anything I want. He's a narcissist. In any case, he has no human rights because he's not human.

This degrades you, not a narcissist. This kind of behavior reduces and impacts your humanity. You're becoming less human.

The more you treat others, including narcissists, inhumanly, the more inhuman you become, the more narcissistic.

Narcissists infect you by forcing you to behave in narcissistic ways.

Don't you understand that? You're playing into their hands. You're playing their game when you cheat on them, when you betray them, when you hurt them, when you argue with them, when you manipulate them, when you lie to them, you're playing into their hands. They're winning.

One topic I've seriously neglected in my videos, mea culpa, is emotional charisma. There is a video I've made lately where I explained the distinction between emotions and cognitions. It's a very old one and no longer accepted in psychology.

We today think that emotions are a subspecies of cognition. Emotional reasoning is a very interesting concept. It's a cognitive deficit in effect. It's a disrupted cognitive process. It's a logical fallacy.

It's to say, if I'm feeling this way, it proves that something is true, that my emotions tell me everything I need to know about reality. If I'm feeling jealous, it means my partner is cheating. Never mind if he's a quadriplegic and doesn't move from his bed. He's still cheating.

Why? Because I'm feeling jealous. When emotions become judgment, when emotions become the bedrock of opinions, when emotions substitute for reality testing, when all the empirical evidence is contrary and yet you trust your emotions rather than the empirical evidence, that's not the same like trusting your gut reaction. It's not the same like trusting your intuition because gut reaction and intuition are not emotional. They are cognitive. They are fast, ultra-fast reasoning processes.

I'm talking now about emotions, envy, hatred, jealousy, love. Positive emotions as well.

Oh, I feel good with him. He must be a good person. I feel jealous. He must be cheating on me. I feel angry. He mistreated me. He abused me. Why? He didn't do anything.

Yeah, but I feel bad. He caused me. He made me feel bad.

It's when you go from emotions to reality rather than from reality to emotions. This is emotional reason. It creates kind of emotional truth.

Of course, emotional truth very often is in direct conflict with real truth, with reality, and it's also in conflict with your perceptions, what is called perception of truth. And so it's dissonant. It's dissonant.

Emotional reasoning leads to dissonance because you have to reconcile conflicting bits of information.

You have your emotions, which is a bit of information. You have information from reality. You have perceptions. You have to put them all together.

Within narrative that is self-consistent, has internal consistency, the parts fit each other, and has external consistency. The narrative must fit reality and be able to predict it like a scientific theory.

So this dissonance creates feelings of anxiety, fear, apprehension, even panic, stressful situations, and anxiety disorders often founded on emotional reasoning. So emotional reasoning is very, very common in people with personality disorders, especially cluster B, because they are incapable. They don't have access to reality. Their access to reality is not direct. It's indirect. It's mediated.

The narcissist's access to reality is via other people. The borderline's access to reality is via her emotions. She is the queen of emotional reasoning. Consequently, she is also a drama queen. So emotional reasoning substitutes for an inability to extract or extricate information, proper, vetted, reasoned information, data actually, impartial, unemotional data, big data like computers do.

Okay. Some people ask me why some narcissists are successful and accomplished, and some are not.

Why do some narcissists rise to the top, become pillars of the community, while others, they have identical personality cast, maybe even identical history, and they fail miserably in every single thing they attempt, in every dimension of their thwarted lives, in every relationship.

Why some narcissists make it and some narcissists break it?

Well, any combination of two or three things distinguish the high-functioning productive narcissist from his loser brother.

Number one, the successful narcissist is unusually gifted and endowed, skilled or talented to the point that his unique contributions are indispensable or irreplaceable.

Think Einstein, think Mozart, think Beethoven. His character flaws are attributed to his genius, quirky genius, mad genius. He's not a bad person, he's just genius.

Number two, the successful narcissist tolerates people, tolerates them. He hates their guts, he holds them in contempt, he's the world's number one misanthrope, but he hides it, he fakes, he fakes. The successful narcissist fakes, faints, pretends, play acts. The loser, the failure, the defeated, the collapse narcissist doesn't aim to do this. He's above this, he's above it all.

His grandiosity is so toxic, all pervasive, ubiquitous, that he doesn't even allow him to make the minimal efforts needed to participate in social interactions.

So the successful, high-functioning, productive narcissist tolerates people, interacts with people. Even if these people are only passive acolytes, fans, admirers, he somehow succeeds to collaborate with other people, to lead other people, and even to inspire loyalty. He fakes normalcy and empathy, and he hides his cynical and misanthropic content of other people, or his strictly self-interested agenda.

Important difference.

Number three, the successful narcissist is persistent, goal-oriented, focused, one-track-minded, committed, invested, and hard worker. He is as self-destructive as any narcissistic slacker, but first he builds, and then he demolishes.

First he builds, the failure narcissist, the collapse narcissist, never succeeds even to build on it. He just daydreams. He's in a park or something. He remains stuck in the shared fantasy. There's no bridge, no drawbridge between the castle of his fantasy, the Disney World castle.

Remember the Disney 1960s? The Disney castle and reality. Miguel de Una Mono was an author, I think he died in the 30s, and he said we can choose happiness and turn away from suffering, or we can choose suffering and love.

Only suffering allows us to love other suffering human beings.

And Walter Benjamin said the only way to know a person is to love them hopelessly.

These two maxims are wasted on the collapse narcissist. The collapse narcissist refuses to suffer. He thinks he has a right to go through life without suffering, investment, commitment, nuisance, demands, chores, and responsibilities.

The successful narcissist, the productive narcissist agrees to suffer, agrees to sacrifice, accepts as a quid pro quo that there's a price to cost, there's price and cost to reward ratio. He realizes it's a give and take, and so he chooses suffering and love, love from the universe, love by intimate partners, and loving the form of making money, or being successful, or becoming well known. These are all forms of love.

The world loves you back when you invest, when you commit, when you're present, the world loves you back. When you stand aloof, when you're detached, when you're haughty, the nose in the sky, I mean, the world hates you. People hate you. Ask me.

Herbert Rosenfeld is a psychologist, and he played the leading part in the work of followers of Melanie Klein. He was actually the first to describe the destructive aspects of narcissism.

As far as Rosenfeld was concerned, he wrote, destructive narcissism is directed against the libidinal ties or bonds of the self to the object.

Rosenfeld placed the emphasis on relationships. He said, destructive narcissism is not a self-contained phenomenon. It's not like the narcissist self combusts, or self emulates, or disappears in a puff of smoke.

No, he said. Let me read to you again. Destructive narcissism is directed against the libidinal ties or bonds of the self to other people, to the object.

The concept that Rosenfeld came up with is narcissistic omnipotent object relations.

Rosenfeld didn't think that narcissism was mostly an internal process. He thought it was a failure in relationships. It's state of mind, dominated by internal objects rather than external objects.

It's when the ego, according to Rosenfeld, merges with, for example, what I call the shared fantasy and Sigmund Freud used to call the ego ideal.

And there's insane mad omnipotence.

Kernberg, Otto Kernberg borrowed these concepts from Rosenfeld. It was Kernberg who first came with the notion of a grandiose self.

But Kernberg took us away, all of us, because we're all his children, intellectual children, but he took all of us away from Rosenfeld's relational emphasis.

And he took us away into the mind of the narcissist.

It's a lot more solipsistic, a lot more Cartesian, the cart.

Let's study the mind. As though the mind is in a vat or in an aquarium, isolated from the environment, can be kind of studied scientifically just by observing slansets.

The narcissist is embedded. Other people have an effect on the narcissist, even if he is like me, a total introvert, a recluse. Sometimes I go years without seeing a human face. And yet I'm impacted, of course.

And it would be useless to try to describe the narcissist's mind without the narcissist's abysmal failure in relating to other people.

In general, Kernberg's misstep is a part of a larger grandiose phenomenon.

Psychologists pre-assume a universal human nature. It's a part of an attempt to scientific psychology, to make it the equivalent of physics.

Like there is a universal human nature, exactly like there's a theory of everything in physics. And if we discover this universal human nature, we can measure it, we can test it, it's like an object. This causes complete masses.

Unmitigated masses on philosophical grounds. I mean, I can go now into a harangue tirade or a diatribe of two hours, well-substantiated diatribe.

Philosophically, it's impossible. This assumption that there's a universal human nature is a philosophical, logical fallacyIt's wrong.

Now, there is affinity between humans and computers. I mentioned it in my interview with Guy. And they're both universal Turing machines, universal machines, Turing's universal machines.

And so what we did, we took computers and we use them as metaphors. So we don't need to study humans. We study computers deeply enough, we will gain insights about humans.

Again, it's a fallacy. It's a fallacy on so many levels, I don't know where to start. It's anti-scientific.

We never do this in science. We never study one entity with the assumption that this way we can totally decipher the higher functions of another entity.

If you learn everything there is to learn about computers, including artificial intelligence, including artificial intelligence that behaves unpredictably, has emergent phenomena, epiphenomena, then you learn everything there is to learn about computers and artificial intelligence and extremely little about the higher functions of humans.

And so we need to regain, regain humility. We need to regain humility.

We need to begin to understand that psychology is a more rigorous form of literature that cannot provide us with insights which are deeper or better than literature.

Um, we imbue psychology with meaning and with direction and we go, and this is a classic mistake in science. It's called teleology because we cannot contemplate a meaningless world.

We've discussed, I've discussed this in my nothingness videos. So we form our own meaning, we invent all kinds of things, or we become the meaning, that's narcissism, and in the process we sacrifice everything and everyone around us.

The pursuit of meaning and the addiction to hope and the aversion to risk are the three greatest curses of the previous century in this one. They lead us to extinction, these three witches, Macbeth witches, they lead us to extinction as a species.

Okay, Mina and I wish you good night and good luck wherever you are, or maybe.