Psychopathic Narcissism is Our Destiny and Destination (Obsidian Radio)

My neighbor is a serial idealizer, his behaviors and creative endeavors are artifacts of narcissism. My neighbor is a serial idealizer, his behaviors and creative endeavors are artifacts of narcissism.

What an odyssey to try to get this all straightened out.

Alright, let's get right to it.

Ladies and gentlemen, you're listening to Obsidian Radio, the livestream show, and my very special guest today, ladies and gentlemen, is the world-renowned expert on narcissism.

Dr. Sam Vaknin, his reputation truly precedes him, bestselling author of the book, Malignant Self-Love: Narcissism Revisited, currently in its tenth edition. I got wind of Dr. Vaknin via a relatively dated now documentary on the BBC that I saw, and that really intrigued me because a number of my own personal life experiences dealing with what would be considered narcissists in black America really intrigued me.

So that's what got me to studying up a little bit on it from a layman's perspective.

And I said, what the heck, let me reach out, reach out to Dr. Vaknin and see if he'd be willing to talk to us. He's very gracious and coming on to spend a little time to talk to yours truly in the audience.

Dr. Vaknin, thank you so much for coming on the show. I really appreciate it.

Thank you for having me.

It's kind of you.

All right. Let's just get right into it.

Because this is a primarily black audience, and it's been in my humble opinion, that we don't, for whatever reason, and I wanted to plumb the depths of that a little bit with you, we don't talk about these things, you know, mental health and psychology and stuff like that, for whatever reason, we just don't do that.

So if you could, could you explain to the audience what narcissism is, and then we can go into your particular take on it and what have you?

Well, narcissism has two manifestations. One is healthy, and one is pathological.

Healthy narcissism starts very early in childhood, first few months of life.

And later on, it constitutes the foundation of self esteem, self confidence, and a well regulated sense of self worth. The sense of self worth includes the realization of one's own limitations, on the one hand, and one's advantages, skills and talents, on the other.

So a balanced view of oneself.

The thing is that in the case of pathological narcissism, these are people who cannot regulate their sense of self esteem by themselves, they can't do it.

So what, what they do instead, they reach out to other people and they ask other people to give them feedback, which will help them to regulate their sense of identity and their sense of self esteem and self confidence.

So they ask people, what do you think about me? Do you think I'm a genius? Do you think I'm perfect? Do you think I'm brilliant? Do you think I'm omniscient or knowing? Do you think I'm omnipotent or powerful?

And they expect people to tell them exactly this. This process is called narcissistic supply. It is hunting for attention, cajoling and convincing and coercing if needed people to provide you with this regulatory function, which usually is carried on from the inside.

Now, because this is the exact equivalent of a drug addiction and addiction to a substance, the narcissist is addicted to this attention. Without this attention, the narcissist feels vitiated, feels annulled, feels dead.

So, so this constitutes an addiction.

So, so narcissists are actually junkies and they behave exactly as junkies do. They lack empathy. They're very exploitative. They are a bit, you know, antisocial, not to say criminalized. They regard as other people as mere functions or objects. They are one track minded in the single pursuit of narcissistic supply, etc.

I mean, just have a look at a typical junkie and you would see the narcissist on the junkie's addicted to a substance and the narcissist is addicted to feedback. This used to be the prevailing view. And this is the view enshrined in the diagnostic and statistical manual, which is the Bible of the psychiatric profession, at least in North America.

Recently there are new developments in which I'm both a pioneer and heavily involved. And this, we are trying to have a new, a fresh look at narcissism. We're trying to consider narcissism as a post-traumatic condition because most narcissists have been subjected to abuse, abusive treatment in early childhood to a traumatic environment, to traumatic events and so on and so forth.

And so we begin to think that maybe narcissism is actually not, not a personality disorder, but simply a post-traumatic condition, a reaction to trauma.

And so this plus the addiction that I mentioned, plus the fact that narcissists find it a bit difficult to regulate their moods. So perhaps a mood disorder.

And so we're beginning to have a totally new look at narcissism with the hope of offering some kind of behavior modification, long-term behavior modification, maybe even a cure. That's where the field is at right now.

I see.

So that kind of makes sense to me. Cause I'm very, very layman's understanding of how narcissists are kind of made, so to speak.

Well, from what I've read, it seems like it's on the continuum. On one side, it's the extreme peddle, peddle, peddle, still lyzation of a child from parents. You know, it's so great. It's so wonderful, etc. There's that side.

And then on the other side are, you know, your classic, you know, abuse, you know, abuse of the children and all that sort of thing. So in either case, it's environmental.

So yeah, that seems to make sense to me.

Well, there seems to be a genetic component. No one has discovered it either too, but there seems to be some genetic component because, children exposed to the very same environment, very same family, very same treatment, even identical twins. One of them becomes a narcissist and the other doesn't. Many children become codependent or borderline, which is exactly opposite of narcissists. Narcissists are incapable of accessing their emotions except negative emotions such as anger or hatred or envy. Borderlines and codependents actually are hyper emotional. They are skinless.

Uh, borderlines and codependents have empathy. Narcissists have only cold empathy, the ability to scan people and immediately spot their vulnerabilities and weak points in order to penetrate and manipulate them.

So we have identical twins. One of them becomes a narcissist and the other one becomes borderline or codependent. So we believe that there might be some genetic predisposition, but you're right that all narcissists have developed in abusive environments.

The only thing that people don't realize is that putting, taking the child, the tender child, the small child, the toddler and putting him on a pedestal and encouraging in him a sense of entitlement in commensurate with any effort or accomplishment in real life, using the child to realize the parents' unfulfilled dreams and wishes and fantasies.

Conditioning love or conditioning the giving of love on performance. And if the child doesn't perform, he's denied that love or even chastised or.

So all these things are also forms of abuse, abuse, abuse can and should be defined as the bridge of the child's emerging boundaries.

As children, as children grow up, they try to separate from their parents. And this process is called separation, individuation. The child separates, thereby becomes and thereafter becomes an individual.

Bad parenting, narcissistic parenting makes sure that the child never separates and therefore never becomes a full fledged individual. This can be done either via the traditional, so to speak, methods of sexual abuse, of psychological and verbal abuse and of physical abuse, beating and battering. Or it can be done by rendering the child an extension of the parent, an integral part of the parent by merging with the child, by fusing with the child.

And so the child can never become independent in both cases. And both cases are abuse. Both cases are forms of abuse, pampering and spoiling and placing the child in a pedestal, idolizing the child, forcing the child to conform to preconceived notions of what the child should and should not do, imposing on the child a profession, a future and a scenario. All these things are, I would even say, more abusive than the classic forms of abuse.

Yeah.

And that's very interesting. I see a lot of that going on in black American society.

I don't know how familiar you are with the ins and outs of black American life, but I see a lot of that happening in black American life, particularly between black mothers and their children, black mothers and their sons. I see a lot of that going on.

I want to ask you about the, because narcissism, when it's discussed online, it's discussed elsewhere. It's usually in the context of relationships, marriages, things of that nature. And it's almost always discussed in the context of a male who is the narcissist and the female is the victim. In other words, he's the perpetrator and he's a pathological narcissist and she's the long suffering victim.

And I'm not denying that that's true, but what do we make of the ideas?

My personal opinion is that we have female narcissists as well. And that doesn't seem to get as much attention or air time.

And I want to get your thoughts about all that.

When I started my work in 1995, narcissism was utterly unknown, definitely online. And I've written a body of work, which for well over 10 years has been the only resource available. There was no other website, for example, except there was no other support group, except the support groups that I've established and so on. So for 10 years, I kind of monopolized the field.

During these 10 years, I've written two distinct corpora, two distinct bodies of articles and papers and so on. One of them dealt with relationships and one of them dealt with social phenomena.

Obviously the relationship one has been picked up and the social phenomena or writings have been ignored, but narcissism is an organizing principle. It is a way of making sense of the world. It is a way of imbuing institutions, social interactions, interpersonal interactions, organizational social units, such as the family or the community or the state.

Narcissism is simply all pervasive. It imbues and it permeates every type of interface between human beings.

Relationships is a facet of narcissism because narcissists are not capable of intimacy because narcissists do not love themselves. They actually loathe and hate themselves unbeknownst to them. They're not self-aware of it. They're not aware of it, but they are.

So because of that, because they lack the most basic prerequisites to loving other people, empathizing with other people and thereby maintaining healthy relationships with other people, they're incapable of intimacy.

And so the narcissism has a grave and devastating and irreversible impact on interpersonal relationships, not only in marriages, but for example, in the workplace. That's, that's true, but that is reducing narcissism to a one dimensional view.

When narcissism is actually a much, much bigger phenomenon, it's arguably the single most powerful explanatory principle there is.

If you take narcissism and only narcissism, you can explain so much, even without resorting to anything else.

You can explain modern technology. You can explain current politics. You can explain marriages. You can explain disintegration, of communities and social, the social fabric and so on and so forth.

We're using only pathological narcissism as a guiding line.

Let me stop right there, Bob, professor, because you just laid out what some would consider a kind of unified field theory that explains a range of phenomena across domains, personal and interpersonal, social collective.

So you said technology on the job, marriage. So let's just start with there.

How does not pathological, as you like to put it, malignant narcissism inform our technology landing on the moon, social media, the automobile, the whole magilla?

Could you explain that?

Well, narcissism is a natural reaction at the very early stages of life to the need to be seen. The baby, the newborn, the infant need to be seen in order to survive.

Obviously if the child is not seen, not noticed, the child is incapable of catering to his or her own needs. The child cannot feed, feed himself. Child cannot take care of himself, etc.

So not being seen early on is tantamount to a life threatening situation.

Right. Life is about being seen. The precondition for growing up and becoming an adult is that you are seen in childhood.

We carry this need to be seen well into adulthood. We want to be noticed. We want to be seen and so on.

But what do you do when there's a population explosion? What do you do when you compete with 7.6 billion other people for attention, for scarce attention, ever more scarce because of the information glut?

What do you do then?

You try to stand out and you try to stand out in every which way possible because primordially, relativistically, primatively, fundamentally, you feel that if you're not noticed and you're not seen, you are as good as dead. It is a death-defying act.

Narcissism is a death-defying act.

So you try to stand out and try to stand out via the way you dress, the way you speak, your ideas or beliefs, your actions. This leads to escalation and radicalization because you're competing with 7.6 billion other people and they all are doing essentially the same thing.

So you need to be different. You need to be unique.

The emphasis is on uniqueness at any cost.

Now, obviously, this sits well with the values of our current civilization. Our current civilization, for example, emphasizes competitiveness. It emphasizes ambition. It emphasizes ruthlessness, emphasizes materialism, emphasizes possessions and accomplishments, and it's quantitative and numerical civilization as opposed to previous civilizations which have been qualitative.

So our civilization sits well with the need to be seen. It encourages the need to be seen.

Then if you are seen, it's considered to be an accomplishment, hence the celebrity culture. Everything you see around you, the technology, reflect all the technologies that we see around us reflect this fundamental need to be seen and the values that correspond to it.

You mentioned the landing on the moon. What was the landing on the moon?

The landing on the moon was the one upmanship race between the United States and the USSR. Who's going to get there first?

It was an utterly narcissistic act. By the way, an act with extremely dubious scientific value, a gigantic, essentially, waste of resources on a status symbol.

Oh, come on, Doc.

We got tang out of it. I'm a physicist, by the way. I have a doctorate in physics. It was a status symbol, the exact equivalent of buying a luxury car or flashy clothing or apartment or whatever.

Let me just walk this back real quick. 1957 comes. The Russians put the Sputnik 1 in space in orbit. It's the end of the Eisenhower era. John F. Kennedy is elected in 1960 in his inaugural address. He makes it clear we're going to put man on the moon before the decade ends.

You're saying that's all really just a narcissistic display between the United States and the Soviet Union.

It was not disguised. It was in the open. The United States clearly was rattled by the fact that Sputnik pinged Washington as it asked about it, over it. The USSR and the United States were arm wrestling. Arm wrestling with the greatest audience ever via television and so on. That's an example of an narcissistic act.

But on a global scale. Very often, though, we tend to, I think, put the horse before the cart. The horses and carts are a bit obsolete where I come from, but still. We tend to put the horse before the cart. We tend to say that technology creates narcissism. That's manifestly untrue. Narcissism creates technology. Technology is catered to deeply deep-set psychological needs. It is grassroots pressure that yields one way or another technology.

And so it's not that Facebook created the selfie, created narcissism. It's that narcissism grounds well of narcissism as documented in the studies of Campbell, Twenge and other psychologists. There's a groundswell of narcissism that over the last 30 years from 1987 to 2016, well-documented years, at least among college freshmen and college students, this groundswell of narcissism drove technology.

And so very often, technology is a mirror that reflects belatedly underlying, unconscious sometimes, hidden collective currents.

And I think the biggest current by far is narcissism today. That has been identified long ago, not by me, but by Christopher Lash, who in 1974 wrote the book, The Culture of Narcissism.

And so all our current technologies, I think without exception, cater to narcissism, enhance it, surf the wave of narcissism, augment narcissism, are synergistic with narcissism, or blatantly promulgate and propound narcissism as a value.

And so everything you've mentioned, actually, something with a car and ending with social media has to do with narcissism. Don't forget this.

Now, it's interesting you mention that though, Doc, because Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook while he was still a student at Harvard. And originally, the original intent was to, it was kind of sort of, I don't know if I would call it a dating app, but it definitely was an app for nerdy guys to rate hot or not women on the site. That's how I was originally conceived, my understanding of it.

Well, not the internet. The internet was conceived by DARPA, which was a Pentagon defense agency.

Right.

I'm talking about Facebook. I'm sorry, not the internet, Facebook.

Right. Facebook, yes. Facebook was originally conceived as an app. It was limited for its first few years. It was limited only to college seniors, if I remember correctly. Right. And it was not open. It wasn't public. Only if you were a college senior, you could sort of plug in or become a subscriber. But even the web address was different. It wasn't Facebook.com.

It was, I think, that Facebook or something like that.com.

Right.

And so, yes, it was essentially a combo dating app and nerd exchange. Absolutely true. And in this sense, of course, reflected the underlying values and psychodynamics of college students in the United States.

And as I repeat, as has been amply documented between 1987 and 2016, the narcissism has quintupled, pathological narcissism has quintupled in this population during this period. So there's no way to say that these apps have not been designed with narcissism in mind or at least in the unconscious.

Now, now, what is the so, so Zuckerberg and his compatriots were narcissists looking to achieve what with Facebook? What were they looking to achieve?

No, I don't think they they said one evening and said, listen, we are narcissists. We have to we have to construct an app that will cater or resonate with our narcissism. I don't know.

And they would deny. They would deny that they're not because if you look at the early early pronouncements by the founders of Twitter and Facebook and so on and so forth, they are all very altruistic, very socially aware, very, you know, social justice warrior types.

Yeah. Social justice unifying the world. Zuckerberg was talking about one world and Twitter founder regretted the fact that the 140 character limit won't allow the expression, the unbridled expression of deep emotions and what have you. It was all very touchy feeling.

But what I'm saying is that the design principles and definitely the algorithms chosen reflected the psychodynamic composition, the source of the people who invented them.

And one major component was narcissism unbeknownst to them, I believe fully. I don't see any malicious intent here. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but unbeknownst to them, the fact that they were already highly narcissistic infected because it's a virus.

Narcissism, narcissism can be amply described using techniques from epidemiology as a kind of viral infection.

So these people were heavily infected. And it's like if you would ask zombies to design an app, the app would contain features and so on, which would cater to the needs of zombies. It's inevitable, simply inevitable.

And I think that's precisely what happened over time.

So the social media today has been around social media as we understand it. It's been around better part of a decade, give or take.

So are you suggesting that this social media, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and so on, are you suggesting, doctor, that not only was it created by narcissists unbeknownst to their own impulses, but it's also creating more narcissists?

Well, to start with, the people who created all social media without a single exception were white. They were young. There were kids with exception of soccer, but soccer didn't really create Facebook.

You said skits away as in skits or a parent.

No, no, no, no, no. Not schizophrenic, schizophrenic means people who are introverted, people who are not very good in society and don't feel loners, loners, don't feel that we all know that coders and programmers are basically, you know, solitary people.

Yeah. So they were white. It's extremely important, by the way, they were white. It's a crucial point. The apps are white apps. They don't sit well with crowds in China, in Russia.

Consequently, in China and Russia, China and Russia have their own Facebooks and, and so on.

So from Wait a minute, but Russians are white. I mean, if you stood next to Vladimir Putin, I couldn't tell the difference.

Russians are white, but their culture is largely Asian.

No, not so, so I was, I was starting to say that they were white. They were young. They were mostly schizoid with the exception of Zuckerberg who didn't really invent the technology. He just leveraged it for commercial gains. So they were schizoid. They were narcissistic. They were Western.

It's a very crucial point. They were Western and so on. They created an app in their own image, like God, and they felt God, God-like because they're narcissists. They felt divine in some way. And their goals. I mean, can you imagine a college dropout talking about uniting the world? Isn't this grandiose? Isn't it utterly grandiose?

Yeah, that's a telltale sign. Narcissism or whatever.

Yeah, of course it is. I mean, it's an utterly grandiose goal coming up with an app, mind you.

So, and then when these apps were unleashed on the world, because of the dominance of American infrastructure in the early internet, they became kind of default apps. We call it first mover advantage.

They had a first mover advantage. Early adopters and so on and so forth had no choice but to latch onto these apps. And so they accumulated a critical mass, which gave them a network effect. So gave them an advantage, commercial and competitive edge, edge.

But later on, people around the world started to feel extremely uncomfortable and ill at ease with these apps, because it was clear that these apps reflect American values, American, the American ethos, so-called the American dream or the American nightmare, depending where you are. And reflected a slice of Americana, which was young, college educated, white, narcissistic, schizoid, nerdy, socially in apps, sometimes a social or antisocial, etc.

Well, since you're ticking off all the identity politics, you know, identify boxes, we have to include mail as well.

Yes. And mail, of course, men. Absolutely.

So this is what I'm saying that technologies and especially modern technology and so on, they didn't create this, these, they didn't create narcissism. They were created by these profiles. They didn't create the profiles. They were created by these profiles and exactly like in the fashion industry where the bulk of the fashion industry was created by gay men. That's right. And they imposed their aesthetic standard, their beauty ideal on women all over the world.

Trying to convert women into prepubescent boys.

And so exactly the same happened in modern internet technology. These people try to convert the entire world in their image. They try to render people less sociable.

And that's the irony in the phrase social media. It's absolutely a social media.

They try to addict people to screens and screen time rather than to intimate relationships because intimate relationships compete with screens on eyeballs and on monetizing eyeballs.

I mean, if you look at your girlfriend, you're not looking at Facebook. So if you're looking at your girlfriend, you're not at Facebook. So your girlfriend is competition to Facebook period. I mean, there's no way to debate this. It's indisputable.

You have a limited time on this earth. Either you dedicate this time to Mark Zuckerberg or you dedicate this time to your family.

So, so they try to convert everyone to be a social, to be a loner, not to have intimate relationships, to be male oriented or male dominated, to be white in the sense of values, middle-class, white values, to be a, are you saying, are you seriously saying that a middle-class value is a white value?

Of course. Middle-class values have been created by whites exclusively over centuries.

What are you saying that they are not? Who created them?

You have adopted the American dream and the American efforts, which is essentially a pure, Puritan 17th century efforts, the protestant work ethic as Weber called it. You have adopted it in large part because social mobility in the United States, entailed the adoption of these values. If you didn't adopt these values, you could not be socially mobile.

Right.

And then, but this is a big point of contention in black, I don't know if you notice or not, but this is a big point to this, to this day, a huge point of contention, within black America itself.

If you go on social media and what have you, the idea of a black person using me, for example, somebody like me who was a for 22 years, right out of high school, a skilled blue collar tradesmen and worked hard and played by the rules and middle-class values and all the rest of it, I will be regarded today as an uncle Tom, as a sellout, that I'mblack on the outsidebut white on the inside.

I'm a trader to the race and all this sort of thing. And that the drug dealer, corner boy, a miscreant knucklehead, he's somehow authentically black.

Well, that's your question is the value judgment. And I'm a scientist. I don't deal with values. I deal with facts. It is a fact that the set of values that comprise the so-called American dream and the American ethos, this set of values is exclusively white. Not only is it exclusively white, it's specific in time and period of history, 17th century. It's Protestant. It's also Protestant, not Jewish or anything. And so on and so forth.

Now, everyone who comes to the United States has to adhere to these values and adopt them if they want to be socially mobile and upward mobile. And if they want to conform, this creates another problem.

And again, I'm not making any value judgment. I'm not saying that if you adopt these values, you are a traitor to your race because I have no idea what you're talking about. Why would your race not adopt the values of another race? What's the problem with that? We do it all the time.

I mean, you know, in black America, there's the idea of cultural appropriation, the idea thatrap music, for example, this is ridiculous example. I'm gonna use it anyway.

Rap music, hip hop, which is something I know very well. If Sam Vaknin becomes a rapper tomorrow, you could be accused by some in black American society as culturally appropriating rap music because Sam Vaknin is really Jew. How dare he take the blackcultural expression and make money from it and such and so forth. That's the argument. I think that's ridiculous, but that's the argument.

That's the core of the Nazi ideology. Absolutely.

That was the core of exclusionary ideologies such as Nazis, the belief that cultures are sharply delineated, demarcated, and that they are proprietary. In other words, that the culture belongs to a group of people. Right. And this group of people share a common genetics.

So this is a racist, Nazi idea, which by the way, was stolen from the Jews because, if you read, yes. And there's a famous book by George Steiner. It's called The Transportation to San Cristobal of A H. The book is an imaginary piece of fiction where a group of Mossad agents, the intelligence agency of Israel, a group of Mossad agents, capture, Adolf Hitler. He's discovered in some jungles in Paraguay or some other God's forsaken place. And he's kidnapped by these Mossad agents and he's transported back to a city called San Cristobal on the way to Israel. And on the way his captors, the Mossad agents, were Jews, of course, and Israelis, they converse with Adolf Hitler. And they asked him, why did you do it to us? Why did you embark on the Holocaust? Why did you kill us?

And he said, listen, I've learned everything. I've learned everything from you guys. I mean, I just took your ideas. You were the ones who came up with the idea that there's a chosen people and that the chosen people is a genetically based category. You were the ones, you were exclusionary, you excluded the rest of the world. You said that you are unique. You're chosen by God. You are on a mission and so on and so forth.

I just, you know, I just imitated you. I admire you actually, said, which is true in reality by the way, Hitler admired it.

So, so I mean to say that any genetically linked group of people, genetic group of people, which share some genetics, have a proprietary exclusive hold on cultural treasures is absolutely a racist exclusionary Nazi ideology.

Absolutely.

Whichis I use hip hop as an example. Now I know a lot about hip hop, DJ and turntable is since I was a teenager and I knew for a fact, you know, cause I'm old enough to I'm 50. So I'm old enough to know about hip hop's early beginnings.

Hip hop was never a black thing. There was always different cultures and races and genders for that matter, both men and women that were involved in hip hop from its earliest beginnings.

But when I listen to these black folks today attempting to say, you know, Dustin, so individual is culturally appropriating our music or our hairstyles or whatever else, that's ridiculous. That's utterly ridiculous.

Every there is no racially pure group. The concept of race is idiotic, scientifically speaking. There is no racially pure group in the world. And especially so, black Americans who intermingled with whites forcibly sometimes raped and so on intermingled with other populations and so on. So there is no, there is no genetically pure group of people. And even if they were, which there isn't, even if there were such a group, its contributions would have been to mankind, not to itself.

If blacks gave the world hip hop, we should all, we should all be grateful for it and we should all benefit from it and we should all practice it. It's the Jews, 22.3% of all Nobel prize winners are Jews. That's right. Jews comprise 1.9% of global, the global population.

And yet we have won 22.3% of all Nobel prizes. And by the way, if there is any group on earth that can claim somehow to be racially, mildly pure, it would be the Jews. But I would have been shocked had any Jewish group said, well, all our discoveries in medicine, for example, belong to us. And if any black in any ghetto in any city uses our vaccines, you know, the vaccinations we have developed or the medicines we have created or, you know, they are appropriating our cultural heritage because we discovered these things. I mean, it's ours.

I mean, you see how ridiculous it sounds, you know.

Yeah, it is. Black doctors practice Jewish medicine every single day of the year. Black doctors read Jewish literature. It's called the Bible. I mean, blacks read Jewish literature every day of the year in Episcopal churches and Baptist churches and so on. It's called the Bible. We wrote it. It's ours. You're appropriating our literature.

Yeah.

Are you serious? Really?

I mean, Unmitigated nonsense and I know you know who it is because speaking of narcissism, I know who you know, she is lady by the name of Kim Kardashian.

Now let me tell you something. In black American society among black women, she is reviled. And the reason why, well, one of the reasons why is because one major reason is because she snagged a very successful man in Kanye West was black.

OK, so that's that. But in the end, and many black women hold the view that as soon as a black man becomes successful, famous, wealthy, rich, etc., they do have a white woman.

Right. Like me.

Yeah, exactly. So there's that.

But then the other piece along with that is Kim Kardashian is she has the aesthetics of a black woman. OK, big behind and all the whole bit. And black women really don't like that. They feel that she has a hijack, a culturally appropriated hijack black.

I swear to God, this is what they believe. You have to take my word for it. You can look up on, you know, in the black sectors of YouTube and Facebook and all the rest of it. This is what black women honestly believe, that Kim Kardashian and white women like her have essentially hijacked elements of black womanhood and used it with which to poach highly desirable black men.

That's the argument.

Right. There.

But you consider that a narcissistic argument, thereby depriving black women of their natural genetic pool and pool of wealth and resources. So it's an unfair competition, as we call it in business. I'm a professor of finance, among other things.

So in finance, we call it unfair competition. It's when outsiders compete in unfair ways on scarce resources.

Well, mating isn't a competition. We would agree with that.

Right. I mean, that's just a Darwinian thing. Mating is a competition. We're guys. We have to compete against other guys for desirable females. Why would it be? Why wouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, wouldn't the idea, the very idea that women don't have to compete or in this case, black women don't have to compete for black men do isn't that a narcissistic idea?

The relationship between black women and black men is compounded by history, especially slavery and by the role of black men in family formation throughout the throughout decades and generations.

So that's a separate question which we can deal with if you wish a bit later.

I want though I want to introduce you to a concept developed by Sigmund Freud, who was a Jew.

Sigmund Freud developed a concept called the narcissism of small differences. It's an extremely interesting concept.

Freud said that groups of people hate each other and cloak this hatred in genetic garb to say like we belong to the same race or same nation or same collective. But essentially he said it's basic hatred, men to men hatred.

It's just that we tend to aggregate it into collectives and pretend that the collective has some objective, some objective traits and objective qualities that separated from other collectives and justify the hatred.

But he said the hatred tends to increase the more similar we are, not the more dissimilar we are, but the most similar we are.

He discovered in his studies that people who are fundamentally dissimilar don't look alike, don't speak the same language, don't compete for the same jobs, don't share the same public spaces, etc., etc. These people don't really hate each other, do not hate each other.

But when people begin to look more and more alike, to sound more and more alike, to share same institutions, the same public spaces, etc., they begin to hate each other virulently.

And so there is the concept, I don't need to tell you, of the apity negro, the apity black, which is...

It was silly to me. I mean, it's ridiculous.

Anyway, go ahead.

So this is exactly a manifestation, expression of Sigmund Freud's narcissism of small differences.

It seems that when minorities, especially suppressed minorities, especially minorities which are considered inherently inferior, one way or another, when these minorities dare to break out of the stereotype, to acquire education, to move into gentrified neighborhoods, to compete with majority on jobs, etc., when they become more similar to the majority, socially upward mobile, they dress the same, talk the same, sound the same, have studied in the same educational institutions, compete for the same jobs and sometimes get the jobs, etc., when they become similar, the hatred grows.

One could have predicted, one could have predicted, based on Sigmund Freud's work, that hatred towards blacks will become much more virulent and much more institutionalized as blacks progress, make progress.

And therefore, one could have predicted in the 1960s, during the civil rights movement, that the situation 50 years later today would be much worse, much worse in many respects than, for example, in the 1970s or 80s.

And based on this work by Sigmund Freud, and of course, the major example of this, the most well-known example of the Jews, as long as the Jews kept to themselves, as long as they dressed distinctively, as long as they maintained their own educational institutions, exclusive institutions, as long as they resided in ghettos and were not allowed out of the ghettos, as long as they were allowed to exercise only a specific set of professions and vocations, they were not allowed, they were allowed only to lend money and, you know, trade.

And so, as long as there were, in other words, confined quarantine, in a way, there was no real hatred. I mean, there were pogroms here and there, people were, you know, fascinated, we were talking about like 30 people, 50 people, 100 people.

The minute the Jews were emancipated, the minute they were allowed out of the ghettos, they started to wear ties and suits. They started to graduate from academic institutions together with non-Jews, gentiles, and then they started to compete on jobs. And then they started to gain an advantage over the majority.

It was then that the Holocaust had happened. The Holocaust was a direct reaction to upbeat Jews, Jews who didn't know their proper place, Jews who tried to look like Germans, sound like Austrians, behave like the French, eat and drink like, I don't know, the Swedes. That was not the place of the Jews. They should not have been like that.

And so the majorities, majorities, because every single nation in Europe participated in the Holocaust, the majorities of European nations coalesced and worked together to kill the Jews. The same happened with the Blacks.

Civil rights movement led to a partial emancipation, not total, but partial emancipation.

So Blacks began to study, well, with, you know, segregation, segregation was gone. So Blacks began to study with whites.

Then they began to, the graduation rates climbed up. Blacks began to move into white only neighborhoods. Blacks began to compete for jobs. Blacks became mayors. Blacks became outspoken intellectuals and so on.

They became, they became too white for their own good. And this provoked the narcissism of small differences, the virulent hatred that we are witnessing now.

Black Lives Matter is reacting, this is a movement that is reacting to true problems, not to imaginary one.

There, there is no Black paranoia. There it's, I mean, this, it's true that police departments all over the United States are institutionally assassinating Blacks. That's not paranoia. And so, but I want to compare it and connect it to narcissism via the work of Zig Montreux.

Ladies and gentlemen, you're listening to Obsidian Radio, the live stream show. I'm your host, Muammar Obsidian Ali. Got an exclusive interview with the world-renowned expert on malignant narcissism, Dr. Sam Vaknin. We conducted this interview. He's all the way in his hometown of Scott Yay, Macedonia. I had to learn how to pronounce that properly. He educated me very well on that.

Take it easy. No one does.

And we're having a heck of a conversation about narcissism and its various permutations and iterations, how it manifests itself personally, interpersonally, socially, collectively, globally, in terms of tech, in terms of relationships, mating, the whole gamut. And we're going to continue.

Dr. Vaknin, you was talking about, and I wrote down in my notes here, the 21st century, which I refer to based on the work I've read of you and others, I consider the 21st century the narcissist century.

And it sounds like what you're saying here seems to be in alignment with that.

You even said that there were entire occupations and career paths that were specifically suited in gear for the narcissistic personality.

Could you speak a little bit to that?

Yeah. I think, as I've said before, that our civilization is founded on essentially narcissistic values or values that would tend to reward, would tend to encourage narcissistic behaviors because they would be adaptive behaviors. They would lead to good outcomes.

And of course, the best example would be Donald Trump. Donald Trump is president of the United States. There is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of dozens of other narcissism experts that he is a malignant narcissist bordering on psychopath. And yet he became president of United States.

So one could say, looking at the situation objectively, remember, I don't judge, I'm a scientist. One could say that Donald Trump's behavior and personality are adaptive in the sense that they led him to success. They led him to accomplishments, unprecedented accomplishments in parallel.

So in July, I think 2017, my memory doesn't trade me, new scientists, which is one of the two leading science magazines in the world, the other one being Scientific American, new scientists had a cover story. And the cover story was parents teach your children to be more narcissistic. And new scientists explained this provocative front cover expose, explained it by saying, well, the world has changed. The world now rewards. The world looks positively on narcissistic and psychopathic traits and behaviors.

There are scholars all over the world. Kevin Dutton comes to mind in the United Kingdom and others. They are scholars of all over the world who now begin to say that narcissism is actually a productive adaptation and they call it the productive narcissist or the high functioning narcissist. They say that in certain professions and in certain positions, for example, politician, leader, the leader of a nation, or for example, surgeon, medical surgeon, they say police, law enforcement, judicial system. They say that in certain professions being a narcissist or being a psychopath endows one with a relative edge, with a competitive advantage. So for example, if you are the leader of a nation and you have to send people to be killed in Iraq or in Afghanistan, of course, as a psychopath, it would be much easier because you don't have empathy, you don't have conscience, you're ruthless, you're reckless. So a psychopath is much better suited to lead a nation in war at war. Psychopath is also much better suited to perform operations on human bodies because you have to cup them open. It's an act of butchery, technically speaking. A narcissist would be better suited to lead big corporations, to be the chief executive officer of Fortune 500 corporations because a narcissist has a kind of a view that emphasizes material and quantitative accomplishments at any cost, has no empathy or has actually called empathy, which allows him to discern the weaknesses and so on in competitors and to take advantage of them, etc.

The idea that narcissism and psychopathy are actually evolutionary adaptations, that actually people who are narcissists and psychopaths will survive, will have better survival rates and will be able to pass on their genes. They will be able to better mate because they are much better adapted to the world as it is today. That's a newly emergent idea and not entirely laughable or reasonable.

And if this is true, and I happen to believe it's true, then indeed the next century will be the century of the narcissists.

There was a book published called the narcissism epidemic. I coined the phrase narcissism epidemic in 95 and I was gratified to see it finally in print with the major academic institution.

So the claim in that book is that narcissism is an epidemic. It's on the rise and so on and so forth. I added later the touch that narcissism or the spread of narcissism can be easily construed or studied via epidemiology.

The narcissism is a kind of virus. We have the concept of meme. Meme is like a gene, but it's verbal. It's an idea. How ID is spread.

Narcissism is a construct. It's not only an idea. It's an idea. It's a value system. It's a set of prescriptive behaviors. It tells you how to behave.

So when you're a narcissist, you have a set of values. You have a set of ideas which support these values, a philosophy of narcissism, and you have a set of prescriptions, how to behave to obtain maximal beneficial results.

It's very tempting to be a narcissist is a total solution. You don't need to look beyond narcissism in this sense.

Therefore, narcissism is an ideology akin to communism, akin to capitalism.

I think what will happen in the 21st century is competition between narcissistic ideologies such as Anglo-Saxon capitalism and non-narcissistic ideologies. I think social media, for example, will participate in this global conflict. It will be an ideological world war, global war.

I think, for example, one of the predictions I make is that the rise of social media is at its end. I think we are reaching the phase that in virology, the study of viruses, we call self-limitation. That's when the virus stops infecting people mysteriously. Just stops because if the virus continues to infect people, there will be no people left and the virus itself will die out. So the virus has mechanism to stop itself from infecting people.

Similarly, I think the social media is now at this self-limitation stage and will stop. At that point, the world population will be divided in two. Those who are addicted to social media, conditioned by social media, and unable to interact with the world except via social media or technology, and those who abstain from social media, untethered, go back to basics, the retro movement.

And then we will have these two populations. And the first population, around two billion people, mostly Western, mostly white, the first population will adopt the narcissistic ideology.

Narcissistic ideology is an amalgam of capitalism, selfishness, ruthlessness. If you want to see the prime ideologies of narcissism, that would be Donald Trump.

So don't Trumpism if you want.

So this group that uses social media will be Trumpist. It will be narcissistic capitalist. It will also be white, predominantly white. And all others will be fighting a rearguard action against the narcissistic ideology.

I'm saying rearguard action because narcissism is going to win. It's going to win simply because it has no inhibitions, no restraints and no constraints. It has no empathy. It has no compassion. It has no holdbacks. I mean, it's unbridled. It's ruthless. It's reckless.

So, of course, narcissism will win. And this is what I thought.

I just want to jump in there because you said a number of things with regard to Trump and the American presidency. I just wanted to push back a little bit, play a little bit of devil's advocate. I'm not denying what you're saying with regard to Trump lends itself to narcissism.

And you said even bordering on psychopathy.

Okay, that's fair. But what do you say about Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? I mean, these were...

Barack Obama said when he was inaugurated, or I should say rather, when he won the presidency election night, he said he wanted to transform America. Isn't that a grandiose claim to make of a nation of over 300 million people?

Two years before Obama was nominated as candidate, presidential candidate, two years before, I wrote an article, Barack Obama, narcissist or merely narcissistic. This article was replicated on 1 million websites and appeared in numerous print publications and so on.

So you're preaching to the choir. I was the first by far to suggest that Barack Obama is a narcissist. I also agree with you that current, the current crop of leadership, when I say current, I mean more or less from the 1980s, the current crop of leadership is increasingly more and more and more narcissistic and psychopathic.

And that is not a phenomenon limited to the United States. Political leadership is a reified guard action. Political leadership is not a harbinger, it's a follower. Political leadership is exactly like technology. It reflects underlying social and psychodynamic trends. It doesn't create them.

Adolf Hitler was a creature of his time, not the other one. And so is Donald Trump. And so was Bill Clinton and so is Barack Obama.

But if you look elsewhere, if you look outside the confines of the United States and Americans are very provincial because they have this continent and they never look out.

But if you look outside, you will see that the world is infested with Donald Trump's. You have Bolsonaro in Brazil, you have Erdogan in Turkey, you have Putin in Russia, you have Duterte in the Philippines. They are all Trump's, wannabe Trump's, have been Trump's, would be Trump's.

Trump is merely the culmination and reification of narcissistic social trends and psychological trends.

But I agree with you that he had predecessors. He is much more virulent than Barack Obama. In this sense, he's a malignant narcissist while Barack Obama was merely a grandiose narcissist.

But yes, both of them were narcissists. I agree with you. I am the one who said it. I am the one who said it first.

Well, okay. So then Steve Bannon, who your Breitbart fame, some would say infamy, and a former White House staff for a very close advisor to Trump, he would be right that Trump represents this global populist surge that you would argue is really just following behind the globalist surge in narcissism overall.

And these guys are just manifestations of it.

There was a brewing, a battle was brewing between the elites, the global elites and the masses. The elites were constantly humiliating the masses. They created what we call in psychology, narcissistic injury.

The elites treated the masses as dispensable, as trashy, as lowbrow, as retards. And they were stealing and they were rapacious. We see it in income inequality when we study income inequality. I mean, amazing things. The 100 richest people on earth have wealth equal to the lowest 3.9 billion people.

There has been, and this battle has been going on for well over 70 years. Immediately started immediately after the second world war.

And finally, the masses have had it. They simply have had it, but they have had it narcissistically.

And that's the difference because I think we're entering a period which is the exact equivalent of the period in Europe between 1789 and 1917. In 1789, we had the French revolution. In 1917, we had the Russian revolution. And in between these two revolutions, all the social institutions in Europe collapsed or vanished. That includes empires, some nation states, the aristocracy, everything fell apart because the masses have risen.

But the masses have risen in that period between 1789 and 1917. The masses have risen for economic reasons. The masses have risen for ideological reasons. The masses have risen because they wanted to redistribute wealth or because they were fighting for social justice or, I mean, the reasoning, the driving force behind these revolutions, behind these 150 years of revolutions, the driving force was altruistic, not narcissistic.

Mind you, all these revolutions ended badly today. They all ended with suppression, dictatorship, mass genocide. I mean, they ended badly, but the intentions were good.

If you read the literature of that period, it's all altruistic. It's all about helping humanity.

Well, the major revolution that came out of that period, you mentioned 1917, Marxism.

Yes, communism, to be more precise.

And so communism was essentially an altruistic ideology. It was implemented, of course, horribly and so on, but it's altruistic if you read the text.

They are concerned with the welfare of fellow beings. And that's the difference between that period of revolutions and the period of revolutions that we're entering now.

Because make no mistake about it, what's happening today in the world, these are revolutions. The masses are attacking the elites. The masses are attacking the elites in a variety of ways.

The masses have written their own encyclopedia. It's called Wikipedia. It's a non-elite encyclopedia. It's an anti-experts encyclopedia. It's an encyclopedia edited by teenagers. It's a rebellion against elitism, against authority, against expertise, Wikipedia.

So there are many ways to rebel and many types of revolutions. And the elites are, in my view, an extinct species. They just don't realize it yet. And there will be bloodshed, a lot of it, soon.

We are entering, as I told you, a period akin to that period.

But the huge difference is this.

The revolutions of the first period I mentioned were all altruistic. The revolutions that we are having now, they are all selfish and narcissistic and atomized.

In other words, the revolutions we're having now are revenge revolutions. They are revolutions intended to revenge, to avenge the narcissistic injuries, the humiliation, the helplessness, the impotence.

And they are revolutions that involve antisocial sentiments and psychopathic actions. And they are revolutions that are largely passive-aggressive, not only aggressive.

So they include sabotage and undermining. And they are sick pathologized, pathological revolutions. And they will lead to a sick pathologized world, much more than today.

It's interesting you say that, Doctor, because I wanted to ask you about this. We talked about this briefly in the run-up to today's interview.

The women's march here in the United States, and my understanding is that it's not only spread across the country. My understanding is that it's gone to other countries at this point, since the first one when President Trump was inaugurated a year over a year ago.

So you have this women's march, and the founders of the march were a black woman, a Palestinian woman, a white Gentile woman, I guess you could say, and a Jewish woman. Those were the originals.

And then the Jewish woman was ousted by the black and a Palestinian woman. The black woman attended Louis Farrakhan's Savior's Day event at the Nation of Islam in Chicago. That made the big news.

And now it's been completely called off on the grounds that the leadership of the women's march is anti-Semitic. They got together in reaction to Donald Trump's election, which goes to your point about narcissistic injury, revolutions of revenge, and all the rest of it.

It seems to me what I've read about this women's march, it's completely, I mean, the narcissism is off the chain, but I wanted to get your expert opinion on that.

Well, that's precisely what I'm saying. The future will not be a clash between narcissists and anti-narcissists. It will be a clash between narcissists, elite narcissists and mass narcissists.

But they will all be united by an organizing principle and an ideology of narcissism.

Between different types of narcissists, lowbrow narcissists, uneducated narcissists, ignorant narcissists, anti-law, Harvard graduate narcissists, corporate narcissists against shareholder activist narcissists, politician narcissists against electorate narcissists, but everyone will be a narcissist. It will be the explanatory, meaning imbuing principle. It will be the overarching ideology and it will merge with capitalism.

So capitalism itself will be narcissized if you wish. Everything will be narcissism.

The question is meaningless. It's like asking about the middle ages. In the middle ages, you had many competing factions, many countries were at war, there were no countries, but nevermind, many regimes were at war, many noblemen were fighting each other.

Essentially families. I mean, the game of thrones was based on the war of the roses. So families competing against each other.

You had all kinds of conflicts. You had religious conflicts, political conflicts. But all these conflicts, all the conflicts without a single exception took place within an ideological space, within an ideological sphere, which was religion. All of them accepted Catholicism. All of them were Christian. When A was fighting B, B claimed to have been the true Christian and A claimed to have been the true Christian.

It's not that A was Christian and B was the antichrist. They were both Christians fighting each other. And the same will be now. The masses will attack the elites, kill the elites. There will be bloodshed, you will see. The masses will attack the elites, but the masses will be narcissists and the elites will be narcissists. The masses will promulgate and propound and prepare and propose narcissistic principles. And they will fight the elites who will also promulgate and prepare narcissistic principles. Narcissism is the new God. Narcissism is the new religion. That's what I'm trying to say. It's the unifying principle. Everyone will agree that to be a narcissist is good because it's adaptable because it gives good outcomes because you should be a narcissist.

Or the only question will be that the dividing the loot, the spoils. It will be a fight over the spoils, not over the principle of it.

Okay. So, so the women's march piece just followed up on that. So you have this women's march and I'm not sure how familiar you are with the theory of intersectionality was developed here in the United States by a black feminist scholar, legal scholar. I've always seen intersectionality a doctor as explained in this way, giving black women special victim status. Nobody has it harder than the American black woman, nobody.

And so therefore, because she's the least, you know, fill in the blank and the most, what's up on and all the rest of it, she should get special dispensation and favors and rights.

So I'm seeing these feminists in this late date and they're, they're basically tearing each other apart over who is the most aggrieved, like this whole issue with the, you know, the Jewish woman founder of women's march.

Well, you can't be in it because you know, you're a Jew and the Jews did this and did that to black people and all the rest of it. That was the argument.

So, so, so yeah.

So I wanted to ask you because I want to get into this discussion that you had with Richard Brannon about the future being female and all that. I want to ask you, what is the future of feminism? If indeed narcissism is the order of the day in the 21st century, I tell you, I'm going to go ahead and say it. I think feminism at this point is bullshit. I just think it's bullshit. It's run out of gas.

All of the aims have been achieved in black American society. Black women will tell anybody that's that will, that will bend an ear to listen, how educated they are, how accomplished they are. They got it going on.

So if that's the argument, what else is there for y'all to be pitching about your response?

Well, first of all, the distinction between narcissism and victimhood is artificial. One of the major shortcuts to achieving narcissistic goals is professional victimhood.

So if you, if you self-impute victimhood, if you attribute to yourself victimhood, immediately under the current culture of political correctness and so on, and with academic support, immediately you're entitled to special treatment.

One of the diagnostic criteria of narcissistic personality disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is the narcissist feels entitled to special treatment.

Did you hear that fellas? For those listening right now, did you hear what the doctor just said? World recognized expert on malignant narcissism. He's citing the Bible of a psychiatric disorders, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual.

One of the telltale signs of a narcissist's textbook is the idea that you are deserving of special treatment. This is what he's saying with regard to feminism, the women's March.

And now we'll take it a step further and say black feminism, or we can get into that later.

Continue please, doctor.

So any self attribution of victimhood on a professional basis, I call it professional victimhood.

And I, the difference between the distinction between professional victimhood and a true status of weakness, true state of victimhood is that professional victimhood is deriving benefits from your victimhood, not seeking to rectify it, but seeking to internalize it, seeking to enshrine it because it's beneficial. It's an adaptation that the true victim wants to reverse her victimhood, wants to stop being a victim.

The professional victim seeks to enshrine or perpetuate her victimhood because it's useful and mind you profitable. In this sense, professional victimhood is a manifestation of narcissism because it's about entitlement and it's not a telltale sign. It's a diagnostic criterion. That's how we diagnose narcissism.

So feminism has a very long history, much longer than most people know. It started effectively almost 200 years ago, and not in the United States, but in the United Kingdom.

So feminism had two strands all along from the very beginning. There was the real victim strand and the entitled or professional victim strand.

Again, the narcissistic and non-narcissistic, the real victims, because women have been victimized for many thousands of years. That happens to be true. They have been victimized. They've been treated as chattel as property. They've been sold, traded. They have been enslaved.

There was a woman slavery movement. The biggest in history, far, far bigger than the black, then the way black Americans have been treated far, far bigger than classic slavery in the States, the Caribbean and so on.

So women have been slaves. They are still slaves in many countries. I mean, Afghanistan, Iran and so on, but they have been, they have been enslaved.

And so 200 years ago, there was a backlash against this state of victimhood and the demand for equal rights, voting rights, property rights, etc. That's okay. That's absolutely legitimate. It's the equivalent of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. And that has been the healthy face of feminism.

The real, the victims, women victims, wanted to not be victims anymore. They wanted actually feminism to go away because it would no longer be necessary.

And then each hiker on this, riding on this, parasiting on it, there was militant feminism. Militant feminism is about professional victimhood. These are women who perpetuate the state of victimhood, etc., because it endows them with benefits. And it endows them with benefits in a variety of settings, not the least of which is academe, where there are all kinds of cockamamie, departments teaching, God knows what. I mean, feminist God knows what.

So there's a lot of money in feminism, vested money. There's a lot of money in academic study of feminism, a lot of money in, in all kinds of federal grants. There's a lot of money.

So it became an industry, an industry of victimhood. And so that I'm not suspected of being anti-black or anti-female. Let me compare it to another industry of victimhood, the Holocaust. Jews made a lot of money of the Holocaust. It's one hell of an industry.

Very big. You can, you don't have to take my word for it.

Go to the Holocaust museum in Washington.

Yeah.

It's big money, not small. The Jewish state, Israel, when it was established, made the equivalent in today's money of about $5 billion from the Germans in nine, in the 1950s, five years after the Holocaust, they didn't even wait.

So Holocaust has always been a big industry and big money.

There were Holocaust victims and Holocaust survivors who kept quiet, kept to themselves, try to recover and to heal the indescribable wounds of this horrible crime.

I'm not a Holocaust denier. These were the victims who wanted to be victims no more. They did not want to perpetuate the Holocaust in their own minds, but there was an industry of lobbyists, academic researchers, politicians and businessmen who benefited mightily from the Holocaust to this very day.

Every, every movement of victimhood spawns these parasites, every victim, every movement of victims, not the list of which is of course the black American community, where to this very day there are professional victims who benefit mightily from the study of slavery and the analysis of slavery and the benefits that, and blackmailing, emotionally blackmailing the whites, etc.

There are always parasites and there are always malignant expressions of victimhood.

The test is simple. If perpetuating victimhood is profitable, then something's wrong. Then something is narcissistic.

I want to follow up on that with this Me Too movement.

Now, I don't know if you're familiar with its early beginnings. The early beginnings of the Me Too movement started with, and I'm just going to go ahead and be honest here, not making a value judgment. I'm just making an observation, a truly unfortunate looking black woman by the name of Tarana Burke.

Tarana Burke founded it on the basis that she wanted to give the victims, there's that word of sexual assault abuse of black women and girls, their shine, I guess you could say.

And the movement in her words has been hijacked by, and I quote, this comes from Chicago sometimes, I'm quoting her directly, her movement has been hijacked by pretty girls from Hollywood.

So I want to ask you, because I've been trying to study as much as I could about the backstory of Ms. Tarana Burke. Is that a narcissistic impulse? I mean, she's been feted at BET, Black Girls Rock. She's gotten all kind of press. So even if she's right in what white pretty girls from Hollywood kind of usurping a movement, even if that's true, it's not like she's unknown. It's not like her cause is unknown. I mean, what more does she want?

I don't even understand the basic argument. How can one hijack justice? If these pretty girls deserve justice, the fact that they are pretty should not influence the justice that is meted out to them. Justice is a universal good. It should be accessible to pretty girls from Hollywood as it is to ugly black women. I mean, I don't see why ugly black women should have a monopoly on justice as opposed to pretty.

So that would be a narcissistic impulse then?

Well you know, entitlement, special treatment, exclusivity, proprietary. Do I have that right? Do I misunderstand it?

Listen, Vic, I'm the victim. What are you doing here? I mean, it's my space. It's my property. I'm making money out of it. I mean, it's a commercial impulse.

I would say maybe not so much narcissistic, although in a minute I will tell you about situation of narcissism, but maybe less narcissistic than commercial.

Listen, victimhood is big business. Holocaust is a huge business. Slavery is a great business. I mean, how many blacks live off slavery? I think more blacks live off slavery than that. I mean, how many blacks live off slavery? There are thousands of black professors living off slavery to this very long time.

That's right. That's right. That's right.

And not just them. I mean, in media, politics. I mean, I call them the professional black. This is what I call them. I call them professional blacks and their job is to remind everybody about how black they are. That's their job.

And they're professional Jews and professional women victims. It's big money.

So I think the initial impulse is commercial, but abusing victimhood for commercial purposes is narcissistic behavior. That's the thing. It starts with money, but the pursuit of money at any cost to your values, to your upbringing, to social ethics. I mean, if you are ruthless in your pursuit of money, then you are a narcissist. And this is the point. It's not that, listen, I've been a victim. Okay. So I'm a victim. I go out to the world. I describe my victim mood and I make a few bucks. That's okay. But then, if I make an industry out of it and I begin to protect my turf and I begin to compete with others and I begin to bad mouth others and I bet, I mean, that's an entirely different ballgame. That's narcissism.

And now there's something called situational narcissism.

Situational narcissism is a concept that was developed in Harvard. They discovered a pretty interesting fact.

Until that time was that narcissism is an early childhood phenomenon. In other words, you're abused as a child and you react by developing narcissism.

And then they found out in a series of studies that people who became famous, became celebrities concurrently developed pathological narcissism late in life. So this was late onset narcissism. It's narcissism that you develop as an adult. It was the first time that such a thing was documented.

They studied rock stars, rock stars, NFL, NBA, etc. And they discovered that among these people, by the way, many of them blacks, like from NBA and so on. So they discovered among these people, there was a, they scored very high on the narcissistic personality inventory and MMPI2. These are two tests. They scored very high on the narcissistic part.

And so it meant that technically there were narcissists, but they were not narcissists before, before they were totally healthy.

So the narcissism is clearly associated with their newfound status as celebrities. That's a portfolio question regarding that woman. She may have been motivated by noble, noble intentions, but once she has found herself the life of the party, so to speak, once she has discovered the limelight, she might well have developed situational narcissism late onset narcissism, adult narcissism. It happens a lot to politicians, to rock stars, football stars, etc.

And then when, once you discover narcissism, I remember the beginning of our conversation when we were both much younger, when I said that narcissism is a drug addiction. That's right. So once you discover narcissism, there's no going back. It's intoxicating the grandiosity, the flattery that it's absolutely tough. You want more and you want more.

And then of course the threshold goes up. It's not enough. What used to be enough, six months ago is not enough anymore. And you escalate your behavior. You radicalize your behavior. You provoke artificial conflicts. You create all kinds of, um, spectacles, the drama queen. Exactly.

There was a guy called, his name was Giddebon. He was a French, Marxist philosopher and he co-counseled him. He coined the term, the society of the spectacle. He said that we have been transformed from a society of substance to a society that puts emphasis on spectacle and image. And he said that this means that people will, in order to attract attention and so on, they will continue to generate spectacles. They will become one man theater troops and exactly drama queens. So it induces drama and you see, for example, in Washington politics, I mean, it's much more dramatic than let's say, what, 50 years ago, you mentioned Eisenhower. I mean, compare politics in Washington in the swamp during Eisenhower's time and compare politics today, the posing in front of the cameras. The crucial meeting of Democrats with Donald Trump. It's all one big spectacle. The number of laws, number of acts passed by Congress only five years ago was 10 times the number of acts passed this year. 10 times means Congress is much more preoccupied with grandstanding and political theater and spectacle than with passing bloody acts, which is the main function of Congress.

That's right.

So we are in a society of spectacle and everyone is an actor on stage. To quote a much bigger figure than me, Shakespeare.

That's right. All right.

So you did, you did a, by the way, before I go any further, ladies and gentlemen, you're listening to Obsidian Radio, the live stream show. This is an exclusive interview with yours, truly. And my very special guest, world renowned expert on malignant narcissism, Dr. Sam Vaknin. And, we're having a wide range of discussion on narcissism and what it means for all of us.

And, in the 21st century, we're talking about race, gender, the whole McGillia, all of it. And, I'm really glad that he's here and so gracious that he could spend his time talking with us.

Professor Vaknin, you had a very interesting range of discussions with Mr. Richard Grannon of the United Kingdom. I know of him because he participated in an event here in the United States called the 21 convention. That's how I knew about it.

And, I watched with great interest and very closely your wide ranging discussions with him. I just wanted to get on one aspect of it if I could.

And that was the section of the interviews you had with him where you made the case that the future is female and you had some pointed words among other things with regard to MGTOW and the men's rights movement, the red pillars and so forth.

So I just wanted to kind of go into that with you.

For the benefit of my argument or my audience rather, could you just briefly lay out your argument about the future being female and then we'll go into that and go further into that.

Humanity went through two phases, two big phases. He, the two and he's entering the third. That's not my invention.

That is Alvin Toffler's.

So, the first phase was hunter, gather, hunter, hunting, gathering. This was an environment where women at the very least contributed equally to nutrition and controlled all the other functions of life.

So men were hunting and they came back once every two, once in a blue moon, actually with an antelope or a deer or whatever. And the bulk of nutrition was actually, obtained via gathering and gathering was controlled fully by women and children.

Women also raised the children and, and guarded the community when men were away hunting.

It stands to reason, although we have not documented proof of course, it stands to reason that women were pretty dominant in that phase, because nine out of 10 functions were carried out by women. Men came back, they had to eat first and they had to eat more than women, simply because of their energy requirements. It didn't reflect any social, it reflected the need to maintain the machine.

So, and then, about 10,000 years ago, 10 to 5,000, depending on the part of the world, there was the agricultural revolution. And at the beginning there were no tractors and combines and steam diesel, you know, there was only the human muscle to pull the plow, to plant crops and to harvest and reap them. You need it to be muscular. You need it to be strong.

Nature has it that men cause of hormonal, I'm a medical doctor, so I know why, but generally speaking, because of hormonal hormones, mainly men have more muscle mass than women. And so it gave them, a competitive edge, an advantage in the age of agriculture and later in the age of industry, which is nothing but an extension of agriculture.

The first industries were agriculture based and they processed agricultural inputs. And to this very day, very big part of industry is based on agriculture in effect.

So one could say that this is one revolution, the agricultural industrial revolution during this period, muscle was an advantage and men had muscle period. So they became dominant and then they became even more dominant and then they became utterly dominant and women became property. And this lasted until more or less, the Crimean war, which is eight, the 1860s.

What happened in the 1860s were two developments.

One, a gradual transition from industry to services and information process processing and wars in which millions of men had to participate as opposed to previous wars where only thousands of men were participating.

So mass wars or what we call total wars, total war, total war is a new invention.

So when men went to war, whole generations went to war. For example, in world war two, about 80% of the generations, the of four generations were extinguished, exterminated in the world.

So what happened was women had to fulfill male roles simply because there were no men.

As I said, in previous wars, a representative sample of men was sent to fight each other. The bulk of male population remained behind, but in total wars, the entire male population is fighting. And so there are no men.

And so women have to work in factories and they have to pave roads and they have to do everything that men usually used to do. And so women penetrated classic male, um, enclaves, classic male vocations and professions and classic male fortresses, if you wish, women began to replace men or seriously.

And when men, men returned from the wars, they did not succeed to dislodge women and to regain their previous advantage because women discovered the secret that men have guarded for centuries.

They don't need men. They can do everything very well by themselves because modern machinery replaces muscles very efficiently.

As the emphasis continued to shift after the second world war to information processing and services, as machinery replaced muscles via automation and so on, women became equipotence with equal power to men and then they surpassed men.

Today, majority of college and university graduates the world over with few exceptions are women, not men. In many countries, including the United States, women outweigh men in their educational attainment. In many professions, the majority of practitioners are women and that includes today, the judicial professions, medicine, art and so on.

So women are taking over and they are taking over for two major reasons.

As we said, muscles are dispensable and more than dispensable. They're not needed. They are absolutely, actually in many respects, muscles become a disadvantage.

Andthe most, more important reason, the skills that provide you with an advantage in a networked world, a world of networks, non-hierarchical world, the women have these advantages and men do not.

Women network much more. Women are much more social. Women are much more empathic. Women are much less competitive.

So the working team is much better, etc.

Women are much better suited to the modern world than men.

Indeed, in some countries, one third of primary breadwinners are already women. I said two things.

With, I mean, the muscles issue, the networking issue and the new skills that are required where women are much better suited, but there was actually a third thing.

And this is something that no one has noticed as far as I know. I couldn't find a reference to it in any literature that I've ever seen, even in MGTOW and Red Pillers. I mean, no one mentions it for some bizarre reason.

Divorcehas been the biggest transfer of economic resources by far in human history. When oil went up from $6 to $140, 148, which is quite a rise, you would agree. Hundreds of billions of dollars were transferred from oil consumers to oil producers. The entire transfer of wealth between all consumers and oil producers is less than nine months, nine months of transfer of wealth in a typical year between men and women.

And how is this done? Divorce. When women divorce on average, they get half the community property plus alimony plus child support.

What is this? If not a transfer of wealth from men to women, if you take into account that 53% of all marriages end in divorce, you can calculate the incredible breathtaking transfer of money, property, wealth, resources, real estate from men to women. This has been going on for well over 50 years. By my estimate, according to Mal-Calculations, men have transferred a total of $6 trillion to women.

Now you tell me. That's worldwide.

No, no, no.

The United States.

Oh, so you're saying $6 trillion in what, the last half a century in the United States alone?

Only in the United States. If you take into account the United States is about a quarter of global GDP.

That's right.

Well, you could safely assume that about $20 trillion to $25 trillion change hands between men and women.

Now you tell me the following. If you were to tomorrow to win the lottery and you were to get $6 trillion, would you be powerful? Would you be a powerful man?

Oh yeah.

But that would lead me to my next point. If your calculations are correct, I have no reason to doubt it.

Well, if your calculations are correct, then answer me this, doc, where did all the money go?

What do you mean?

Women, women got education with this money and took over men by a white margin, by the way, women entered the professions and took over professions by a white margin in many professions and in the most well-paying profession.

All right. So how do you explain in black America, because again, black women make a lot of hay out of the idea that they are more educated than black men, make more than black men, all this, etc.

All right. So how do they explain that the rank and file black woman has an average net worth of $5 and carries the most school debt of anybody in the country?

As a matter of fact, this past midterm election season, a black woman named Stacey Abrams was running for the governor of Atlanta and she had over a quarter of a million dollars in debt. I know. How do you explain that?

Black women and black men and the black community in general are the exception.

What I'm saying indeed applies mostly to white people.

Okay. And to begins to apply more and more to Hispanics, the blacks, the blacks are outside the mainstream in many, many respects. And we can discuss why.

I mean, I'd be delighted, but they are not a good example, shall we say, they're not a representative sample, but it's a fact, it's a fact that blacks are not the majority of the population in the United States.

Oh, no doubt. No doubt about that.

And that at least, I think I'm underestimating massively, but at least six trillion, at least change hands.

But even if you take it to account, the racial piece that we set aside black American, we should just focus on, you know, whites need the Hispanics out, lead the Jews out. We just focus on Gentile white folks in America.

Okay.

How do you, if these women are getting all this money and what, in math fact, you even use the term annuity with your interview with granted. You said in the economic world, when one party gives a payment over time to another party, they call it an annuity.

True. So dividends is an annuity.

Yeah.

True. Right. So if white women are receiving this massive wealth transfer from their husbands and so forth in the form of an annuity, what time like is cause vagina money, the payment of use of a past vagina. That's what you're paying for.

Okay. So that's true.

My question becomes, what are they doing with all the money?

You say, well, they went to school, they got educated. Well, how do you explain the school debt bubble in the United States?

Andthe majority of that debt is being carried, forget black women that we're taking them out of the equation. The majority of the debt burden is being carried by white women.

The average age of the woman's marcher.

We talked about the women's march earlier, the average age, cause I looked it up on survey monkey, the average age of the woman's marcher is 49 years old, white college educated.

We know that women consume more in terms of healthcare spending and all the rest of it. And these women's marches were marching because they wanted to retain Obamacare. They wanted a planned parenthood.

In other words, they want me, the blue collar black man skilled tradesmen with no debt to pay for them to suck. I'm just going to go ahead and say it. They want me to pay for them to suck and have all these sexual adventures with these knuckleheads. And they want me to pay for it with my taxes.

If what you're saying is true, doctor, then how do you explain all this other phenomenon?

I'm talking about white people now, white women pretty easily actually, but we have to enter economics for that.

But I will give you the crux of it. The gist of it.

First of all, I did not talk about transfer of money, cash. I talked about transfer of wealth, six trillion in terms of wealth, the vast majority, vast majority of the savings of Americans are in real estate, especially residential property and especially first homes.

So there has been a massive transfer of real estate, more technically speaking.

Okay. And now real estate is not easily monetized, especially after 2008. In other words, you cannot convert it easily to money.

So a lot of this money is in brick and mortar.

That's the first thing.

The second thing, the United States is among the few countries in the world where wages for the middle class have actually declined in real terms over the last 20 years.

Okay.

So this transfer of wealth has been actually diminishing. It's been diminishing because wages have stagnated in the United States. Middle class compensation has been stagnated.

The middle class is decimated completely. There are more poor people and the rich became a hell of a lot richer.

So there is this problem.

And the second, the third reason that you don't seem to observe a contradiction. There isn't contradiction, the facts of facts.

But the third reason is that women tend have different priorities to men.

Okay. We discovered in studies and I just made a video about it on my YouTube channel. We discovered in studies that women dedicate a huge percentage of their resources and make purchasing decisions geared towards the welfare of their children.

Okay.

So the money is there. It's just allocated not on consumption and not on definitely not on ostentatious or conspicuous consumption, but is allocated, is invested in the future of the children.

So when we say women, the transfer of wealth has been to women and children, if you wish.

I have no problem with any of that. That's fine.

That's fine.

And the allocation between women and children is such that the bulk of the transferred wealth is actually invested in the children's future. Well-being, medical care, etc. That's why we don't see it.

But the fact is the six, three, I mean, men have been impoverished by 6 trillion and women have been enriched by 6 billion, a trillion.

But how do you explain these women's marchers, all of this stuff about, look, now I know you're a scientist. I know you worked in the economic world at a high level and all that.

So what I'm about to say is veering on the populace with political, but I'm just going to go ahead and say it anyway, because I want to get your reaction.

My position is this in black America, but we can apply this to whites as well.

My position is this. Why should I have to pay for a woman who said black, white, or otherwise, who's been banging the drum for decades now, my body, my choice, you as a man have no say over what I choose to do with my body.

In other words, you have no say over who I choose to choose and stuff. That's fine. I'm good with that.

So why do I have to pay for it? If it's your body and your choice, madam, you pay for it, not me.

And that's what they're marching for with this woman's march and all the rest of it.

They want increased government spending, which means the taxpayer, me, to pay for their health care, for their abortions, and all the rest of it.

Why can't they pay for it, especially if they're getting all these wealth transfers or asset transfers, etc.

First of all, the facts are that men are becoming poorer much faster than women. That is why about one third of all primary breadwinners in the United States are now women 10 times, 10 times higher than 20 years ago.

Okay. That is happening because women are becoming richer faster than men, or if you want, men are becoming poorer faster than women.

But how do we explain the women's marches and then wanting increased spending on Obamacare?

Average age is 49, white college educated. How do we explain that?

Well, why not? If you can obtain rent.

This behavior is called rent. There was a Nobel Prize winning economist, Herbert Simon, and Herbert Simon said, as long as there is the opportunity or prospect of obtaining unilateral transfers, not against economic performance or work, people will invest resources in obtaining it. And this is called rent behavior.

So they are rent seekers. It's totally normal behavior. Wouldn't you march if you thought that you can end up with another $10,000 a year? Of course you would march.

So that's what surprised me.

That's a straight green.

That doesn't surprise me.

But the thing is this, the feminism has been, and again, I think you may have noticed throughout the conversation that I'm doing my best not to be biased in the sense that I'm, I'm an equal opportunity critic.

Oh yeah. Yeah.

I mean, you've made it clear that you are a scientist. You deal with the facts.

No, I don't care. I don't care who loses their problem. I'm an observer. So what has happened is we have modified the economic sphere, the business sphere, the workplace space.

But we have not modified social institutions and attended laws equally. Our laws and our social institutions still hark back to the agricultural industrial period.

I agree. I agree.

We haven't changed them yet.

Well, but that's mainly because women don't want it to change.

Your critique of the MGTOWs and red pillars and so forth, not withstanding, I'm not saying that they are above reproach or they're not, I'm not criticizing them at all.

Yourobservations are noted. Fair enough.

But I argue that they're there and we can start just with this mating piece.

A lot of women, even though, and I know you know the literature on this, a lot of women even know their high earning, they're able to support themselves.

They don't want to date those guys that you mentioned have experienced a decline in wages. They still expect to mate with a man that makes more than they do. And they don't want to change the dating norms. They want to keep the dating norms ossified in the amber of the 19th or the mid 20th century, but they still want to live a 21st century lifestyle as a liberated woman.

That's bullshit. Excuse my expression. That's just no other way of saying it. That's crap.

First of all, I never criticized anyone for, in the sense that I disagree with values. I'm just saying red pillars and so on are fighting a rear guard, losing action, losing it. The war is lost.

So they are pathetic in the sense that they are trying to reverse social trends and economic trends way, way too late. The place and the time for this kind of movements was the 1950s and sixties. The war is lost completely because technology and, other developments have rendered the workplace and have rendered the economy such that women's skills, talents, traits, qualities, and inherent hardware and software are now much better suited for the future than men. There's nothing we can do about it.

It's like women would have organized a red pill movement at the beginning of agricultural revolution. There's nothing to do when the agricultural revolution started, muscles reigned period. There's nothing you could do about it. No, no amount of feminism at the beginning of agricultural revolution could have reversed the trend of male domination. No amount of red peeling and mixed house and other what else can reverse the coming female dominance. The world has changed. Women are not fair. Women are taking advantage of this exactly as men did at the beginning of the agricultural revolution.

And why not? Why wouldn't they do that? I mean, this is life. It's survival of the fittest. It's the way if they can get money from the government via rent seeking and money from you via divorce and on top of it, obtain social and other benefits. And on top of it, fuck around and get paid alimony. And on top of it, travel to Greece and again, fuck around and get alimony and, and child support. And I don't know what else they can get, all the power to them.

I mean, sure. That's how society operates. Interest groups clash and made the strongest and the fittest win. Not the best, the strongest and the fittest.

All right.

So since you talked about the strongest and the fittest, let me push back to you on this.

I'm a skilled tradesman. That was my life was most of my adult working life, 22 years on the job. No woman worked on my job.

And when we tried, we, my job bent over backwards to try to bring women in. It was a colossal failure.

Okay. Women didn't want to do skilled trade, blue collar union. They don't want to do it.

So if the future belongs to women, my question to you is simply this doctor, who's going to make the do-do go down the toilet? Women?

Men?

So are the low level, low skilled, uneducated, muscle power where it's still needed. Increasingly it will not be needed. 50, according to McKinsey, 53% of all blue collar jobs will be replaced by automation, by 2020 by 2030.

I'm sorry. So gradually men will not be needed even in muscle bound, of, activities.

So men are being pushed into niches and the niche is becoming smaller and smaller and smaller.

Reminds me of the 19th century joke. How do you capture an elephant? You divide Africa in two and then you divide it in four and then you divide it in 16 and then you divide it in 1,960. And finally the elephant has so little space that it has to stand on one leg and then you capture the elephant.

So this is what's happening to men. They're being pushed to smaller and smaller, smaller plots and pouches of, I mean, the territory is becoming smaller and smaller, more and more claustrophobic.

Men are going to enter the claustrophobic age where there are no jobs and the few jobs they are suck and they are make jobs, you know, temporary jobs and stuff like that. And women are going to take over the high paying jobs, the white collar jobs they already are in some professions, over overwhelmingly medicine, law.

Andthat's it. And that's reality because the world is about networking, about teamwork, about empathy, about collaboration and women are far better at this than men. And the world is about education.

And the shocking thing is that women are far better at this than men. Women are far better students than men. Far.

Do you want us to believe me? Go online, check the.

No, no, I mean, it's been, I mean, there's been a lot's been written about it. I'm not going to argue with you about that. It's too much, too much evidence to the contrary.

So listen, nothing to do about it. You know, it's life, agricultural, industrial periods of paradise. Heaven is finished now.

All right.

So let me, so let me ask you this doctor.

Now we are redone.

All right. Well, let me ask you this doctor. All right.

Fair enough. So how do you explain numerous university studies right here in my hometown of Philly, and universities around the world, not just female unhappiness in the United States, but worldwide, more women are recording being unhappier than ever while men's happiness has gone up.

How do you explain that?

Well, I don't know. It's strange because it's strange because most men report a mark decline in happiness and happiness after divorce.

Men want to remain married. Women initiate divorce. 70% of all divorces are initiated by women.

So I w I don't know why women would be, I think women should be a hell of a lot happier after they get rid of these redundant appendages known as men and men should be unhappy because they've lost the service providers known as women.

Oh, well, I tell you, I'm a confirmed bachelor. I never married by choice. I had opportunities to marry. I turned it down because the women weren't hot enough.

So I said, hell with it. I'm not going to get married to a plain Jane with a heart of gold and be changed at the hip to somebody that does nothing for my Dick. So I just chose to just go without it.

So now I've had girlfriends and stuff since, but my point is in black American, I know that what I'm about to say may be the exception to the rule, but I'm gonna say it anyway in black America, the divorce rate for first marriages is 74% versus 47% for white America in black America, three out of every four black women never marry in their lifetime. The numbers are similar for black men, 40 of the largest cohort of confirmed bachelors in the United States today over the age of 40. And that will be me, our black men. And that 40% of black over 40, like 45% of black men today are single and childless.

Let me tell you something, doc. And I speak only for myself. I'm happy as a clam. I have no problems. I'm happy.

The guys that I knew that you were right, the guy, the black men I'm talking about that were married and got divorced. They're miserable.

No doubt about it to a man. They're miserable.

But the brothers like me that are confirmed bachelors like me, Oh man, we live in the life of Riley or clean for me or be my mommy or anything like that. If she's here, it's because I enjoy her feminine and sexual companionship and we enjoy our company. That's it.

I think this is going to be the model of the future where essentially singles will team up or hook up if you wish, provide each other with the services like sex and, and so on. And then unhook, and move on. I think that's going to be the model of the future.

I think marriage is dead and marriage is dead essentially because it's not needed anymore. It's a very archaic and dysfunctional and inefficient mode of organizing production, child rearing and distribution of wealth across generations and intra generation.

So marriage used to be a great, great way of distributing wealth across generations, which was its main kind of role. I mean, marriage is not about love, not about anything was about producing children and passing on the cumulative wealth and property to them. That's what marriage was about.

But today there's no need for that. There are so many alternatives to producing children and so many alternatives to distributing or redistributing wealth across generations that, you know, this union is past disparity.

So I think marriage is dying and indeed is dying. I mean, look at the marriage rates in the United States. It's dying.

So, and it'll be replaced by ad hoc arrangements.

Now no one can predict, I mean, there's polyamory, there's swinging lifestyle.

There's, I mean, there are million open marriages, open relationships, million open. Yes. Open everything.

I mean, men and women, men and women will negotiate ad hoc short term liaisons, hookups, and the deep, the terms and conditions will be defined very clearly. And also it will be clear that, and I proposed a few years ago, 20 years ago, almost. I proposed the only way to revitalize marriage is to sign time limited marriage contracts. Negotiate the concept.

I want to hear about this one.

Time limited contracts.

You got married for two years and you renegotiate the contract every two years. And if you don't reach an understanding or an agreement, the marriage expires automatically. No need to divorce.

Gotcha.

No need to divorce. Like you sign a two year contract or five year contract. If you want to have children, let's say so minimum five year contract. If you want to have children and then the end of the five years, you don't need to go to court divorce divorce attorneys and fucking mess. You know, you don't need any of this. The marriage expires on itself. That's it.

And then if you, if you do love your partner or like your partner, whatever, for whatever reason, or I don't know what you want to maintain the family you need for the child or whatever the reason may be, you renew the contract for another two years.

So it's time limited marriages.

And the only way in my view to revive the nice marriage, you know, I actually liked that idea because as a union man, former union man, I know all about contracts and labor disputes and things of that nature. So that's appealing to me.

The problem is, uh, uh, well, there's two problems. Uh, Dr. Vacken. The first problem is the divorce industry here in the United States, a big money in divorce courts and lawyers and all the rest of it.

Like that's one, but the other one, and again, I, my, my, I may be the exception to the rule in terms of me being black and American whatnot, but a lot of black women don't want to negotiate. They want black men to do what they tell them. No questions asked.

And, uh, my position is you got to come to the table and negotiate. Black women don't want to, matter of fact, I even have a term for them. Uh, Dr. Vacken, I refer to a lot of black women as sexual marketplace socialists.

Well, um, first of all, the divorce industry is founded on the falsehoods of marriage. For example, marriage is presumed to be eternal because originally, uh, the marriage, marriage format we are using today was created by the Catholic church where divorce is forbidden. And the belief, the belief was in both the Catholic church and the Orthodox church. It's all a religious concept that marriage was preordained by, by heaven and that your partner is your divinely, uh, divinely chosen, um, you know, intimate, uh, but so marriage was founded and is still founded on a series of misconceptions, lies, disinformation, and so on.

And so to untangle it, you need the divorce industry, but if marriage were to be negotiated honestly, openly as a, as you say, a labor contract as a time expired agreement on a long commercial basis and so on and so forth, I think divorce industry will simply vanish. If there's no need for divorce, there will be no divorce industry.

Women of course, it's natural. I don't know why men are so angry. It's natural for women. It's natural for women to blake male, to threaten, to withhold, to extort. I mean, wouldn't you do the same? I know what's wrong with it. That's what every party does in every type of negotiation, geopolitical, political, commercial, and emotional. I mean, it's totally normal for them to do that. The onus, onus is on you not to allow them to do that, but why the emotions? Why get angry at them? I wouldn't, I mean, it's totally rational behavior. Grab as much as you can in a, in a, I mean the art of the deal. Trump.

Right.

No, Trump. Yeah. Right.

All right.

Well, let me ask you this because we're coming down to the window because you've been more than gracious. I really appreciate it. Let me ask you this. Why do you think black Americans are so resistant to discussions on psychology and things of that nature?

Why do you think that is?

I think it's part of a larger disruption, in black patterns of existence.

First of all, I don't know if you've been to Africa.

I lived four years in Africa.

No, I haven't. I've lived four years in Africa.

What country?

I've lived in Nigeria and Sierra Leone and so on. So I visited many of them. I visited Egypt, Morocco, but that's North Africa. That's more Arab, but I've been to the so-called black art of Africa. Right. And I've worked in Sierra Leone and Nigeria, which are Western Africa. Right.

So, and where most black Americans emanate from that area of Africa.

Not far, not far, not far from Dahomey and the ports, the slave ports and, and so on.

Yeah. And of course the version of slavery that is taught in the United States is heavily tainted in my view, at least by the fact that precious few, and so on. Scholars and so on bothered to actually visit the places and talk to the people. And so on. I spent four years there and slavery was one of my main, my main points of fascination.

I inquired with people. There's still memories there. Still, memory passed on from generation to generation. It's a judicial memory.

Yeah.

So I got, I ought to bring you back for another interview just to deal with that because that's a fascinating piece.

Yeah. I spoke to hundreds of people there. I interviewed effectively hundreds of people and so on. I mean, it was amazing for years.

Anyhow, marriage patterns, communal patterns, organizational social units in Africa today and in the United States are Western white imports, which were imposed on blacks, both in the mother continent and when they were transported, these are not indigenous natural outgrowth of self organizing collectives. They were utterly imported and imposed mainly at the beginning by missionaries, but later on by slave owners, plantation owners.

I mean, so all these, all social units like family, community, I don't know what state I'm in. All of these things are alien, alien to blacks. It's, it doesn't make them inferior or superior. Just simply organize themselves differently.

The organizational unit in the overwhelming majority of Africa was the extended extended family. And the extended family sent for Spanish and was part of a tribe.

Okay. And children, for example, were raised collectively and, and, and monogamy was perceived as strange in many of these societies.

And yeah, Africa today remains the most polygamous place on planet earth.

Yeah. I mean, and when you see that people live in monogamy because it's been outlawed by the colonial powers, could go to jail. If you were a traditionalist, you know, and people, for example, the concept of court of law, totally alien to Africa. I mean, all legal proceedings took place within the tribe in a council of elders and reconciliation.

I'm a stunning, but in my view, the legal system, the indigenous legal system in Africa is far superior to anything the West came up with, and yet they had to give it up. They had to give it up because the colonial power is instituted, you know, tribunals and so on. And you had to go there if you wanted to obtain justice, if you wanted white men had a gun.

So, yeah, I mean, it's not only a question of gun, but like, if you got a verdict to enforce it, you needed to go through white channels, white colonial channels and, and the plantations.

And the, you know, because there have been rare cases where actually slaves sued their masters and I mean, it's a pretty amazing, but, and so if you wanted to obtain just justice in any way, shape or form, formal or informal, you had to appeal to the white. I mean, the white was the ultimateinstance and authority. And so a lot was imposed on blacks, both in Africa itself and when they were transported to the Caribbean and to the United States to England, by the way, it was a massive trade slave trade to England. It was outlawed in the middle of the 19th century.

Yeah.

And you discover, I discovered to my amazement and of course it's today's documented in texts and books and so I discovered thatblacks.

Doc, are you there? Dr.

Vaknin, are you there?

I see you still up on the screen, but, I don't know what happened.

Ladies and gentlemen, we got somesound difficulty here withour special guest, Dr. Sam Vaknin. I want to seeif I can get him back on the line.

Dr. Vaknin, are you there?

Hello.

You dropped out for some reason, Dr. Vaknin for about three or four minutes. Could you start over and pick up where you left off?

Well, I'm not sure where I left off, but I'm saying that I'm saying that, these institutions, for example, the nuclear family were imposed on blacks from the outside. And I think to this very day, they have a conflicted relationship with these institutions. They are not an integral part of either the psychology or the sociology of blacks. And they are not fully internalized as we call it in psychology. They're not introjected. They're not an automatic knee jerk response to the exigencies of life and society in reality, but they are like white men's reflexes implanted in black minds.

And so, slavery, the period of slavery exacerbated this dual relationship with, for example, the nuclear family.

Yes. The famous scholar W. E. B. Du Bois famously talked about this and his immortal work, the souls of black folk, the idea of a white self and a black self, you know, the dual consciousness kind of fighting in the same body.

That's what it thinks.

Right. In 1943.

Right.

So the slavery, during slavery, I don't need to tell you families were separated. Men were sold separately. Women were sold separately and children very often were sold separately.

Right. So even if black had the guts to adopt the white man's way of organizing reality and society, they were not allowed to learn to read and write. They were not allowed to have nuclear functioning families because they were constantly separated, sold, resold, rebuilt. I mean, they were not allowed to develop their own effective communities. They were, I mean, there was constant interruption, constant intervention, constant malicious sometimes manipulation.

And so not only did the blacks come from a background in Africa, which was antithetical, which was opposed to white values, white organizations and white social units, but they were not allowed to internalize and assimilate white values, white organization principles and white social units in their destination countries.

When they tried to have a family, the family was torn apart. When they tried to organize as communities, they were executed or flogged. When they tried to learn to read and write, they were executed.

So they were not given the chance to organically kind of assimilate in their environment.

And we see these conflicts to this very day. They can't assimilate. The Jews have assimilated. The Jews came to the United States. They were an outlier minority. They were decried. Theyderided. They were hated, antisemitism, this, that.

But listen, a generation later, two generations later, the Jews assimilate. They become members of the elite. They become, you know, they moved on. They simply moved on, which is the reason, by the way, for the hatred between blacks and Jews. Blacks and Jews started from exactly the same point. They hated minorities. Jews made...

I don't know if you're familiar with him, but there was a famous or infamous case here in the United States in the, I want to say 30s or 40s, Leo was lynched.

Yeah.

The lynched was very fine. Of course, yes. And it was a Jew.

So they started from the same point, but the Jews made it and the blacks failed. And of course the blacks resented. They resented. I mean, like you were like me. Are you now going to help me? Like in the civil rights movement. Are you now going to help me? I mean, you were like me. We came from the same, you know.

So the Jews started exactly like the blacks, but within a generation or two, they were way gone and they became the landlords. They became the landlords of the blacks. They owned the grocery stores. The blacks became a minority among the Jews.

It was inconceivable. It created a lot of hatred and a lot of resentment.

Well, I mean, that's the whole thing with the Women's March. Tamika Mallory is the black woman founder of the Women's March. She attended a event by Nation of Islam leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan. The name of the event is called Savior's Day. She was there. He called her out by name, singled her out by name and went into his, I would rightly call it anti-Semitic diatribe against Jewish folk.

And that was the basis for calling the Women's March anti-Semitic.

And then you know the rest of the story from there.

So there's this relationship between black folks and Jews that you just mentioned, where there's a lot of enmity.

And to be brutally frank, Dr. Rachni, you hit the nail on the head.

I've long suspected that the real court, the real kernel or the real source of the butt hurt on the part of a lot of blacks is that Jews succeeded and blacks did whatever they succeeded in blacks did.

Envy is another diagnostic criteria of narcissism. Pathological envy is the ninth diagnostic criteria of narcissistic personality disorder.

If you go to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, one of the diagnostic criteria of narcissistic personality disorder is pathologically envious of other people because of their accomplishment and perceived his accomplishments as unjust.

It's exactly the black man's attitude to the Jew. How come he made it and I didn't make it?

There's something wrong here. There's some conspiracy. Maybe the Jew is colluding with otherwise against me.

Oh yeah. I just got finished doing an interview last night, Dr. Vaknin, with a black woman, a good looking, attractive, married, upper middle class black woman living in San Francisco and she was talking about the Jewish conspiracy to control the media. They're trying to break up the black family and I asked us, okay, where did you get all this information from?

She couldn't give me a source, but she believed to the depths of her soul that the Jews were out to do black folk in.

And I'm like, wait a minute, but you're doing well. You're successful. What Jew is holding you now?

She couldn't answer me.

After nonsense. I mean, if anything, the Jews were very helpful, especially during the civil rights movement. I mean, they're trying not all the Jews, not all the Jews, Southern Jews were not, but Northern Jews were.

But it's again, if you use narcissism, you suddenly understand everything because narcissists react with pathological envy when they start with the same position at the same position as someone and that someone takes off and they remain stuck. This exists. Classic narcissistic reaction, classic.

And it's all about envy. It's all about envy. I mean, I've read all the texts, read Baldwin and DeBois. I mean, it's envy, simply envy.

Andthere's a lot of bad blood because of this envy.

One, well, I hate on the Jews for being successful. When blacks could just do the same thing, education, I mean, it's no secret to the Jew success, edgy, a strong emphasis on education, strong emphasis on marriage, strong emphasis on the family. You just do those three things in American society. You will succeed.

Strong emphasis on savings, frugality.

There's another one. Yes. That's right. That's right. Frugality saving.

Yes. Values are also common to Asians and Asians are moving up the level. That's right.

Upwardly mobile and blacks hate you about the Asians too.

There's a real famous rap song. There's a famous rap song by Ice Cube called Black Korea where he talks about this. And so, so, so what's the excuse there?

So, so I guess in another 10 years, it'll be an Asian conspiracy, to control the media and hold black people down and all this nonsense.

Well, you saw, you saw Spike Lee movies. I mean, yeah, it's out there. And I fully believe that as other minorities move up the social ladder, the blacks have two choices. They can say, listen, some distracts up with us, with us.

The problem is with us. Let's introspect. Let's look at ourselves. Let's become self-aware. Let's see what we can fix.

Let's, that's one thing, one way. And the other way you say in saying, listen, nothing's wrong with us. It's just a conspiracy against us by varying minorities. And especially if they are white tinted and that's an narcissistic reaction.

This paranoia and this is an narcissistic reaction. No one is saying, at least of all me, that blacks are not discriminated against, including institutionally, that they are not horribly mistreated and have been even more horribly mistreated. And that there's a legacy of, of suppression, ruination, disruption and imposition ofsocial values and other values which are alien to the blacks.

I mean, no one is saying any of this, of course blacks have been, you know, horrible what happened to them. It's genocide. Blacks have been subjected toslow motion genocide. And no one is saying no, but look, the Jews were subjected to fast move fast forward.

Of course, of course it's documented well documented.

And they have established the state of Israel, which is one of the richest in the world.

I mean, that's right.

That's right.

There's a limit, the limit to victimhood and the blacks discovered that victimhood is a profitable industry. And that's the thing they got addicted to victimhood.

They are, I mean, there are many drug addicts, but I think the number of victimhood addicts far outweighs the number of drug addicts because victimhood pays simply pays whether you are drug addicts don't, you don't get paid to be a drug addict.

Yeah. Right. So whether you're a black professor at the university, victimhood pays, whether you are an activist in the women's March, victimhood pays, whether you're a Louis Farrakhan with the donation of Islam, victimhood pays and a victimhood pays. It works. It's a working adaptation.

Why give it up?

And I got to tell you, professor, now, like I said, I'm black, you know, parents, you know, solid working middle class, what went to work right out of high school, work for 22 years.

I, the reason why I got into this line of work is because my job came to an end due to a work injury. So I reinvent myself into a podcaster and talk show host and very successful at it. I'm living proof that if youwork hard, you have a plan, you work hard, you stick to the plan, you persevere through the rough patches, you will make it.

You know, when I get talked called by other black people, Dr. Vaknin, you know what I get called Uncle Tom, you know, sellout, you lick the white man's ass crack clean, all this other, you are agent, all this stuff. It's ridiculous.

It is in his paranoid. Technically, clinically speaking, it's a great pity that blacks did not use victimhood as a launching pad as the Jews did. The Jews also embraced the victimhood, but as a launching pad, the blacks embraced their victimhood as the ultimate solution for all existential problems.

So why go further? It works. It's okay. It's the path of least resistance and that's it. And that's where they're stuck in the loop.

Again, no one is denying least of all me that blacks have been and are being victimized. I'm not denied this.

I think what police departments around the country are doing is murder simply.

But I gotta tell you, but I have to say with all due respect, Dr. Vaknin, I know that you're not an American citizen and you haven't lived here as long as I have, but with all due respect, I have to say as a black man who's lived in inner city black America for most of my adult life.

I got to tell you, but in my coming up years too, I got to tell you, if you are a black man and you have trouble with the police today, I'm not talking about back in the sixties and the turn of the century. I'm talking about today.

If you have run-ins with the cops, it's almost always because you did something you weren't supposed to be doing. That's almost always the case.

And we are not talking about the fact that the police reacts. We are talking about the proportion, proportionality of the reaction.

So there's black men that are acting, acting and cutting up and not acting a fool. What's the cops supposed to do? Turn a blind eye to that.

So these people can predate on other black people. Is that what we're supposed to do? Turn a blind eye to it?

Not you, not you. I'm talking about my fellow black Americans.

Cause this is what they'll say. This is what they'll say. They'll say you're supposed to hold the police and the power structure accountable and not hold these knuckleheads who are predating on other black people accountable. We're supposed to turn a blind eye to their crap in the name of racism and all of us. It's utter ridiculous.

And that's why I wanted to have your conversation with them because I had to find out what's the psychology behind that.

Yeah. I was not saying this because obviously the greatest victims of blacks are blacks.

That's right. So that's all I'm saying. What I'm saying is that police could have been taught proportional de-escalation methods and so on. And they haven't been because sort of a priority because black lives don't matter so much. That's a fact. I mean, there's prejudice, bias, racism, the black victims' lives don't matter.

That's the problem.

The black victims who give by these people, they don't matter.

Blacks don't respect themselves.

What have we been saying throughout this interview? Black adopted blacks adopted victimhood as the ultimate solution, existential solution, existential solution.

So of course when you're a victim, you can't respect yourself and there is no self-respect, no self-respect of men, no self-respect as men, no self-respect as blacks.

And of course no one respects someone who doesn't respect himself.

It starts from the blacks, of course. It's something the whites learn from the blacks. If they don't respect themselves, why respect them?

But what I'm trying to say is that blacks have been victimized and I think they are still being victimized.

That's not the issue at all.

So do women. Women are still being victimized in big parts of the world. Jews are being victimized, including in your own city, I mean, in Pittsburgh. Everyone is victimized sometime or another.

I mean, do you know any group in the universe who is not victimized at one time or another?

But you should never get stuck on your victimhood, leverage it and make it a profession, a profitable profession, because you will end up paying the price. You will end up paying the price because victimhood is the mental equivalent of paralysis and you will end up stagnating and you will end up, you know, festering and you will end up, you know, where the blacks ended up.

And you know, I'm glad you say that and I think this is a good end point and we could, we have to be continued.

But just as an end point, last thing I want to ask you, I'm glad you mentioned the paralysis piece.

I've always marveled how for all the academics that blacks have today, we have a lot of black academics and all the rest of it in public and pundits and so forth.

We never have black evolutionary psychologists, psychologists such as yourself, a varying stripe and thinkers like Dr. Jordan Peterson. We never have people like that.

All of the brain power is devoted to racism and in more particular are being victimized by it and that whites are responsible for it and that every problem that we have is reducible to that.

So we never have discussions about malignant narcissism. We never have discussions about what Dr. Jordan Peterson is talking about.

We don't have a Dr. Jordan Peterson and I think that's appalling in the 21st century.

It's appalling but utterly predictable. This is called confirmation bias.

When you benefit from some position, ideology, idea, belief or value, you tend to filter out information that countervails or contradicts it because you benefit and you want to continue to benefit.

So you don't want to be contradicted or doubted and so you filter out and you on the contrary filter in, you accept, you adopt your information that supports your preconceived notions and biases and prejudices and so on.

Now, the main industry of the black community is victimhood, the main industry. In a variety of ways, crime is a form of victimhood.

The victims of crime, victims of crime are of course victims. Everything is about victimhood and so.

Let me just jump in here real quick, Dr. Vatnam, because I'm gonna tell you something.

In my position as a talk show host, one of the big debates over the past year, year and a half in black American circles on YouTube and Facebook and whatnot where my show can be heard is the idea between black men and black women, that black women scorn the straight arrow guys like me and suck and fuck the worst type of guys in black community, the gang bangers, ne'er-do-wells and all the rest of it.

And the argument goes that we are, guys like me, are supposed to be the cleanup man for all the fallout between these black women getting with these knuckleheads. And we gotta go back and clean up the community. We gotta go back and uplift the community. We gotta be mentors to their kids and all this stuff.

And I started to stir online in the past few years by declaring that I refuse to be the cleanup man. And you should see the sheer reaction I get, not just from black women, which would be understandable, but a not insignificant number of black men too.

True.

True.

They feel that I have a duty to serve the community, which really means being a cleanup man after these black women and the worst kind of black men that they want to suck and fuck. Yep.

I think we could call it a day here and reserve the right to continue this conversation.

Yes, yes, please. Thank you so much, Dr.Vaknin for all the crap that we had to go through to get this together. I'm glad that it finally happened. And thank you so much for your time and we definitely to be continued.

I gotta bring you back. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you.

****REDACTED

Thank you. Bye-bye.

Ladies and gentlemen, that was Dr. Sam Vaknin, world expert on malignant narcissism. Get his book. You got to get his book, Malignant Narcissism Revisited. It's in its 10th edition. You can get it on amazon.com. It's like the Bible of narcissism.

You want to understand what narcissism is, narcissistic personality disorder, all that stuff. You want to understand that how it manifests in its various ways in daily life and beyond. You got to get that book.

I want to thank everybody for taking the time out to listen to this exclusive interview. Be prepared for more such exclusive interviews to come in 2019.

With that, I'm going to say peace. We are gone.