Okay, shovavim, 4K12.

This is my last video, so I’m going to tie loose ends pertaining to the previous 620 videos.

I’m going to start with the most burning question, the question that weighs on your mind as your relationships disintegrate, your children are involved in enmeshed and immersed in custody battles, you are impoverished, there is a pandemic, Donald Trump is no longer president. All this is swirling around the world, but none of this seems to bother you.

There’s only one question, one question that torments you in nightmares and in waking hours, is glass really liquid?

As I had said in my previous video, I have received umpteen emails and comments, most of them from people who find it extremely challenging to spell, but were sufficiently knowledgeable about solid state physics to inform me that I’m wrong and glass is not liquid.

Well, if you want to get technical with me, glass has two phases, a supercooled liquid, and then through the glass transition temperature, it becomes what we call an amorphous solid.

An amorphous solid is actually a liquid, I’m sorry to inform you.

I advise you to go online and type if you are capable of typing, the keywords glass liquid scientific, sorry big word, American, that I’m sure you know how to spell, glass liquid scientific American.

Okay, did we dispense with this earth shattering pivotal question? I really, really hope so, because to remind you, these videos are not about liquid glass or not even about solid glass.

These videos, ladies and gentlemen, babies and bebets, these videos, kiddos, are about narcissism.

So, let’s get straight to the point.

I want to read to you the narcissist universal transaction rules.

These rules pertain to all the narcissist relationships, romantic relationships, parental relationships, in business, in the workplace, in politics, you name it. Wherever there’s a narcissist he adheres or she adheres to these four very simple rules.

Once you have this key, once you have this key, you can decode, decrypt and decipher the narcissist in your life, if you’re that unlucky.

Rule number one, so, these are the narcissist universal transaction rules.

Rule number one, as long as you regularly provide me with at least two out of three assets, sex, sadistic or narcissistic, supply, services, money, power.

So, sex, supply, services. Services could mean money, could mean power, access, contacts, you name it, services. As long as you provide me with two out of these three, for example, sex and services, supply and services, supply and sex, as long as, you know, two out of three.

I am your unboundaried slavish doormat and you can walk all over me and otherwise misbehave as you please.

Rule number two, give me only one out of the three assets, give me none of the three assets and I will sadistically abuse you. I will test you to the breaking point. I will punish you for failing to gratify me and my needs.

Rule number three, threaten to abandon me or attempt to abandon me and I will either hoover you or failing that, I will stop you on condition that you did not mortify me.

Rule number four, try to bargain with me, try to change me, fix me, try to set rules and boundaries, try to insist on long term commitment on my part or some kind of investment and I’m gone. I’m gone long before you can finish the sentence. I’m gone as soon as I can find someone to take your place, which you may find harrowing to discover is more easy than you think.

You’re all interchangeable, dispensable. Bear that in mind.

Okay, here’s a comment on Instagram by Gummy Sprinkles.

Sorry about that. The comment is, dear Sam, the message in this video made me want to reread Lolita. After you read the letter the woman had sent in her narcissist husband being at heart a little girl. It provoked me to think that perhaps Lolita, the little girl that the narrator drew into a relationship with the within the novel might be his inner child, his inner little girl or at least she was able to reach his inner child in a trauma in a way that made it irresistible for him to become involved with her. It seemed that her irresistible to him was attributable to a healing quality that she had on him. He had a very wounded psyche.

The little girl for her part had been deprived of a father after he died while she was a young child. It seems that both the narrator and the little girl Lolita might have been projecting onto each other, onto one another, sorry, during their sexual relationship. Alternatively, the narrator may have been projecting his inner anima onto Lolita, as in the scenario you described, wherein men sometimes interact in sexual same-sex relationships. It seems that Nabokov could have been exploring many different potential scenarios.

There was homoeroticism woven into the story from start to finish.

Only since he may have also been exploring inner trauma that though the narrator describes attributable to his first love, a young girl might have actually been his mother. In any case, I just wanted to share my thoughts with you.

Do you like the novel, Lolita? I hope you read it. I hope you read it. If not, I apologize. Thanks so much for your provocative videos.

Nabokov, the bookies or the novelies, Lolita, the one and only, an amazing, amazing, amazing novel. Let me enlarge the font a bit because I’m so advanced in age and I can hardly see the computer. All right, much better, much better babes and bebets, guys and gayets.

Now I can continue to torment you with full impunity and with a much larger font.

Okay, let’s talk a bit about rejection. I told you this video is about loose ends. It’s a kind of a smorgasbord. It’s a buffet or whatever you want to call it.

Right now, another issue is rejection and the way people actually, men and women, react to rejection.

Women and to a lesser degree, men who are truly rejected by their loved ones and intimate partners, sometimes go through two phases.

Phase number one, acting out. Phase number two, sublimation. Phase two, amazingly follows phase one.

The first phase involves reckless and self-destructive self-trashing, punishing oneself for one’s failure to hold on to one’s relationship or marriage.

For example, women rejected by men they love, often consort with low life scum. The temporary boost to their self-esteem and the gratification of both sexual and emotional needs typically come replete with a very high price tag.

Rape is common and so are sexually transmitted diseases. Promiscuity and dissolution are followed by almost schizoid withdrawal.

So first, the rejected party becomes promiscuous, dissolute, reckless, loses control over herself and her conduct.

And then there’s a second phase of total withdrawal, reclusiveness, the schizoid phase, the schizoid withdrawal and an obsessive compulsive focus on something.

Religion, children, career, activism, food, hobbies, I don’t know what. During this phase, sex aversion is very common. There is sex avoidance, sexual avoidance, celibacy.

In this second phase, celibacy is coupled with growing addictive and self-soothing behaviors.

Many remain stuck in this limbo in this second phase for life, unable and unwilling to risk a repeat of the harrowing cycle in a new liaison. Look it up.

Okay.

I want to alert you to a new episode in the BBC Podcast Witness History Podcast. The BBC has a Witness History Podcast, Google, and they just released a new episode and it’s about, believe it or not, the good enough mother, something I’ve been discussing in my last few videos.

I’ll propose this before we proceed.

Many of you have written to me, why don’t you make videos about narcissistic parents, co-parenting with a narcissist? Why don’t you search a channel?

There are, hold your breath, 82 videos, including 12 videos in the past six months, which deal with parenting, dead mothers, the role of the father, co-parenting.

I think I have a co-parenting video with Richard Renner. I mean, there’s a wealth of information about narcissistic parenting and co-parenting.

82 videos, do you really need an 83rd one?

Guys, go to the upper part of the page on your screen. Look if you’re capable of reading and find the word about. Next to the word about, there’s a magnifying glass, this long obscure forgotten object. Click on this magnifying glass and lo and behold, a search box will open. Type the word you’re looking for, example, parenting, mother, father, co-parenting, type it, just type it, you do it with a finger if you don’t know how to do it. Type the word in this open search dialogue box and YouTube will help you to find these 82 aforementioned videos. And you will not be asking me questions that waste my time unnecessarily. Good. I’m glad we agree.

Back to the BBC, Witness History podcast, the latest episode, The Good Enough Mother. Here’s what they say, psychoanalyst and pediatrician, actually reverse order. He was a pediatrician much, much later. He became a psychoanalyst.

Donald Winnicott helped shape childcare in Britain and throughout the world, mind you, through a series of BBC radio broadcasts in the 1940s and 1950s.

Bet you didn’t know that. He suggested mothers did best when they followed their instincts, got to know their babies and ignored prescribed rules.

The same message as the famous Benjamin Spock, Dr. Spock.

Winnicott became most famous for developing the idea of what he called the good enough mother. He also introduced the term transitional object to describe the favorite teddy bear that babies cling to.

He suggested that the teddy bear represented an important phase of development, helping babies develop a sense of self separate from their mothers. The teddy bear also represents other people, so it helps to develop object relations.

Claire Beaulieu has been speaking to retired psychoanalyst Jennifer Jones, who knew David Winnicott personally.

Absolute must listen to this podcast episode.

Okay. I want to read the poem. No, no. Don’t get alarmed. Don’t leave. Come back.

It’s not my poem. It’s not the poem I wrote.

For a minute there, I thought I’d lost all of you. I know my poems are a pain in the whatever part you use to listen to them.

Despite the fact that my poems had won international, numerous international prizes. But this time I’m not going to torture you with my poem. I’m going to torture you with someone else’s poem.

Torturing is fun. You should try it once.

The poem is The Valuable Time of Maturity by Mario de Andrade, a Brazilian, of course. And it is courtesy, I mean, Lydia, my wife.

Draw my attention to it.

So here’s the poem, The Valuable Time of Maturity.

I counted my years and discovered that I have less time to live going forward than I have lived until now.

I have more past than future.

I feel like the boy who received a bowl of candies.

The first ones he ate ungraciously, but when he realized that there were only a few left, he began to taste them deeply.

I do not have time to deal with mediocrity. I do not want to be in meetings where parade inflamed egos.

I’m bothered by the envy who seek to discredit the most able to usurp their places, coveting their seats, talent, achievements and luck.

I do not have time for endless conversations, useless to discuss about the lives of others who are not part of mine. I do not have time to manage sensitivities of people who, despite their chronological age, are immature.

I cannot stand the result that generates from those struggling for power. People do not discuss content, only the labels.

My time has become scarce to discuss labels. I want the essence. My soul is in a hurry.

Not many candies are left in the bowl. I want to live close to human people, very human, who laugh of their own stumbles and away from those turned smug and overconfident with their triumphs, away from those filled with self-importance who does not run away from their responsibilities.

People who defend human dignity and who only want to walk on the side of truth and honesty, the essential is what makes life worthwhile.

I want to surround myself with people who know how to touch the hearts of people, people to whom the hard knocks of life taught them to grow with softness in their soul.

Yes, I’m in a hurry to live with intensity that only maturity can bring.

I intend not to waste any part of the goodies I’ve left. I’m sure they will be more exquisite, the more of which so far I have eaten.

My goal is to arrive to the end, satisfied and in peace with my loved ones and with my conscience.

I hope that your goal is the same, because either way, you will get there too.

Mario Vazquez.

Wonderful.

Okay, let’s talk a bit about gold diggers and I want to give you a perspective of someone who looks at the narcissist from a gold digger’s point of view.

She’s not a gold digger, she’s not a gold digger, but she had placed herself in the shoes of a gold digger.

How would a gold digger look at a narcissist, at a potential sugar daddy?

A gold digger, to remind you, is a partner, male or female, more commonly female, but could be a male, a gigolo, for example.

So a partner who aims to extort money and monetary benefits from a vulnerable old man, intimate partner and so on, leveraging inadequacies and flaws in the other person.

So a gold digger is a really harsh label and this is how this woman tried to put herself in a gold digger’s shoes and look at a narcissist, in this case, me.

Dr. Vaknin, if I was looking for a sugar daddy, you would be the top of my list.

Why?

Because if you regard your only option to be partaking in a doomed relationship, regardless of whomever it’s with, all I’d have to do is bide my time and wait for an opening.

It wouldn’t matter if it was me who was with you or any other woman since, according to you, it will play out the same way regardless.

So I would be interchangeable, but this interchangeability would give me the upper hand.

Being interchangeable should be a source of insecurity, but it wouldn’t be with you. You would be more motivated to sustain the relationship than I would, because there aren’t any better options for you, according to you.

As long as I don’t so-called abandon you, this relationship would persist.

What would that mean for me?

I would get two walls into your life. I would get to set all the turns. I’d use you for a place to stay and as a meal ticket. And then I would go on living some kind of parallel life with you, with other men.

You would get to feel bad about yourself all the time if you’re prone to doing so. And maybe I could even play the victim if you resent me for the way I behave. And if you need me to tell you who you are, you might even believe me. Even though I’d be having my cake and eating it too, while you sit there hoping things would work out this time.

So please, consider whether this belief is what’s best for you or what’s best for whoever is exploiting you.