The narcissist operates through a mechanism called shared fantasy.

Was first discovered in 1989 and described in 1989.

So a shared fantasy is a fantastic space, which guarantees the gratification of the psychological needs of the intimate partner.

One of the main aspects of the shared fantasy is idealization.

So now this is the first stage, is love bombing and idealizing the partner.

But the narcissist has a special twist.

Many, many, many types of mental, mentally ill people idealize, for example, border lines, idealize psychopaths, actually idealize example, but the narcissist idealization has a twist.

He idealizes you and then he gives you access to your own idealized image. He lets you see yourself through his eyes, through his gaze. You fall in love with yourself through the narcissist gaze.

In this sense, he recreates for you the maternal experience. You know, the mother looks at the babies. Isn’t he the most beautiful baby ever? Of course he’s not. He looks like a monkey, but in her mind, she idealizes it.

So the narcissist allows you to give you a second chance at a childhood with the mother who sees you in an idealized way and loves you unconditionally.

This is addictive. This is totally addictive.

So he hooks you this way.

And then within, I don’t want now to go through all the, there are seven phases of shared fantasy. It’s a very long thing. And there’s a video on my channel about the seven stages of shared fantasy.

But in a nutshell, having done this, the narcissist then converts you into a maternal figure.

So having hooked you by providing you the drug of maternal love, in effect, he then tries to convert you into his own mother.

It’s like, I call it dual mothership. It’s like, I’ll be your mother. You’ll be my mother.

And he wants you to love him as unconditionally as he loves you.

Yes. So he wants you to idealize him. This is called co-idealization. He wants you to idealize him.

And then he wants you to love him unconditionally, but he needs to test you.

How would he know that you do love him unconditionally? Don’t forget that narcissists are paralipomena. They have persecretary delusions.

So he needs to test you.

This is the first stage of narcissistic abuse.

The narcissist starts to abuse you initially is to test you to see if you’re really a good enough mother who would love him unconditionally.

He pushes the envelope. He escalates. He goes further and further all the time testing you. Will you stay? Will you love him? Will you accept him as he is? Will you absorb the abuse and still be there for him as a mother?

Okay. And then if you pass this test, you become his maternal image figure.

Then he begins to interact with you as a maternal figure.

The problem is this. He wants you to be his mother because he wants to reenact or replay with you his original childhood. He wants to get it right this time. He got it wrong then.

Now he wants to get it right.

So he wants you to be a mother and he wants to separate from you. He wants to separate and become an individual, individual. To separate from you, he needs to devalue you.

So then he must devalue you and discard you. This is symbolic separation.

I got rid of my mother. I’m now a free man and now a person, this person.

No, but there’s a problem. He gets rid of the external object. He discards you, lets you go, approaches you away, but the internal object remains.

It’s still there and it’s still idealized.

This creates a tremendous dissonance in the narcissist.

And so he would need to bring you back and re-idealize you or create an alternative internal object that is even stronger than your internal object.

So some narcissists try another intimate partner and many narcissists hoover you, bring you back.

And the cycle starts all over again. It’s Sisyphean work.

The narcissist tries to separate an individual all his life and to his dying day he fails. In the process, he accumulates a library of introjects, a library of internal objects, each one of which represents a past intimate partner.

So he has this huge library of intimate partners, 20, 30, you know, intimate partners. All of them psychodynamically active. All of them competing with each other.

And this is a narcissist’s predicament. That’s his verdict. This is punishment.

Actually, people want to punish a narcissist, take revenge. This there’s no need. There’s absolutely no need.

He punishes himself.

What would be the most significant difference between female and a male narcissist? Is there any ideas for that? Not psychologically, but socially and culturally.

Yes, of course. The genders, the difference between a male and a female narcissist is not psychological. There is no psychological difference between the two.

However, they fulfill different gender roles. In other words, the difference is socio-cultural in specific societies and cultures and periods in history, women and men manifest to express their underlying psychology differently.

So in the 1950s and 50s and 70s, a woman would have expressed her grandioseity via her home, her domestic chores. So she would say, I’m the greatest housewife. I’m the best mother.

And a man would say, I’m a great earner and a provider. I make money. I’m a winner.

It’s today, it’s much more blurred because we are transitioning to a uni gender. We are actually becoming a single gender. Everyone is the same.

And so more and more women, first of all, a bigger number of women are diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. While in the United States, while in the sixties and seventies, only 25% of people diagnosed with NPD were women.

Today, the number is 50, 50, 50. And the second thing is that more and more women manifest their narcissism almost identically to men. For example, cheating, romantic cheating has exploded among women. It has risen five times over the past 30 years. Women describe themselves in masculine terms, predominantly.

And so the differences are disappearing. Shortly we will be in a uni gender society where narcissism will be identically expressed across what used to be genders. And narcissism will become a form of religion, private religion, but it’s not a different issue.

Thank you.

Based on your evidence and research, you talk very openly about very difficult subjects, incest, parental abuse, certain political issues. What are your views on on such things as cancel culture and the whole woke movement and trying to keep all narratives politically correct? What’s your view on this? Where is this leading us?

So my view is the view of clinical psychology. In the past few years, we have begun to study victim mode movements and the psychology of victim movement. So we have, for example, studies by Gabbay, Gabbay and allies, four massive studies conducted mainly in Israel. We have studies in British Columbia and so forth, and I’ll summarize them for you. What we’re beginning to find is that certain people are prone to adopt victimhood as an identity. Their victimhood is their identity. Their victimhood endows their life with meaning, makes sense of the world.

So it’s an organizing principle. They would seek to be victims even in situations where they would not have been victimized otherwise. When they are not victimized, they push you to victimize them. This is called projective identification.

And so there is something called TIV. TIV is a new psychological construct describing these kind of people.

You can see these people online, for example, in the empaths movement and other nonsensical labels, where these people are actually very narcissistic, very grandiose, extremely aggressive, lacking in empathy of any kind. And yet they claim that they have been victimized all their lives because they are super empathic and they are sensitive and so forth. And they are proud of their victimhood. They compete with each other.

My abuser was much worse than your abuser. No, my abuse was unprecedented. I understand that you were abused. I’m sorry for you, but my abuse was much.

And so it’s identity politics, because identity politics. A separate set of studies in Canada and elsewhere has shown that very fast, very soon, within usually two to three years maximum, victimhood movements such as Me Too, Black Lives Matter, and so on, get hijacked by narcissists and psychopaths. So the infiltration of narcissists and psychopaths is universal in all these victimhood movements, and they become the public face of the movement.

Victimhood movements are one of the most threatening and pernicious developments.

There is a sociologist by the name of Campbell, and he said that we have transitioned from the age of dignity to the age of victimhood. It’s very dangerous because if you are a perennial victim, if this is your identity, if you are determined by your victim, you would tend to develop attendant behaviors. For example, you would tend to feel entitled to special treatment. And if you don’t get this special treatment, you will become aggressive.

And this is the irony. This was first described by Kaupmann. There’s a guy called Kaupmann, and he described what he called the drama triangle. And he said abusers, the drama triangle includes abuser, victim, and rescuer or savior.

But he said these roles are not fixed. When the victim is not gratified by the rescuer, she becomes an abuser. And when the abuser witnesses the behavior of the rescuer, he tries to be the rescuer.

So everyone cycles.

What I’m trying to say is that the potential for aggression and even violence in victimhood movements is much larger than in the general population. And even I would go as far as saying that it’s equal to psychopathic movements.

For example, the Nazi movement. Of course, the Nazi was a victimhood movement. Nazis presented themselves as victims of the Versailles agreement, of the world order, Germany was discriminated against, and look at where it led.

Similarly, communism was a victimhood movement. The proletariat was exploited by the landowners, and by the industrialists, and so on. We need to redress grievances. Anything that is grievance based leads to violence and death, end of story. All death cults started as victimhood movements. ISIS is no exception.

So it’s interesting.

Okay. Thank you. We have one last question for the taped version.

How do you see male identity state in today’s Western culture, or global culture, if they’re the same, especially when the coveted off-the-mill stereotype is basically a psychopath?

There is a huge confusion between sexual identity, sexual orientation, and gender roles. Sexual identity is the innate feeling, the self-perception that you are either male or female. It’s largely biologically determined. You tend to attribute yourself certain identity parameters based on your genitalia, basically.

Sexual identity can be dysphoric in the sense that you could have one set of genitalia, but feel of the opposite sex.

And that is the foundation for the transgender movement.

But transgender movement is an excellent example of the confusion because they confuse sexual identity with sexual orientation.

They say, I was born a man with a set of genitalia of a man, but I always felt like a woman. And how do I know that I felt like a woman? Because I’m attracted to men.

But being attracted to men is not sexual identity. It’s sexual orientation. You could feel like 100% men and be attracted to men. Your attraction has nothing to do with your sexual identity.

So there’s a enormous confusion.

And above all, the biggest confusion is in gender roles. Gender roles have nothing whatsoever, not even remotely, to do with your biology. None, zero, zilch, nothing.

So, statistically, of course, if you are born with a penis, society, your parents, the agents of socialization, your peers, your teachers, your neighbors, you name it, role models, mass media, they will broadcast to you that if you have a penis, here is the set of behaviors that you should adopt. Boys don’t play with dogs.

They also teach you social-sexual scripts. They tell you, if you have a penis, you should pay for the drinks. In the past, at least. So these are social-cultural messages.

They are part of the process of socialization and acculturation. They have nothing to do with biology, sexual identity, sexual orientation. This is the enormous source of confusion today with regards to masculinity and femininity. Male and female are real categories. Women are not.

We do have societies where men have roles which are identical to female roles in other societies. And these are not liberal or progressive societies. Northern Albania. In Northern Albania, a woman can decide to be a man. All she has to do is bind her chest. And from that moment, she is allowed to sit with a man in coffee houses, to smoke. She has all the privileges of men. It’s a decision.

She just announces, gets up one morning and says, I’m a man. So there is no such thing as masculinity. That’s the irony. Masculinity is a confusion or conflation of sexual identity, sexual orientation.

And gender roles.

And because there is no such thing as masculinity, when we started to have fluid, fluid sexual identities, and when we started to legitimize sexual orientations, we got completely confused when it comes to gender roles.

Because we mistakenly connected these. Fluidity should be, should exist on the level of identity and orientation. On the level of gender roles, we should realize that either we can safely abolish them, we can redefine them, we can play with them.

They are not necessary. Gender roles are not necessary. They reflected economic, economic kind of.

So men, you needed muscles in the agricultural revolution. So men became dominant.

Economic distribution of wealth, economic distribution of allocation of resources, determined gender role.

Today, women and men are becoming one. Unigender. 43% of primary breadwinners in the United States are women. Women outweigh men in college graduation. Almost two to one. That’s the best predictor of future income.

Under age 25, women earn considerably more than men. Women do begin to fulfill traditional male roles during World War II. Most traditional male roles were fulfilled by women because the men were all fighting.

This is nonsense. All this conversation about masculinity, femininity, gender roles, men, women, this is nonsense. Total nonsense and not founded on anything that is scientific.

I think that’s a great way to end an interview for Men’s Magazine. Could you have more stars? Thank you so much. Thank you for your time. Wonderful interview.

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Okay, we’re going to have a little cigarette break.

Is that okay?.