Youtube comments of Dharmadasa (@dharmadasa66).

  1. 55
  2. 35
  3. 33
  4. 28
  5. 22
  6. 21
  7. 21
  8. 21
  9. 20
  10. 18
  11. 16
  12. 15
  13. 14
  14. 14
  15. 13
  16. 12
  17. 12
  18. Of course it's the globalist oligarchs and bankers who call the shots on everything, they are the money power and have bought up both sides of politics and all the media outets, what reflexive lefties won't admit is the rhetoric of inclusion, diversity and multiculturalism was engineered by these very same plutocrats to be unleashed on the native working class through the left. How much has identity politics, beloved of the petit-bourgeois university chattering class, been used invalidate working-class concerns? How much has fake champagne socialism, feminism and every brand of weirdness been used to castigate working men? The Guardian and BBC left, while loyal to their middle class roots, are traitors to the national interest. The working class, betrayed by the left, may opt to go hard right. All the fascists need to do is disavow the bankers and corporate crony capitalists and they will be a shoo-in. Don't imagine for a second that the far-right is necessarily dominated by big business. The plutocrats long ago co-opted the middle-class against the working class using those sterile ideologies. The funny thing is, big business will soon make the middle class redundant as robotics and AI removes the need for any human skill. The middle class left, having spat upon the working class for decades, will soon join them as all jobs will be executed by AI and robotic technology, and with no economic reason for existence, the middle class will also be reduced to the status of 'useless eaters' and hence be dispensable (i.e. surplus to requirements). Karma is a bitch. Welcome to 1984.
    12
  19. 10
  20. 10
  21. 10
  22. 10
  23. 10
  24. 9
  25. 9
  26. 9
  27. 9
  28. 8
  29. 8
  30. 8
  31. 8
  32. 7
  33. 7
  34. 7
  35. 7
  36. 7
  37. 6
  38. 6
  39. 6
  40. 5
  41. 5
  42. 5
  43. 5
  44. 5
  45. 5
  46. 5
  47. 5
  48. 5
  49. 5
  50. 5
  51. 5
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 4
  59. 4
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 4
  69. 4
  70. 4
  71. 4
  72. 4
  73. 4
  74. 4
  75. 4
  76. 4
  77. 4
  78. 4
  79. 4
  80. 4
  81. 4
  82. 4
  83. 4
  84. 4
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. 3
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 3
  96. 3
  97. 3
  98. 3
  99. 3
  100. This is so true. It's the globalist oligarchs and bankers behind it all. What the reflexive lefties won't admit is the rhetoric of inclusion, diversity and multiculturalism was engineered by these very same plutocrats to be unleashed on the native working class through the left. How much has identity politics, beloved of the petit-bourgeois university chattering class, been used invalidate working-class concerns? How much has fake champagne socialism, feminism and every brand of weirdness been used to castigate working men? The Guardian and BBC left, while loyal to their middle class roots, are traitors to the national interest. Working men, betrayed by the left, may opt to go hard right if you're not careful. All the fascists need to do is disavow the bankers and corporate crony capitalists and they will be a shoo-in. Don't imagine for a second that the far-right is necessarily dominated by big business. The plutocrats long ago co-opted the middle-class against the working class using those sterile ideologies. The funny thing is, big business will soon make the middle class redundant as robotics and AI removes the need for any human skill. The middle class left, having spat upon the working class for decades, will soon join them as all jobs will be executed by AI and robotic technology, and with no economic reason for existence, the middle class will also be reduced to the status of 'useless eaters' and hence be dispensable (i.e. surplus to requirements). Karma is a bitch. Welcome to 1984.
    3
  101. 3
  102. 3
  103. 3
  104. 3
  105. 3
  106. 3
  107. 3
  108. 3
  109. 3
  110. 3
  111. 3
  112. 3
  113. 3
  114. 3
  115. 3
  116. 3
  117. 3
  118. 3
  119. 3
  120. 3
  121. 3
  122. 3
  123. 3
  124. 3
  125. 3
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. ​ @jamesscott5874  Of course it's the globalist oligarchs and bankers, but what reflexive lefties won't admit is the rhetoric of inclusion, diversity and multiculturalism was engineered by these very same plutocrats to be unleashed on the native working class through the left. How much has identity politics, beloved of the petit-bourgeois university chattering class, been used invalidate working-class concerns? How much has fake champagne socialism, feminism and every brand of weirdness been used to castigate working men? The left, while loyal to their middle class roots, are traitors to the national interest. Working men, betrayed by the left, may opt to go hard right if you're not careful. All the fascists need to do is disavow the bankers and corporate crony capitalists and they will be a shoo-in. Don't imagine for a second that the far-right is necessarily dominated by big business. The plutocrats long ago co-opted the middle-class against the working class using those sterile ideologies. The funny thing is, big business will soon make the middle class redundant as robotics and AI removes the need for any human skill. The middle class left, having spat upon the working class for decades, will soon join them as all jobs will be executed by AI and robotic technology, and with no economic reason for existence, the middle class will also be reduced to the status of 'useless eaters' and hence be dispensable (i.e. surplus to requirements). Karma is a bitch. Welcome to 1984.
    2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. 2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. It's inevitable that as the topic gains traction people with poor understanding flood in and re-interpret, dilute and dumb it down. But the need for quality endures. Joker, you have a reputation for providing that quality which will always have a place. It terms of new content, whereas financial advice and other forms of practical guidance are interesting, you will be up against experts in those areas. Perhaps the core should be analysis of the inevitable 'push back' that will also evolve into the future from women, feminists, social institutions and the 'powers that be'. They will throw everything they have at the bridgeheads that have been established and will inevitably distort and misrepresent the truths. A seasoned analyst will have no shortage of relevant material to address and can help save the philosophy from the rabid reactions and counter-reactions that will evolve. Whereas some will fight any steps towards finding a path forwards, one could argue that reconciliation based on a core of men's (and women's) true interests could be explored, not by giving ground but by asserting higher principles. Interestingly, Sandman admitted in his recent interview with Simone and Malcolm Collins that it is possible that the whole topic is being used by the powers that be to further divide and set us against each other. Common sense, experience and a positive disposition such as you have in abundance will be required to re-assert and consolidate the message while offering hope for the future to all.
    1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470.  @AmaraTurner-vk7vw  "what I think is of ‘value’ that I’m offering men, is in fact not what men ‘value’ at all". Exactly correct. The rest of your reply has serious misconceptions. A woman having intelligence is not a turn off nor is it threatening to men. They are not intimidated. Several things are going on here: other than looks, men value women for their femininity, sweetness, kindness, good-hearted-ness, character etc. that will enrich their lives and make the women pleasant and agreeable and supportive and loving and good partners and good mothers etc. Her intellect, her achievements and earning potential etc. are nice add-ons but not the main game. Her social status (Ivy League etc.) is meaningless, worthless to a man. Women typically think "I want a high status, secure man who can provide and protect --- therefore, I will become that too because surely that is what a man will want in me?" No, no, no. I'll say it again - No. The problem is that in becoming high status and competing in the workforce, women have become not only mannish, but the worst of 'mannishness': combative, argumentative, hostile, disagreeable, inflated sense of self-worth etc. They typically are incapable of extending the best of what they thus acquire to benefit their partners. Of necessity, they must compete in the workplace and do not know how to relax and be feminine outside it. Good men who compete all their lives in the workforce may be susceptible to carry-over at home but are generally better at putting it aside. Men want someone to complement them, not be them. They want what they do not have, namely femininity. Femininity is not weakness, despite what the feminist claim. Femininity can be immensely strong, through nobility of character. If a man primarily seeks money and status in a woman he is not much of a man. If a man depends upon a woman to provide these qualities, do women want him? This is not to say that both incomes cannot go towards the household budget. Men are not intimidated by a woman's 'success' (defined on masculine terms). They are repulsed by what goes with it all too often: misaligned masculine energy that women do not know how to wield. Sure, be intelligent, capable and a 'success': and be agreeable, kind, supportive, open-hearted. It's really not that different to men. A woman wants a successful man who is kind, supportive and good-hearted. Character overcomes deficiencies in looks. The best qualities of character in men and women overlap but are expressed in different styles. Both should have integrity, class, temperance, good-heartedness, compassion, ethics etc. Modern women are particularly bad at integrating the demands of modernity with empowered femininity. Feminism has taught them a warped version which they lack the character to adjust appropriately. Feminism deprecates femininity claiming it is the result of societal gender constructs that benefit men. Feminism deprecates masculinity claiming it is a patriarchal gendered construct, toxic and responsible for all evil in the world. It is a terrible doctrine which disempowers both sexes and leads to regrettably feminized weak men and masculine women who are quite incapable of using that energy appropriately.
    1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651.  @lari5891  I doubt you have a PhD in psychology because your writings are full of spelling and grammatical errors and you make illogical inferences and extrapolations that are not supported by data. No PhD would argue the way you do based on wrong data, incorrect inference and gross errors. You said "most couples develop value together". I pointed out that most LTRs fail, so it cannot be said that most 'couples' develop value together, taking LTRs as the designated example of 'couples'. Perhaps they develop some value in the short-term but as they fail, the value is questionable. I then took marriage as the pinnacle of 'couples', insofar as marriage represents the most formal and socially endorsed 'coupling' available. As 50% of these also fail, your assertion that 'most couples develop value together' must be wrong. LTRs plus marriage ending in break-up or divorce = most couples do NOT develop value together. You ask what does divorce have to do with that? Well, if a couple breaks up or divorces, then by definition the relationship has failed, therefore you cannot assert that most couples build value. Clearly, most do not. Most couples fail at building value. The divorce rates rise significantly the more the woman is educated. If a woman has a Batchelor's degree from college, she will be the one to initiate divorce in 90% of cases. You are dead wrong in asserting the divorce rate is 30% among the educated. The doctor is trying to speak to women about their relationship strategies. It is an uphill tasks because many women (like you) are incapable of drawing correct conclusions from data and concepts, instead you react emotionally because you don't like the facts. Admit it, you don't have a PhD in psychology. If you do, you got it from the university of delusion.
    1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1