Youtube comments of Dharmadasa (@dharmadasa66).
-
55
-
35
-
33
-
28
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
18
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
The definition of rape is being changed across jurisdiction to make it legally impossible to accuse female perpetrators. It used to be sex without consent, and could apply equally to females as well as a male victim who was drugged, asleep, incapacitated eg wheelchair, tied down or a minor (who cannot consent). Now the definition is changing to penetration without consent, thus a woman who has sex with a male victim who is drugged, incapacitated, tied down or a minor (who cannot consent) is not guilty of rape. The only way a women under this definition can rape is if she digitally penetrates her victim anally. This was at the insistence of the feminist lobby and not only does not allow for lack of consent from men as a factor, but also effectively decriminalises sex between adult women and children of both sexes. This is a huge problem because there are many many examples of adult women having sex with children. Such women, if they fall pregnant from an underage male victim, can sue him for child support. Again, an outcome sought by feminism.
13
-
12
-
12
-
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
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
One of the huge issues underlying issues is that women, and men, and feminism, and the patriarchy, and conservatives, and the Church, and both side of politics, in fact all societies everywhere, at all times, see men as disposable. Men have little value in and of themselves, their value is only assessed insofar as it provides a tangible benefit to other interests. All the tolerance of abuse, all the suicides, all the health issues, all the dispossession, all stem from the fact that men are not valued in and of themselves, for themselves. Their problems can only be admitted when it impacts people other than men. Men suffer from an empathy gap, always have, always will.
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
They will aggregate all virtues to themselves and blame all ills on men. Soon, women will claim honour, duty, loyalty, conscientiousness, courage, stoicism, logic and resilience as feminine virtues, along with empathy, intuition, feelings etc., and claim men are the sole bearers of all negativities. Indeed it is already upon us (women are wonderful, and men are toxic). Of course all such virtues can be found in either sex, but the denigration of the other is too far advanced in women to be reversed until a societal collapse forces another reality upon us.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You are deluded. His video, thousands of others, multiple lines of evidence, countless interviews, academic studies and millions upon millions of everyday experiences prove beyond all reasonable doubt that feminism is infected with virulent misandry. Of which perhaps the most obvious is #KillAllMen, but there are literally countless other examples. The vehemence of your post suggests to me you suffer from this malaise and can't stand it being brought to light. Men have heard and understand the message, it's too late for your denialist rant. Oh, and by the way, I'm not an incel, I've been married to the same women for 33 years and have adult sons and daughters. I also accept some tenets to feminism and disagree with others. My taking exception to your silly post has nothing to do with any personal view, I just recognise objective evidence when it presents itself, unlike you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As noted above, high value men do not particularly value high social achievement (education, career success) in women. They already have that stuff themselves. It is not that they hate it, or deprecate it, or are intimidated by it, it just does not count for much in what they want from a woman. These are ancillary or adjunct qualities. What they want is kind-heartedness, empathy, agreeableness, loyalty, support and to be honest, a modicum of looks and sex appeal. That is why high value men are just as likely to marry the hairdresser, barista or waitress as they are the high-powered lawyer or physician. Of course a lawyer or physician can have these eminently feminine qualities if she puts her mind to it. However, most boss babes are mannish, combative and psychologically distorted by the struggle. A high quality woman complements a high quality man in the areas he lacks. Of course also, a female physician and doctor can marry a sweet caring broke man with no career prospects if she wants, but will she really? Will she be happy? How many do this?
The funny thing is, being a high quality women (kind-hearted, empathic, agreeable, loyal, supportive etc.) should in principle not be that hard. It does not take years of work. However, it does take character and that is sadly lacking in modern women today. Men mourn the lack of such women. I also acknowledge that men also suffer form the degradation of character resulting from modernity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Strangely enough, most of what men are looking for comes down to the same basic things: companionship, commitment, emotional support, love etc. That is what makes a proper relationship. So either you are able to find these things, in which case you have no problem, or you can't, in which case your analysis misses the wider social conditions. Society is operating at a very low level due to the erosion of ethics, morality and higher purpose etc. Hypergamous calculations are hard-wired and even the exchange of companionship, commitment, emotional support, love are 'transactional' in that they require an exchange. If the love is one-way, it is not reciprocated. Social science suggests the basal level of transactional calculus is dominant and as the value exchange does not favour men overall they are giving up on relationships. So are women, but in different ways. As others have pointed out, your experience is not really generalisable, and there may also be more subtle expressions of the value exchange implicit in your personal relationships.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nasmurph5453 Commercial media organisations are privately owned companies that compete to make profits through advertising and program sales. Here is a list of the main commercial media owners in Australia:
• The Murdochs. International media mogul Rupert Murdoch owns a number of Australia’s major capital city newspapers, including The Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph and The Courier-Mail. His son, Lachlan Murdoch, is a majority shareholder in Nova, Network Ten, 93.7FM and FiveAA.
• Fairfax. Fairfax owns a number of capital city daily newspapers, including The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, as well as a number of smaller regional newspapers and radio stations including 2UE.
• Kerry Stokes. A major shareholder of Seven, The West Australian and WAFM.
• James Packer. Although the Packer family traditionally owned Channel 9 and Australian Consolidated Press, they sold up much of their media interests. James Packer now owns a substantial share in Network Ten.
• The Gordons. Bruce and Andrew Gordon own a number of regional television stations throughout Australia, including WIN, Ten Mildura, Tasmanian Digital Television and West Digital Television.
In addition to these commercial media outlets, there are the government media outlets such as ABC.
Hence, you are WRONG.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@翁志强-g6p Wumao running dog of CCP gongfei! 50 cent army drone, you are a slave to your crypto-fascist overlords, are you not ashamed you suck up their propaganda? Spreading lies and hatred like a virulent Han chauvinist. Freedom to the peace-loving peoples of China, groaning under the boot of totalitarian tyranny, how they long to breathe the pure air of freedom! Freedom to the peace-loving Tibetans, freedom to the Taiwanese, freedom to Uighurs, freedom from CCP tyranny to all the peoples of China. Rise up and throw off your slave masters 翁志强, you have nothing to lose but your servile chains, free your mind, no more pathetic groveling to gongfei dogs, embrace freedom, the rest of humanity supports you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Follow the money. Those at the top that have trillions at their disposal don't always look for more money, it is a means to a bigger end. They are using the trillions to gain complete control of humanity. They need to get rid of democracy and rule of law to make us their slaves. They have untold numbers of fellow travellers and those they have bought to do the work for them. These include left and conservative politicians, media, industry, academia, education, science, health services, feminists, left-wing activists, influencers etc. etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@toolegittoquit_001 Men want approval and love. Women want money, status, validation, attention, protection, ownership, lifestyle, freedom, entertainment, security, leisure, power and drama. And it's your fault if you don't provide it all.
1
-
1
-
1