Raze

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IqVDvnDEJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hOwNudcVgI https://www.girlschase.com/content/secrets-getting-girls-staying-out-auto-rejection https://www.girlschase.com/content/tactics-tuesdays-how-turn-around-girl-auto-rejection

People like Zuckerberg and Bezos are just adopting to the side they think benefits them. When it was the left they were signaling for leftist identity politics. After Bezos became a punching bag for AOC and Bernie and the establishment dems turned on Zuckerberg and berated him at hearings, they began shifting their image to appeal to the ascendant right.

I would say it’s the anger in his voice when he rails against the rich and powerful which connects to people who feel crushed by the system

The evidence the video presents, indicates her issue was policy, not vibes. Most voters viewed her as too far left because of all her virtue signaling in her career They had tested ads and policy statements that shifted voter opinions but didn’t capitalize on it The views the voters saw as the most important they also trusted republicans more on If we add this and also presume everyone loved trumps vibes and hated Kamala’s and vibes is even more important, she would have lost in a landslide. But she didn’t really. Her vibes were bad, but so were trumps. I’d say her biggest vibe issue wasn’t even charisma, but coming across as establishment.

He would have a base regardless of his vibes. Kamala has a base. Biden has a base. A jazzed up base is primarily for winning a primary. They are washed out by the majority in the actual election. Democrats just kneecap themselves by going against their own base expecting other groups that barely exist to help make up for it which doesn’t happen. But normally the two bases are assured and the victory is won through everyone else. The issue is you’re assuming Trump winning means he is liked. It doesn’t, it just means he’s liked more than Kamala Harris. He had majority disapproval going into 2024.

Israel is splitting into two sides, a right wing side which enjoys the bloodshed, and a left wing side which is against it because of how it effects them personally. The country is beginning to fall apart as international approval craters and the vital workers and economic elite start leaving as they’re sick of rising prices and being drafted. The left realized that the war continues despite this to maintain the political coalition in power and Netanyahu is sacrificing their futures for his own power, so they’re largely against the war, but they don’t care at all what happens to Palestinians and are demoralized from their protests failing to achieve anything. The main reason they’ll lose is because while the right wing is willing to work with the ultra orthodox minority giving them a governing majority, the left wing refuses to work with the Arab citizen minority out of nationalism and racism. They refuse to self introspect on how they supported or allowed everything that lead up to this, from the foreign lobbies which removed any international guardrails on israel’s self destructive behavior, to not fighting the occupation and settlements directly in the preceding years, and now still refusing to work with the international anti-occupation movement and Arab citizens inside Israel.

His base is irrelevant, they were always going to choose him, same with the average Republican voter. Swing and indie voters don’t like his vibes. They didn’t vote for him in 2020. They didn’t suddenly fall in love with him since then, they were disappointed in what democrats did and offered.

Trump has horrible vibes. His approval going into the 2024 election was similar to when he went into the 2020 election, yet he won the latter. The chart that rates voters most important policy issues to who they trust more lines up with them trusting republicans more on most of the issues most important to them. The Kamala Harris ad that did the best was a populist economic ad.

What’s simplistic is insisting its all about vibes and media in the face of more plausible explanations

Yet Biden won in 2020. So that disproves the point.

This video provides clear data breakdown based on a massive sample, yet you all attach yourselves to baseless theories about vibes and development being the cause that don’t even make sense considering the 2020 election 5 years prior. This is attitude an example of why democrats lose, a refusal to engage with the actual reasons.

That’s nonsense. There is no evidence it’s all about vibes. Trump still has relatively low approvals prior to winning. Even if it’s vibes for most people, just a 2-5% difference can create a win, if it isn’t vibes for just 2-5% of voters that’s enough to be relevant. Polls showed Sanders beating trump by over 10%. Polls can be off, but not by that much.

try when therapy doesn’t work by Shelly Young

His study was specifically on enlightenment. Just asking people working in the field would be a biased sample. If anything random civilians who report it would be more accurate as they don’t know the right words to say to appear more advanced then they are. Another example, Jeffery mentioned how one of his researches met 90 year old Buddhist nuns, and they told him when they first became nuns as teenagers when someone came to the ashram they’d almost always attain stream entry in a week to a month. But now people come and could stay for years and most don’t. The practices they taught stayed the same, and the genes of the population there didn’t change during just their life time. He postulates it’s because the techniques lost effectiveness as the human mind changed due to modern media exposure, but that’s clearly not genetic. And like I said having experiences as a kid doesn’t automatically mean it’s genetic. Maybe some sort of fluke accident they have as a kid primes them to develop it later in life. Daniel Ingram cites a early mystical experience he had as a kid while trying to alter his dreams as later leading him to Buddhist meditation.

A stage green culture and society would only form if enough people reached a psychological development to that stage. Stage yellow and turquoise societies don’t exist today but there are a small minority of people at that stage. Marx exemplifies green in his philosophy being anti-hierarchal and demonizing wealthy and powerful. He even questioned the patriarchal structure of the family from that period. He bashed the stage blue and orange systems of his time such as Christianity and Adam Smith, but also didn’t understand the higher teachings of someone like Hegel and said he was bringing him to earth. Obviously due to the context of the society he was brought up in he would have views in line with lower stages today.

That’s because of cultures being passed down. That doesn’t mean it’s genetic. If someone is born in an atheist materialist family they could become enlightened and never tell anyone. If someone was born in a Buddhist practicing family they’d tell everyone and be a teacher and probably be exposed to meditation making it more likely to happen irregardless of genetics. That’s not proof it is genetic. Just because something happens randomly without effort doesn’t automatically mean it is genetic. Dr. Jeffery Martin conducted a study of people who had enlightenment experiences and couldn’t find any genetic correlation. I don’t think he even found a correlation with childhood mystical experiences. Some had that, some had nothing of the sort. For example he reported one guy who was an atheist salesman with no mystical experiences at all who read a spiritual text looking for something to market without believing anything in it who then went to sleep and woke up in a very deep stage of enlightenment. It probably has to do with a glitch of some sort that dissolves part or all of the ego.

If that was true we would see it happen in their relatives at similar rates but we don’t. There isn’t any evidence it’s related to genetics.

That makes no sense, his entire philosophy was tearing apart stage blue and stage orange systems and philosophies and his prescribed replacement was a stage green fantasy. The stages clearly are more relevant to the structure of the persons psychology with the actual beliefs just being correlations

Not really. There is plenty of record of people entering deep states or even becoming enlightened instantly with no prior practice. Theoretically we could figure out what is going on there and induce it in people.

As of now, but I think that can change as Daniel and others have begun seriously studying meditation scientifically

I don’t think Daniel Ingram has truly attained the Buddhist paths as they have been originally described. What he describes seems like a similar but partial version of what is written in the Pali canon and other original texts. I understand he argues those accounts are exaggerated but I’ve heard other examples that sound more similar to them and it’s plausible that the state of the human mind at the time those were written responded to those meditation techniques differently. What I know about the method he used and how it was developed also leads me to believe something like that is possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_dawQLA-mA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwxvUofenC4