Home

Products / English


English

Français Italiano Español Português Català Maltin

Deutsch Nederlands Lëtzebuergesch Gaeilge Scottish Dansk Svenska Norsk Íslensku Suomalainen Eestlane Latvietis Lietuvis

Pусский Беларус українська Polski Česky Slovenský Magyar Română Slovenščina Hrvatski Bosanski Српски Shqiptar български македонски Ελληνικά ქართული Türk हिन्दी

عربى

中国 日本語 한국어





On our English pages, you often see the word "relationships". This is just sanitized language. On our English pages, "relationships" refers to what couples, when not sleeping, do in bed. Or, if so inclined, on the kitchen table.

English is a rather hypocritical language. Many words for natural bodily functions and processes have dirty connotations, and polite speakers like us have to go to considerable length to communicate meanings without naming them. But we nevertheless hope you get the point.


Any man deeply involved with relationships enhancement will likely develop an ideology that allows relationships adventures (Your life according to tongkat ali, part one)


By Serge Kreutz


The opinions each man holds are a reflection of that persons interests. Or, with Karl Marx: It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

Article continues below printscreens

Marx wasn't complete. Because it's not only our social existence which shapes our consciousness. Many biological parameters also do: the degree of our relationships agitation, the level of our fear, and, last not least, the state of our health.

But what Marx was correct about, is this: our consciousness is not a foundation on which we judge the world. Our consciousness is but a product of our life circumstances.

A 50-year old man with a strong libido, effected by a stack of tongkat ali, butea superba, mucuna pruriens, and krachai dam, will hold other opinions about life than a 50-year old man who has lost all interest in relationships.

A man who has lost all interest in relationships will likely believe that it is normal for a normal man his age to no longer be interested in relationships. He will likely advocate a society which emphasizes other aspects of life, rather than relationships satisfaction.

Tongkat ali and other herbal used for relationships enhancement, such as butea superba, mucuna pruriens, kaempferia parviflora, and boesenbergia rotunda definitely make men sexually adventurous. Relationships enhancement will lead many, but not all men to a lifestyle as controversial as that of pickup artists. Many men on tongkat ali or a tongkat ali stack will not stay committed to monogamous relationships.

Sexuality-enhancing men will likely develop certain philosophical, even political, views not for reasons of principle but because they will likely be associated with easier relationships opportunities.

Take for example the concept of personal freedom.

For men who optimize relationships with tongkat ali et al, a high degree of personal freedom is conducive to scoring in relationships adventures.

Unfortunately, the more developed human societies become, the more is personal freedom curtailed. It is a direct offshoot of the modes of production of humanity at its current stage. Available technologies make a higher degree of governmental control possible, so control exists.

At the same time, modern communication technologies produce a widespread distribution of knowledge, even to people with limited intellectual capabilities.

Control technologies and information distribution technologies in modern democracies lead to many nitwitted government policies, and to freedom-limiting control.

People may dream about intellectual elites imposing personal freedom, Plato-style. That has a dim chance.

Article continues below printscreens

Or anarchists implementing non-governmental rule. The practical experience has been that grassroot-regulations are even more controlling.

Or radical libertarians doing away with a lot of government involvement. But their focus is capitalist freedom, not personal freedom, and because of conservative inclinations among libertarians, it is unclear what amount of relationships freedom would be available under their rule.

Article continues below printscreens

The best bet for personal freedom is chaos. Not the creation of societies of personal freedom, but the dismantling, even destruction, of societies of freedom-limitating control. In an environment of conflict and chaos, people have other problems than controlling male relationships behavior, and men who enhance sexuality with tongkat ali and other herbals will have a higher chance of meeting relationships opportunities which would not be available in an environment of social control.

POWER OR ANONYMITY

In a society, large or small, with an absolute ruler who may be a king, a dictator, a warlord, or a mafia boss, the ruler presumably enjoys a maximum of personal freedom. He is also in danger of being assassinated, or simply murdered.

Article continues below printscreens

A society may be ruled in an authoritarian manner, but only if there is a sense that the way it is ruled is beneficial to many will there be general contentment, and thus a low level of conflict, and good public safety.

Being a dictatorial leader, or even a mafia boss, may have its pleasures, for some time, but the likelihood of something else, rather than a comfortable death is high. Personal freedom isn’t guaranteed for the man on the top, too. Too many security guards of ultimately doubtful loyalty, and too much attention from subjects, and nowadays the international community.

In the modern world, personal freedom requires anonymity, the more the better.


Liberty dependeth on the Silence of the Law

Our tongkat ali ideology has nothing in common with the 19th century dreamers who believed that with the abolition of states, mankind would enter a paradise of mutual aid.

Furthermore, the ideology of men enhancing sexuality with tongkat ali is totally different from the beliefs of labour union activists of the 20th century who seriously thought that private property is the sole culprit for everything evil in this world.

Our tongkat ali ideology is closer to Thomas Hobbes, who (in the 17th century) reasoned that the function of state power is to prevent and control physical violence among the members of a society (a night-watchman state), and that, apart from that, as he write in his Leviathan: “Liberty dependeth on the Silence of the Law.”

Article continues below printscreens


An intellectual avant-garde imposing personal freedom

Imposed freedom has a long history.

Plato considered rule by philosophers who imposed their wise decisions upon citizens way superior to democracy.

During the age of enlightenment in Europe, civil liberties were, in many cases, not taken by those who later enjoyed them, but granted by rulers like Napoleon or Prussia's Frederic the Great who were influenced by philosophers like Voltaire or Kant.

Article continues below printscreens

After World War II, constitutions were imposed on Germany and Japan which embedded a high degree of personal freedom.

On the other hand, there has been a definite trend over the past few decades for democratic political systems to curtail the personal freedom of those ruled.

The fault is with democracy itself. Voters, once they have gained self-confidence, are always more likely to express negative, rather than positive sentiments in elections.

More freedom will not be achieved anytime soon by giving a majority of people with limited intellectual capacities ever more power over the political fate of a country.

That an intellectual avant-garde, elected or not, imposes freedom is a much more distinct possibility than more personal freedom resulting from ever more democracy.

If the intellectual avant-garde is in power only for a limited period of time, then its legacy should be a constitution that strongly limits the power of subsequent parliaments and governments to curtail the freedom of those ruled.


Moral-values philosophy

On a social level, morals are a representation of a society’s modes of production. On a personal level, morals are a representation of an individual’s biological interests. What morals never are, is a result of independent philosophical contemplation.

There are no logical moral values. It’s as simple as this. All moral values are perceived values. They are highly arbitrary. The moral values of current democratic societies are no more correct than the moral values of slave-holding ancient Rome, or of a cannibal Melanesian society 200 years ago. They are just different.

Moral relativism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

That the moral values of ancient societies were different from current moral values is greatly related to the fact that the modes of production in ancient societies were different. Because our social existence determines our consciousness, including what we consider moral and not moral, living in different forms of societies (which are based on different modes of production) will result in holding different moral views.

In a Marxist view, morals are part of a society's superstructure.

Article continues below printscreens

Historical Materialism

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/marx_historical_materialism.html

That all moral values are just a matter of personal choice is an element of Sarte’s existentialism, which in itself is a form subjectivated materialism. Sartre’s way of saying that existence precedes consciousness is that existence comes before essence.

Article continues below printscreens

“Sartre stressed individual moral responsibility over structural causation but without denying the importance of the latter.”

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/ On the other hand, Sarte tried a synthesis of humanism (for which self-determination is a central concept) and materialism.

“Though critical of its bourgeois variety, Sartre does support an existentialist humanism the motto of which could well be his remark that ‘you can always make something out of what you’ve been made into”.”

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/

This, of course, supports the assumption that morals are arbitrary, even though it ads a humanistic dimension of responsibility.

The moral values of current democratic societies may be of a more gentle (and humanistic, and more humane) kind than those of slave-holding Rome or Melanesian cannibals. But we better be prepared that the moral values that are commonly accepted today will feel as outmoded to humans who live a few hundred years from now as the moral values of slave-holding Rome or Melanesian cannibals feel outmoded to most people now.

Comparing the complexity of the law applied in modern societies with the relative simplicity of the law of primitive societies, we can conclude that today’s moral values are more sophisticated. But the more sophisticated moral values become, the more difficult it is to recognize that they are just as arbitrary as simple moral values.

With no quantity of moral sophistication, and not by creating ever more complex ethical and legal systems, will we be able to overcome the most basic dilemma: that there is no philosophical or biological basis why any kind or form of ethics should be preferable in principle to any other kind or form, or, for that matter, to the absence of all kinds or forms of ethics.

But while there may not be a philosophical or biological one, there may well be a practical basis for preferring a complex and gentle moral system over a more simple and brutal one: that we prefer a peaceful society over a violent one.

The initial conclusion that there are no logical moral values per se is closely related to the cognition that, for however long we may be able to extend the human lifespan, the individual lives of each of us will definitely end with each of our individual deaths. No rebirth, no afterlife. And regardless of how long we live, when measured to the logical endlessness of time, each of us just exists for an infinitely short moment. But when we are dead, we are gone forever.

It doesn’t matter whether we were “good” or “bad”. When we are dead, there will be no reward and no punishment.

But for as long as we do occupy the surface of this planet, it makes sense to stay out of trouble. It is only natural that we do not want to become the victims of crime, and that we do not want to become the victims of so-called justice, being incarcerated by authorities, or murdered by the institutions of states that perceive truth in moral values which we know are fictitious.

So, as moral values are fantasies, what is real.

At the core of our existence are biological parameters, not ethical ones. Our interests in shelter and food, our illogical desire to live and not to die, our fear of pain and sorrow. And most of all: our plain relationships urges.

As argued above, in a social context, the moral values of specific societies always are a representation of the modes of production of the respective societies.

On a personal level, the moral values of any given individual who professes to possess moral values are, more than anything else, a representation of that persons biological interests, specifically his or her relationships interests.

This is why men who have problems competing for relationships success in pluralistic market economies will typically subscribe to moral values that allocate just one woman to every man. Such moral values, they feel, will guarantee them their fair share of one woman each (because promiscuity is restricted).

Biological, relationships interests are also the emotional force behind the fact that older and less attractive women in pluralistic market economies always tend to uphold stricter moral rules than young and beautiful women. The stricter the moral rules, the easier for older and less attractive women to fend off the competition of those who are younger and more beautiful.

There are many other facets of how the modes of production determine the moral values people subscribe to (if indeed they do subscribe to any), such as the ability to control sexually transmitted disease.

And there are ongoing sophistications in the human modes of production which will have a major impact on relationships morals, such as our emerging capability to produce, via cosmetic surgery, for both women and men, a lifelong youthful appearance.

Such modes of production, or technologies will allow those individuals who are economically successful (and possess the intellectual capacity to be just that) to also remain the physically most attractive, whatever their age.

Educated women who are, chronologically, 50 years old, but look as if they were 25, and thus maintain the highest relationships market value, do not have to make an intellectual escape into feminist morals that deplore sexist attitudes in our societies. Instead, they will profit from these sexist attitudes.




PT Sumatra Pasak Bumi
7th floor, Forum Nine
Jl. Imam Bonjol No.9
Petisah Tengah
Medan Petisah
Medan City
North Sumatra 20236
Indonesia
Tel: +62-813 800 800 20


Disclaimer: Statements on this page have not undergone the FDA approval process.


Privacy policy of Sumatra Pasak Bumi

For us at Sumatra Pasak Bumi, privacy in the age of the Internet is a major concern, and we greatly welcome the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

We have always been dedicated to privacy protection. The snooping and spooking of all and everybody is a pest. It’s not just the NSA and every large search engine and browser (we recommend Duckduckgo for searches and as browser), but even minor businesses that do their databases and customer profiling in hope of McDonald's style do-you-want-fries-with-that cross sales.

We don’t.

We respect the privacy of customers and people visiting our website. Our site is run from a secure socket layer. We do not use cookies. We do not maintain customer accounts for logging in later. Our website is simple html programming, and we don't even use WordPress templates or e-commerce plug-ins. We don't do a newsletter to which customers could subscribe, and we don't even include standard social media buttons that would link visitors of our site to certain Facebook or Twitter profiles.

We prefer communication by email using a gmail account because this is probably still the most private mode of communication (Hillary may disagree), and when we have information to disseminate to the public, we just publish it on our website. We do offer the option to communicate with us by chat apps if a site visitor so wishes, but prefer email.

If privacy is your concern, you are in good hands with us.