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.


Tongkatali.org's Attracting rich foreigners to poor countries


By Serge Kreutz


More than anything else, attracting rich foreigners to poor countries is a business model for local elites. Poor countries nowadays have a competitive edge in trading freedom. It is something local elites in poor countries can sell to rich people in developed countries where freedom gets ever more curtailed.

Local elites can sell life in save enclaves of not-so-safe countries if at the same time there is a high degree of personal freedom, or absence of liberty-restricting law.

This doesn’t have to benefit local poor populations, or if, then only on an alibi level. It’s not about local or national development.

In the world today, a if the elites of a poor country want to attract foreign money, they may consider attracting foreign people with money.

If local elites make a country as attractive as ever possible to rich foreigners, they will come, even if it costs them more money than being somewhere else. After all, money is what they have, and they can’t take it with them when they die. Therefore, the idea is to be an attractive destination, and then to let them pay substantially for being there.

The idea is not new. Switzerland, which some 200 years ago was one of the poorest countries of Europe, thrived on it when it became a favorite destination of the rich from imperial powers such as England and France. And in Switzerland, they are, until today, more concerned about attracting rich foreigners, rather than the factories owned by rich foreigners (they don’t mind the offices, though).

But more can be done to attract rich foreigners than what the Swiss have practiced for more than a century. Something, which, on the other hand, would have made little sense some 100 or 200 years ago.

A country that in today’s world wants to draw rich foreigners should not just be attractive, but sexually attractive. This recommendation would have been meaningless some 100 or 200 years ago because much of the world was anyway not sexually regulated to the extent it is today.

Yes, in Victorian Britain (and in Britain ever since), relationships conduct was regulated to a considerable extent. And yes, of many Islamic communities even centuries ago, the same can be assumed. But for much of the rest of the world, relationships conduct, as long as it was not violent, was of little interest to governments.

This doesn’t mean that these societies would have been sexually free-wheeling. While there were fewer government-issued limitations, nature imposed hers in the form of hardship and disease, and a low level of self-cognition meant that people where restricted by beliefs in gods and ghosts.

Today governments concern themselves with the marriage and divorce behavior of citizens, and with whether a married person can have relationships with somebody else. Governments also regulate whether people who are old enough to enjoy relationships should be allowed to do so, or which age discrepancy constitutes a criminal act. Governments also go to great length evaluating the conditions under which people who have a relationships relationship exchange material items.

And furthermore, government policies in more and more countries undermine the privacy of relationships relationships, actively by spying on citizens and passively by allowing unrestricted press coverage of people’s private lives, thus inciting sexuality-based hatred on a mass scale.

Hand-in-hand with all the above goes the erosion of the sovereignty of more and more smaller countries. Not only do larger Western countries pass and enforce ever more extraterritorial laws dealing specifically with relationships conduct; the police forces of Western countries also are to an ever larger degree directly involved in prosecuting in poorer countries those of their citizens who break the law of the country whose passport they hold, and not necessarily the law of the country where they are prosecuted.

A business model for local elites in poor countries could be to attract comparatively wealthy foreign residents by providing an environment that is best suited for optimal relationships experience. Wealthy foreign residents could pay substantially for the privilege of being there.

The country should not be a direct democracy where envy towards rich foreign residents could be exploited by local populists.

Agents of moral imperialism should not be allowed to operate within the country: no foreign NGOs, no UN, and no foreign police.

The press should be kept under control. The press should be held responsible for unfavorable social conditions it causes by irresponsible reporting. Permits to stay for foreigners involved in religious activities should not be renewed.

Apart from the legislation on violent relationships legislation should be kept at a minimum. No perversities of the law, such as “statutory rape”. This doesn’t mean that every behavior that is currently classified as statutory rape should be legalized. But the law should use a terminology that describes a relationships transgression (if the behavior is defined as a transgression) as what it is: “consensual relationships relationship with…. ” sound very different from “rape” even though the laws of many Western countries no longer differentiate between the two.

Allowing marriages at a local registrar without requiring any information but the names of the two people who want to get married would be attractive.

Allowing divorces by any party appearing before the registrar and stating the wish that a previously registered marriage be divorced, woyld be attractive, too.

All necessary measures to ensure relationships health within the population increases a country’s overall attractiveness. For governments that have the will to do so, the technologies are readily available to keep relationships diseases at almost zero-level.

All birth control methods could be made available free of charge. Other health care must not be free.

No commercial nightlife (brothels, night clubs, relationships bars) sould be allowed. They would not attact foreigners of quality, but onky lowbrows. But other entertainment venues where people can mingle and start relationships relationships should not be restricted.

No artificial limitations on the extent to which men and women engage in relationships relationships for material benefits are needed. It is natural that in a relationships relationship, the wealthier partner provides material support for the less wealthy partner.

The business model outlined here should make it easy, but expensive for foreigners to become permanent residents.

Foreigners could be allowed to run businesses on low flat taxes categorized by the kind and the size of a business.


References:

Ehrlich, P.R. (1978) The population bomb. Ballantine Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Greene, R.W. (2019) Malthusian worlds: US leadership and the governing of the population crisis. Routledge Retrieved from: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Madsen, J.B., Roberts, P.E., Ye, L.(2019) Malthus was right: Explaining a millennium of stagnation European Economic Review Volume 118, Pages 51-68 Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Simon, J.L. (2019) The Economics of Population Growth. Princeton University Press Retrieved from: Tongkatali.org Bibliography

Walter, R. (2019) The new worlds of Thomas Robert Malthus: rereading the principle of population. Journal The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought Volume 26, 2019 - Issue 1 Pages 225-229 Tongkatali.org Bibliography


Tongkatali.org's Religions and morals


By Serge Kreutz


If a man wants to get most out of life, a proper understanding of the meaning of life is very important. If a man is religiously misguided, then it doesn’t matter whether he is capable to compete. He doesn’t get it anyway.

In this respect, one has to differentiate between different religions. Christianity, for example, is more of an obstacle than Islam. The more pious one is in Christianity, the more restricted are one’s relationships options. For really pious Catholics, the proper path is priesthood, and that means that all relationships is forbidden.

Islam is, in fact, sexually more permissive than Christianity. Just don’t judge relationships permissiveness by comparing how apologetic a society is with respect to typical modern US boyfriend / girlfriend relationships.

While in the Christian afterlife, we are all asexual, the opposite is the case in the Islam heaven. Not only are Muslim martyrs promised a paradise with plenty of young, sexually willing playmates.[1] [2] [3] What they actually get is virgins that never had other men, and which they don’t have to share with other men. [4] [5] [6]

Even the most pious men in Islam not only are allowed to have relationships, families, and offspring. They don’t have to, but if they want, they can have many wives. [7] [8] [9] Throughout history, Muslim religious and worldly leaders often had their harems. Popes, by contrast, had to do their philandering in secrecy.

But if one were forced to live in the Middle Ages, and would be equipped with enough intelligence to achieve some wealth, and a secure social position, I’d pray to be placed in the Muslim, rather then the Christian world.

Even nowadays, and under certain circumstances, Muslim societies may be a better option than Christian ones (if simply for the fact that they are more immune to US cultural exports). [10][11] [12] [13]

Outside the Old World (which is Europe), and outside the New World (which is the Americas), there still is theThird World, which, on the one side, is determined by poverty, corruption, and mega cities, and on the other side by archaic fantasy-inspired alternatives to the modern world, as they could only blossom in the third millennium in an under-policed environment.

References:

1 Richard Dawkins, Paradise Lust
2 M. Abdulsalam , The Pleasures of Paradise
3 Abul Kasem, Muslims’ Final Abode: Paradise or Allah’s Whore-House
4 Sheikh Yusuf Estes, 72 Virgins in Heaven?
5 Dr Fuad-deen Olabisi Kekere-ekun, Female Virginity In Islam – Islam for Muslims – Nairaland
6 Kumiko, The Islamic Garden
7 IslamReligion.com, An Introduction to Polygamy in Islam
8 Arif Rohman, Reinterpret Polygamy in Islam: A Case Study in Indonesia
9 Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi, The Concept of Polygamy and the Prophets Marriages
10 M. Shahid Ebrahim, The Political Economy and the Perennial Underdevelopment of the Muslim World
11 V. Kubalkova, Foreign Policy in a Constructed World
12 Jane Smith, Muslim-Christian Relations: Historical and Contemporary Realities
13 Sound Vision Staff Writer, Muslim-Christian relations, the good, the bad


Tongkatali.org - What to do: Nature, our enemy


By Serge Kreutz


Nature is the principle enemy of our individual lives. It’s not that I would prefer asphalt landscapes over trees and flowers. It’s also not that I would view as enemy nature in the form of lions and tigers. The expression of nature that I consider as enemy is not the nature that surrounds us but the nature within.

Nature has genetically programmed us as individuals to leave the scene after some meager one hundred years, while we could just as well be genetically programmed to have individual lives of thousands of years.

Nature has programmed us to physically decline after having reached an early peak in our twenties. Nature has decided for a quick turnover rate for humans (though it’s not quite as short as the turnover rate for rats and cats).

Nature has installed in us an instrument of cognition, which is inadequate because its primary function is not cognition, but to give us a competitive edge in the fight for the survival of the fittest.

As good as I can, I try to overcome the limitations nature has programmed for me. I am not interested in being a tool of nature (that fascist force) for the creation of more optimized specimens of the human species. I can’t see any other purpose in life but to be concerned with my own life. This means, to live as long as possible, and to get as much as possible out of life.

I’m aware of the limitations that still apply to me. One day, individual humans will live thousands of years, or in fact, indefinitely. Having been born a few hundred years too early, I will not be among them.

I’m not even independent enough from nature to elect freely not to live any longer, and to act upon this choice by putting my life to a decent end, right now.

Instead I am but a slave to nature in my instinctive but ridiculous fear of death. I’m toiling along, like billions of other humans, caught in lives in which happiness is but an illusion, and in which only suffering is real. Because this is how nature, our enemy, has designed it to be. But we shall overcome (not me, but later generations).


Tongkatali.org's Manoeuvring and logistics


By Serge Kreutz


Kreutzian ideology is about an agenda of optimal relationships, terminated by a comfortable death.

While optimal relationships means optimal relationships function, it also includes the pursuit of relationships relationships with females of a high relationships market value, young, attractive, and healthy. I have never been interested in females of a low relationships market value, e.g. prostitutes, or women who have, or have had, numerous relationships relationships. There is often a reverse proportionality between the number of relationships contacts and health.

I have lived in Southeast Asia for many years, but I have never frequented brothels, bars, nightclubs, massage salons, barber shops, and if ever a prostitute has been among my girlfriends, than I definitely wasn’t aware of her trade when we met, and definitely, the affair wasn’t one of her normal business transactions.

I don’t mind if a girl works in a factory, and I can take it if she works in a restaurant kitchen and smells of food. But I have no personal tolerance for women who work in relationships services.

Yes, my agenda may be in conflict with the agenda of some of my girlfriends who would prefer to have me all to themselves.

My agenda is male. It is a result of a male evolutionary history in which that set of genes is the most successful that takes procreative chances with the largest number of healthy women. As a result of male evolution, my typically male relationships desire is directed towards attractive and young-looking women because their procreative capacities are at a peak. (Fortunately, we are on the brink of a “mode of production” which in principle makes it possible for women to look as if they are in their thirties, even when they are chronologically much older.)

No, I do not have procreative intentions when I carry on with a new girl. But my typically male relationships desire is directed towards women in their procreative prime because of the evolutionary mechanism by which the genes of men who spread their sperm among the largest number of healthy women in their procreative prime are the most likely to become dominant, and this includes the genetic trait of a preference for women in their procreative prime.

I consider it likely that not only the male preference for many women, and for young women, has a genetic basis, but also the preference for certain standards of beauty, as beauty is a general indicator of health, and men who spread their sperm among beautiful women were more likely to be successful in siring an optimal number of children than men who were drawn towards women without teeth, or those who are blind on one eye, or lame on both feet, or covered with skin lesions, or featuring a yellow, smelly discharge in places where I don’t want this.

While my preference for young, beautiful, and healthy women is certainly genetic, the emphasis I put on women that are not promiscuous is probably only partially genetic, and partially cultural. Genetically, I must be against the promiscuity of my girlfriends because insemination by other men would threaten my reproductive success.

On the other hand, during pre-AIDS times, when every sexually transmitted disease was either easily treated or non-life threatening, the promiscuity of a man’s relationships partners has probably been more acceptable than it is today.

My relationships agenda is in conflict with the relationships agendas of my girlfriends, because, in general, the procreative and relationships strategies of women are in conflict with the procreative and relationships strategies of men. Women don’t produce trillions of gametes. During all of a woman’s life, she generates just about 400 impregnable egg cells. And as opposed to the male minimum investment of 5 minutes of insemination, producing offspring for a woman means a burden of at least 9 months.

For women, procreative chances are a rather precious resource, and you try to avoid wastage with a precious resource. As a result, women are far more selective in their relationships strategies, and for good reason, it is in the best of their interests not to take risks with men.

For good reasons, the relationships agenda of women is directed towards men who are good providers, and who are around for the period of pregnancy, and beyond. For men with an average or no accumulation of resources (of which the capability to do qualified work and earn a living is just one), the provider-oriented expectations of women mean that he should be willing to dedicate all his resources, and all his attention, just to her and the offspring sired together with her. For men who are either very rich, or very powerful, or outstanding for other reasons, women may be willing (and often have been willing throughout history) to compromise, though they may prefer not to have to.

That seeking material benefits is deeply ingrained in typically female mating strategies has been mentioned by David Buss in his book The Evolution of Desire, as well as in the work of other academic evolutionary psychologists. That a mating strategy of seeking material benefits and security for herself and her offspring in a lifetime relationship with a dedicated spouse is essentially based on the same paradigm (seeking material benefits) as the mating strategy of a street hooker is nevertheless violently challenged by well-reputed housewives.

My relationships agenda obviously also is in conflict with the agendas of other men. It is in conflict with the agenda of other alpha males, because we potentially compete for the same resources. It is even more though in conflict with the agendas of betas and gammas, because the whole system is unfair to them. There is always the potential risk that betas and gammas band together and apply the methods of the French Revolution. Fraternity, of course, is only transitory, as kings are replaced by emperors, and the nobility by politicians, bureaucrats, and capitalists who then appropriate the unfair share.

My relationships agenda is not condoned by the societies where I pursue it, and it wouldn’t be in any other society. My agenda generates envy, and envy generates social friction, and that’s not good for law and order, which is the responsibility of the politicians who govern societies. Politicians in power are against trouble. Even men who themselves pursue an agenda which is comparative to mine, will typically not endorse it, certainly not in public, and most likely not in private either. For what? Sharing information on the typical alpha lifestyle only attracts suspicion in one’s immediate environment, and unwanted attention on the part of the authorities. A decrease in opportunities would be a likely consequence of both suspicion and attention. You don’t want to be known for your pursuits and your corresponding opinions, neither among your current or potential girlfriends, nor in the wider public. Known playboys are on a downward track, simply because they are known.




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.