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



Contents / English

(More than 500 articles about tongkat ali and better physical relationships in general)



Tongkatali.org's - Your wife can climax. Take my word for it


By Serge Kreutz


You, like many men, may suffer psychologically because you cannot bring the woman you love the most to a proper orgasm. Maybe you talked with her about the problem, and maybe your woman consoles you by saying that actually, orgasms are not important to her.

Whether she tells the truth is another story. Maybe she genuinely loves you, even without orgasm. So she says it's not important to her.

Or she just starts faking orgasms.

Maybe the problem is your relationships technique.

But maybe it's more physical. And this is where some special herbal supplements can come in.

Butea superba, for example, can increase libido. If your wife has more relationships desire, and does not just consider intercourse as a service she provides for you, her orgasm threshold will be lower.

Please let me issue a warning. The butea extract I sell can be extremely powerful on some people. So, if you or your wife have never used our products, first-day dosage should be minimal. You can even just open a capsule and take half of the content. Only if there are no side effects you should go on standard dosage, and high dosages of loose butea superba extract powder for a pronounced effect are advisable only after you have used standard dosages for some time. Please do not bypass this warning. First use absolutely minimal quantities.


Continue reading about tongkat ali, dopamine, and eternal relationships desire

or

Read about the Thai herbal used for testosterone doping in all Thai kickboxing camps




Tongkatali.org's Why making poverty history is not in the interest of humanity


By Serge Kreutz


It is hard to predict whether ever, and if yes, when, we will live in societies, in which poverty is history; in which the basic material needs of every person, such as food, shelter, and basic medical care, are met.

Theoretically, such societies are possible. They are, because quite probably, the sources of energy, which mankind can tap, are non-depletable: while we will run out of fossil fuels, there are many other forms which are currently considered “alternative” but have the potential to become mainstream; and quite likely, many new forms of usable energy will be found.

Energy sources

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

Thus, because it is unlikely that we will ever run out of energy, there exists the theoretical possibility that in the future, not only will poverty be history, but beyond that, we all live in affluent societies.

The question is whether, or to what degree, we would experience such societies as positive. And if we do not experience them as positive, the question is whether or not there will be people who will destroy affluence, out of boredom, or because they expect to benefit from a situation in which hardship is widespread. Or whether we will be ruled by governments who can tune societies so that problems associated with too much affluence will not occur.

To evaluate the options, it helps to be aware that human character expressions, and even human emotions, are, not exclusively but to a certain extent, offshoots of economic conditions. More specifically, certain character traits and emotions that we rightfully cherish are related to economies of need, rather than economies of affluence.

Among these character traits and emotions are: solidarity, friendship, and even love.

When people are poor, they believe that everything will be better when they are richer. But once they are richer, they realize that they are not happier. How can that be? To most people it doesn’t make sense, so once they are richer they try to convince themselves that things are better, even they don’t feel better.

However, that affluence doesn’t make people happier (just as overeating doesn’t make them healthier), is well established in scientific research.

Desire to Be Rich and Famous Called a Sure Path to Discontent

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the-super-rich/308419/

Even in China, people actually became not happier by becoming richer:

Money does not buy happiness: poll

http://english.people.com.cn/ 200501/13/eng20050113_170468.html

In pre-unification East Germany, many people experienced a high degree of solidarity. No, it was not a feeling of solidarity with the government, which the Communist government would so much have appreciated. It was the solidarity of those who were poorer than the other Germans, those in West Germany. They could not afford BMWs, only Trabis, and the East German jeans just didn’t fit. But they had a higher affinity for solidarity, and solidarity felt good.

This is from a CNN article about nostalgic feelings among former East Germany citizens:

Quote

“Under the former regime, people looked out for each other, explains the owner. Living under a dictatorship and standing in long food lines created a feeling of solidarity. “You could depend on each other,” he says, “now it is money, money, money.”

Unquote

Ex-East Germans nostalgic for communism’s simpler life

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/ europe/9911/09/wall.nostalgia/

After reunification, the basis for the specifically East German solidarity was gone, and with it the feel-good effect. Of course, everybody who wants to can now go to the former West Germany, and buy brand-name jeans. Or rather, the brand name jeans that previously were available only in the former West Germany have now made it to East Germany. But are the people happier?

As indicated above, many positive human emotions do relate to negative social conditions: solidarity among the disadvantaged, sharing among the poor, friendship among those in need, and love among those who face an adverse world.

On the other hand, when negative social conditions are removed, we often see a rise of unpleasant human emotions which typically are absent among those who live in negative social conditions: cynicism, nihilism, destructivism (random expression of destructive behavior). Depending on certain other factors, there also is the likelihood for “golden cage” symptoms, such as depression and neurosis.

I would like to strongly differentiate between two kinds of negative social conditions: the lack of affluence (poverty), and the absence of safety (danger). Some of the effects of economic misery and of danger are equal, but others are contrary to each other. And I will argue that a reduction of affluence may be a valuable tool to engineer desired emotions, while a reduction of safety result in entirely negative patterns of emotions.

In situations of both misery and danger, people are, because they will benefit of it, more likely to develop solidarity and friendship.

However, in situations of danger (because there will be a higher level of general distrust), people will form smaller units. In situations of poverty, on the other hand, emotions of solidarity and friendship will likely have a much broader base.

Even love relationships reflect social conditions. In general, negative social conditions, misery and danger, are more conducive to love relationships than are affluence and the absence of danger and violence.

However, danger and violence (or the danger of violence) will result in a love relationship attitude that is grossly different from that caused by a certain level of economic misery. Danger and the threat of violence makes people emphasize monogamy, while misery can result in promiscuity.

See the following link for psychological research on the different effects that poverty and danger have on children:

Economic Status, Community Danger and Psychological Problems Among South African Children

http://chd.sagepub.com/cgi/ content/abstract/8/1/115

But not only are social and economic, conditions responsible for the character traits and emotions we develop; social conditions also are responsible for the arena in which humans compete with each other.

There is a biological basis for competition among humans, and it comes down to competing for relationships partners.

Darwin sensed “male competition and female choice”, but even that view was an offshoot of the social conditions he, Darwin, lived in. More neutrally, I would talk of male competition and female competition.

19th century socialists believed that by abolishing private property and emphasizing the creed “from each in accordance to his abilities, to each in accordance to his needs”, they would abolish competition among people. But rather, moving competition out of the material realm leaves people disoriented.

To compete by trying to provide better material conditions is a psychologically easy setting. Even people of limited intellectual capacities can understand that those who provide better material conditions will be more successful in finding relationships partners. Thus, a certain level of economic need makes people industrious, and brings out character traits that are supportive of improving material conditions: not just industry but also reliability, interest in furthering one’s education (because it will result in better economic opportunities), friendliness (because it entices people to become a buyer of goods and services).

When humans compete with each other by trying to be economically more successful than others, the world is simple. However, the positive effects on attitudes will only be present up to a certain level: a level well below affluence. Furthermore, the positive effects will also only remain present for as long as the competition is restricted by definite rules. Most importantly, violence and the threat of violence must not be allowed to provide a competitive edge.

Kreutz Ideology has a more differentiated approach to the reverse application of materialism (change social conditions to effect certain character traits and emotions) than Marxists who believe, naively, that simply abolishing private property will solve all contradictions.

It’s anyway not a question of who owns property but who controls it.

Fine-tuning social conditions in order to effect certain valuable character traits and emotions is a highly sophisticated endeavor, and it cannot be handled well by governments who result from Western-style democratic elections.

If the intention to create societies that are optimally suited to enjoy optimal relationships experience, and to end their lives in a comfortable death, we want to foster certain human character traits and emotions.

To maintain or enhance character traits and emotions such as solidarity, friendship, and love, we have the option to either allow a certain level of inherent poverty, or of inherent violence.

But violence, even low-level violence, is detrimental to both, the likelihood of optimal relationships experience and the likelihood of a comfortable death.

On the other hand, to maintain a certain level of poverty favors human interaction on a broad basis, for the purpose (and the pretext) of solving economic problems.

Furthermore, maintaining a certain level of poverty within societies firmly directs competitive behavior towards economic goals: the desire to purchase certain products, even luxuries. If a certain level of poverty were not maintained, the competitive impulse would likely show in a rather irrational fashion, such as conspicuous consumption.

How people compete through wasteful consumption has been analyzed already by the US economist Thorstein Veblen in his book, published in 1899, The Theory of the Leisure Class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class

If people cannot profile themselves well through their pursuit of material successes, they move into unpredictable arenas that are harder to control: drug abuse, adherence to destructive ideologies such as punk, or football hooliganism.

Furthermore, maintaining a certain level of poverty can have a decisive effect of counteracting age discrimination. It can be a desirable eigendynamic in societies that younger people enter relationships relationships with older people because older people could provide economic assistance.

Like much else which is said in this article, this idea is not new. You can find parallels in John Kenneth Galbraith’s “The Affluent Society”, published in 1958.

Affluence and Its Discontents

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/ AR2006050901214.html

John Kenneth Galbraith

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



Mobile Internet access in Indonesia


All cell phone operators in Indonesia offer prepaid Internet access per day, week, or month, or per set chunks of data transfer, measured as megabytes or gigabytes. Time-based arrangements are much more economical.

Foreigners can buy SIM cards at shops of the mobile operators, and at some phone shops.

There is great diversity of Internet packages, and many promotions are poorly published.

Tongkatali.org tries to help.

Indosat Ooredoo

3 Days 500MB, 5,000 Rp, press *123#
7 Days 1GB, 13,000 Rp, press *123#
Monthly 1GB, 25,000 Rp, press *123#
Monthly 2GB, 40,000 Rp, press *123#
Monthly 3GB, 50,000 Rp, press *123#
Monthly 7GB, 75,000 Rp, press *123#



Tongkatali.org's Female gene shopping


By Serge Kreutz


Shouldn’t we assume that every normal man of average built and of good health would also be equipped with a sufficiently large and fully functional organ?

Well, I do believe that there is sound biological logic why we shouldn’t be so sure about this. Humans obviously have a biological character and a cultural character. Our cultural character accounts for much of our conscious behavior. On the other hand, our emotions and unconscious states of mind (including desires) are largely an affair of our biological character.

Our cultural character has changed tremendously over the last 2000 to 3000 years, but our biological character is still basically the same as it was for our stone-age ancestors some 10,000 years ago, or their predecessors some 50,000 years ago.

And there is no doubt that in earlier phases of our history, our relationships function and behavior was largely one of mammalian biology.

A salient aspect of mammalian sexuality is what Darwin defined as male competition and female choice. Mammalian males typically strive to inseminate as many females of the species as they can handle. Females display a profound preference for men with what they (unconsciously, in accordance with their biological character) consider the best genes.

But this is not yet the full story. Human females, as they developed throughout the past 6 million years, have more differentiated interests than just to mate with the male with the best genes. Human females have a material interest in male-female bonding. In order to preserve their genes, human females spend many years raising their young. And unlike other mammalian species, human females had and have to take care of offspring born years apart, and possibly of different fathers. (Great apes have an inferior procreative strategy, as females only give birth every few years, after having raised the offspring born in one year.)

Human and pre-human females, during millions of years of evolution, have developed a survival strategy that includes the permanent binding of a male partner. The benefit for the male partner lay and lies in the permanent availability of a female for relationships intercourse.

So far, this is standard anthropology.

But there is a twist, which is the definite interest of both the male and the female partner in being unfaithful.

For the male, the strategic benefit of unfaithfulness is obvious. Getting a shot at another female means an increased chance to preserve one’s genes. To spread one’s genes in acts of unfaithfulness, furthermore, is a low-risk behavior for men. There is potentially no additional obligation. The female is inseminated, and after that, she alone cares for the common pool of genes, or she enlists the help of another man who happens to be that female’s permanent partner.

For the female, the benefit of unfaithfulness is subtler. In a human or hominid society where one-on-one bonding is the standard pattern, only a few women end up with the best males, while other females form permanent partnerships with less than ideal males who nevertheless can be of valuable help in raising offspring.

However, the biological interest of these females still is to mix their own genes not with the genes of lesser males, but with those of the fittest men.

The solution is female unfaithfulness: have occasional, even secretive, intercourse with an alpha male, and after being inseminated, take any male you can get as a permanent partner to help in raising one’s offspring with an alpha male!

This is, of course, a complex pattern of biological relationships behavior. It’s never a clear-cut scheme. Rather, the pattern is one of a trend. Because the female can bind a lesser male only by giving him relationships access, and by allowing him at least the illusion that all the offspring in the liaison are his, it will have occurred on a regular basis that indeed, a female human gave birth to the offspring of lesser males. A standard setting may have been that some of the offspring resulted from unfaithfulness with alpha males, and others from a permanent relationship with a lesser partner.

The whole thing developed like a kind of involuntary horse-trading.

Much also depended on the economics of the times. When economic basics allowed more complex societies to develop, alpha males were capable of maintaining a larger pool of females who were not bonding at all with lesser males. This is evident in the harem building of the alpha males of all early complex human societies. But harem building is an aspect primarily of male sexuality in situations where one man has to his disposal the means to exclude other males from a pool of females. Harem building is also an aspect of male dominance.

On the part of the females, living in a harem is probably much less in congruence with their biological interests as they cannot follow the trait of their biological character, which would be to monopolize a man.

Biological relationships behavior is obviously regulated through relationships desires.

Again, for men, this is rather straight-forward. Because the most promising relationships strategy for men is to spread their genes, and sperm, throughout as many females as possible, the behavioral relationships goals of men is to either possess exclusively as many females as possible, or to inseminate not only the one or few females he directly possesses but also, in acts of unfaithfulness, as many females as possible who are in permanent bonds with other males.

Therefore, male relationships strategy definitely is directed at a multitude of females. And as the regulatory force is desire, it cannot surprise that there is a clear incentive to add new partners: relationships with new partners typically is more exciting, so there is a higher likelihood of orgasm and ejaculation.

For the female, the most promising relationships strategy is to first play it safe: have one relationships partner in a permanent relationship who can provide material help in raising the offspring he considers his own. However, beyond this, a success-driven female strategy includes to seek better, or the best, genes to pair with through regular acts of unfaithfulness with alpha males.

For such a setting, female relationships desires have to be more differentiated than those of men. Nature regulates this by not allowing them full relationships satisfaction with the lesser male who may be their permanent partner. They may bond ok with a lesser male, and develop the emotions summarized as “love”, but there is an element that becomes obvious to them only over time, and usually only after having given birth to an offspring fathered by a lesser male (thus already making sure of her genes’ survival in principle). This element is her desire for relationships satisfaction with a male who is better equipped to bring her to the level of relationships pleasure that results in a vaginal orgasm. Thus, female relationships, more than male relationships desire, is dualistic: have a love relationship with a permanent partner, and seek relationships satisfaction with an alpha male.

If biological science teaches us something than it is this: nothing is accidental. Every phenomenon we encounter in the world of living species has developed through evolution and natural selection in precisely the fashion we encounter it because this is what has proven to be the best survival strategy.

For this reason, we have to make sense of the following: almost all men have no problem, and great pleasure, in achieving orgasm and ejaculation through relationships intercourse with a female. But females only achieve relationships satisfaction through vaginal intercourse with men of an alpha built (which means: men who have a particular large organ). The above explanation tries to make sense of this phenomenon by assuming that the female incapacity for vaginal orgasms with men with organs of an average size has been developed in the course of evolution in order to make sure that the females of the human species will seek out relationships relationships with alpha males (large organs) in spite of being bonded to lesser males (average organs).

Based on the above anthropological considerations, I believe that organ size is a valid genuine concern for all men. It’s not a matter of locker-room vanity. Only men with large organs are well equipped to bring women to penile-vaginal orgasms. And men who can provide this to their female partners will not have to fear the humiliation of their permanent partner seeking out better-endowed alpha males. Apart from that, alpha males stand a good chance to be sought for encounters of unfaithfulness by females who are bound in permanent relationships with average males, simply for their likely capability to enable women to experience the superiority of the vaginal orgasm.




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 Tongkatali.org

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; we don't use WordPress templates or e-commerce plug-ins. We don't do a newsletter to which customers could subscribe, and we don't include standard social media buttons that would link visitors of our site to certain Facebook or Twitter profiles. If privacy is your concern, you are in good hands with us.