DFM RADIO AMSTERDAM IN STEREO:
(If you don't see and hear the DFM radio device, then try
another web browser or click here. Or hit "pause".)
Things Which Simply Don't Make Any Sense........ and also which do NOT concern the legalization of weed.
The Greatest Enemy of the Nazis were the Nazis.
Did the Nazi Party ACCIDENTALLY Sabatoge German Success in World War II? Book Review: Warplanes of The Third Reich, by William Green.
Excerpt from introduction: few military aircraft in the history of aerial warfare have suffered such misrepresentation as have those of Germany evolved during the life of the Third Reich.
We all know that the Germans lost the war, but few have taken stock of the real causes of this loss. This book provides some of the essential facts from the story of the greatest military loss yet in world history.
We all know that Germany was in the midst of developing numerous advanced aircraft such as V1 and V2 guided missles, ME-262 jet fighter/bombers, Arado 234 jet bombers, and numerous others. But why didn't these advanced planes and rockets substantially help Germany to win the war? (There weren't enough of them, and they were not fully finished as far as research and development - that's why.)
In other words, Germany was not prepared for a huge extended world war around 1938, nor afterwards.
About 2 years before the USA invaded Morocco and Northern Africa creating two fronts for the Axis powers, the Nazis reduced funding for most of the advanced designs in favor of shifting resources to building more of the older conventional planes, because the Nazis perceived a much greater need for vast numbers of conventional planes for the war with the USSR at this point. Although the Nazis didn't fully appreciate the value of the new jet and rocket technology, nearly all the advanced designs remained very popular in the minds of the developers and managers of Germany's aviation industry, so research and development continued but at a greatly reduced rate after the war escalated until too late in 1944.
Does anyone realize that nearly all of Germany's front-line air force equipment was nearly precisely the same in 1945 as in 1938?
Regarding the world's first operational fighter jet, the Messerschmitt ME-262, William Green wrote, "But instead of operational exploits, the ME-262 was to be remembered foremost as a symbol of the vacillation and irresolution that plagued aircraft manufacturing programmes as the Third Reich died." Note that no substantial development for this plane occurred until 1944.
It's amazing that this plane has such a good reputation today, probably due to its good looks mostly, and the fact that ME-262's were actually visible to the Allies toward the end of World War II.
Regarding the world's first successful prototype jet fighter, the Heinkel He-280 which preceded the Messerschmitt jet by a few years, and was known to be superior to it in dog-fights, Green wrote, "Thus, although the first jet fighter, the HE-280, had flown successfully on April 2, 1941, and had soon displayed a superiority over conventional fighters in several respects, official apathy and personal prejudice against Ernst Heinkel on the part of certain factions within the RLM's Technischen Amt combined to result in the neglect and eventual discarding of what, at the time of its debut, was unquestionably the most advanced warplane extant, little real impetus being placed behind (jet) fighter development until 1944."
It is also argued sometimes that the Junkers Jumo and/or BMW jet engines were not really ready until 1944, so nothing could have been done to speed up development of jet planes until 1944 according to that line of thought. In reality, the jet engines were still not ready in 1944, nor 1945. For the ME-262 and other jet planes from this era, the throttles could not be adjusted much after take-off, otherwise the engines would often flame-out. Therefore, formation flying of WWII era German jet planes was performed in an unorthodox manner.
Note that the technical expert within the Nazi management overseeing German aviation companies who made the decision to not develop the jet fighters substantially during the early 1940's, and who personally believed that jet planes were not needed by Germany, was Ernst Udet who committed suicide in November 1941, to be replaced by Erhard Milch who had almost identical negative opinions of turbojet powered aircraft.
Hitler and Goering also did not overrule Udet and Milch.
If not for the enthusiasm of the personnel at Heinkel, Messerschmitt, BMW, Junkers, Arado, and other German aviation companies, there would likely not have been any jet aircraft at all produced by Germany during WWII.
Truth is, the development of new technologies itself in Germany was greatly hampered for the Nazis by waiting until they had already started the war to try and ramp up research and development of new technologies in an abnormal emergency scenario with little free flow of vital technical and scientific information from remote non-Nazi controlled regions. And expelling most of their best scientists due to not being of the "correct" ethnic groups, was suicide for the regime.
During more than twenty years of research in Germany and elsewhere, William Green sought out and found the still living executives, CEO's, designers, and others from most of the German aviation companies from World War II, and personally interviewed them before their natural deaths. (Green's book is not concerned with any aviation develpments other than from Germany, but he did travel to other places to interview industry survivors from WWII.)
Also, why were only three VW Beetles actually built during Hitler's lifetime? In the end, the Germans had to use their own two feet to move from place to place during WWII. (On the other hand, this might have been one of the Nazis's or Germany's better decisions - to not mass produce a really horrible car.)
But Hitler's final gunshot to his own cranium underlines the clown-like incompetence of the Nazi Party and Germany's political system at that time. In WWII, Germany suffered the self-defeating consequences of its infant and undeveloped democracy that allowed a group of maniacs to take office, mis-manage valuable resources, run amok, and ultimately commit national suicide.
Who Built the First "Successful" Jet Airliner?
Note that if Adolph Hitler and the Nazis and so forth had not come to power, Germany would very likely have been the first country to host the building of the first successful jet airliner, if not Japan. Only the Nazis and Japanese were foolish enough to start WWII, which meant no first jet airliner for the Axis.
Whether that hypothetical German or Japanese airliner would've been ultimately successful or not, I don't know.
Videos of Mercedes Bends: click here.
One of the most basic characteristics of "primitive humans" is that no records, no history was being kept by them.
Recently, I spoke with a New Yorker from an area not far from the Vermont border. I asked him, "Was Vermont one of the 13 original colonies?"
The New Yorker said, "Yes. Vermont is one of the 13 original colonies," in a tone that implied everyone knows that.
(((However, as you suppress your laughter, note that Vermont was state number 14; therefore, it cannot possibly be one of the original 13 colonies! Don't laugh out loud, however. HOLD YOUR SNICKERING!!!!)))
And decendents of the autonomous region in 1775 when the Revolution began, that region very soon to call itself, "Vermont", are accepted members of the Daughters of the American Revolution. There is also a state park in Vermont today which the DAR bought and donated to the State of Vermont, and which sits on land related to events related to that war. People from this area later to be called "Vermont" were very involved in the entire Revolution from 1775 to 1783, and were also as much, or more able to control their territory than other more vulnerable, more civilized parts of the new USA.
Check for Revolutionary War activity along the shores of Lake Champlain: lots of activity for the entire war on both sides (New York and the region later to be called "Vermont").
I also think it's perhaps more unique than imagined that Vermont joined the USA in 1791 with a $30,000 surplus, apparently, that was paid to the USA. How unique was this situation? I wish I knew. I do know that Texas (the state government) did not have any money or credit when they joined the USA, as Texas had gone totally broke mostly by financing their own small but formidable Texas Navy which became part of the military of the Republic of the Yucatan, by treaty.
Don't Vote Third Party or You Might Create a New
If a third party uniquely sponsors really good ideas, such as ending slavery, then such a third party has a good chance of becoming a new and victorious factor in American politics, such as the Republican Party.
If Americans had followed the advice, "never vote third party", then we would not have the Republican Party today which was originally a fringe third party.
Another thing which third parties have accomplished throughout history is the promotion of really good ideas, such as ending U.S. involvement in the Vietnam civil war, which was not promoted by either the Democrats nor Republicans in 1968; only independent candidates supported ending U.S. involvement in the Vietnam civil war in 1968: George Wallace and various other fringe candidates were the only candidates running for President of the USA in 1968 who blazed the unpopular trail of trying to end the insanity.
So third parties are definitely an important part of American politics, but are rarely given credit where credit is due.
Bankruptcy and Student Debt: now I see an article today which indicates students in some cases do have the right to include such student debt in their bankruptcies, and to obtain relief from such debt. Amazing.
The Roots of Rock and Roll; "Holy Roller Music"; Southern Gospel Music. With this sort of music, a person can stay at home, and listen to gospel music all night and all day. Another one.)
This is "church" to some people.
Federal Land Ownership Within U. S. States.
- Someone in Alabama put this up: click here. Seems well researched, but I have no idea.
- New Jersey Judge Andrew Napolitano: click here.
- Regardless of anything else you may find about this subject, I am nearly 100% certain that the U.S. military under certain conditions (i.e., THE U. S. CONSTITUTION of 1787) can easily acquire land in a U.S. state from any party without their consent after paying for it at fair market value, for creation of, or expansion of U.S. domestic military bases. I've heard this from a two different well informed civilian sources whose land was purchased unilaterally by the U.S. government. It's also in the original and current U.S. constitution, and this has not been amended or altered in any way.
Having domestic military bases here and there is part of the original plan for the USA.
I'm no lawyer or legal expert, but it's obvious that the U.S. government mostly had to have owned nearly the entire USA territorially at one time, other than the land owned by citizens of the original 14 states, and that still owned by native Americans. I'm thinking that the sovereign 14 original states did not wish for their territory to be seized by the new central government. Nearly all of that land in the original 14 states was owned by private land owners, not the 14 state governments. The threat of King George or President George Washington seizing their land was a real fear of all the founding fathers and all the earliest American citizens.
MY OPINION: at some point in U.S. history the word got out that the Feds had illegally "seized" vast amounts of land within the USA within U.S. states. I think this FALSE rumor began to circulate in classrooms in our schools, about the time that Teddy Roosevelt began to set aside vast tracts of land, already owned by our central government, as National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and so forth. But further investigation reveals that all that land was already owned by the U.S. central govenment, from the territorial period, before the states were created.
Turns out that MOST territory in the eastern part of the USA was already settled by settlers (i.e., U. S citizens) just before and just after the states there were created. Out west, only some of the land there was transferred to private ownership and settled due to the generally mountainous and inaccessible terrain. This meant that vast tracts were still "in limbo", or still owned by the U.S. Government out west when the states came into being there.
What the government under Teddy Roosevelt, President Grant, and others did was to set aside vast amounts of federally owned land "permanently" which they decided should not be sold or otherwise transferred into private ownership, unlike nearly the entire Eastern part of the USA.
I think the issue of Federal land ownership anywhere is a legitimate issue. However, I don't think that vast amounts of federally owned land should necessarily be transferred to individual state ownership since the state cannot collect property taxes from itself!
Better for the Fed. to continue to sell Federal lands to those private parties who want to buy it, just as they always have done here and there, to private owners who then pay property taxes to the counties located in those states. Without taxes to support state and county services, I don't see how states can practically own such vast tracts of land without private enterprise flourishing there first.
New York State has never once elected an anti-business Governor, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was the most pro-business President the USA has ever had. I know most people think of FDR as being virtually a communist, but it isn't really true.
FDR SAVED THE BANKING SYSTEM LONG TERM! Without banks, businesses of all sorts have great difficulty operating. Since FDR was president, and since FDR reformed (improved) the banking system which Hoover had totally bungled, bank commercial and checking account losses are virtually unknown today, and bank failures are much less today than in the entire history of the USA.
At the beginning of the Great Depression, Hoover 1)was unable to rally the unionized miners to get back to work mining gold after they went on strike, and 2)allowed the banking system to nearly totally collapse when a huge nationwide bank-run occurred, and 3)allowed the Federal Reserve to continue to be unable to respond adequately to the situation at hand.
FDR turned the funny money machine on for the first time in a major way, and started the FDIC to restore the public's confidence in the banks, instead of ultimately relying on gold and silver currency for domestic bank reserves, and then gets historical credit for a lot of Hoover's program that did not work well without a functional domestic banking system. Once the banks were OK, FDR did very well with Hoover's other programs. Most of FDR's more extreme and left-wing programs were ultimately ruled unconstitutional before World War II had even started, thus leaving mostly the Hoover plan in place that Roosevelt had inherited.
Beginning the nuclear age, defeating the Nazis, starting up Social Security, ending alcohol prohibition, and saving the banks, were just five of FDR's main accomplishments. Allowing Stalin to dominate Eastern Europe was one screwy thing he also is mostly disliked for.
It isn't really fair to compare FDR to any other president other than Washington, perhaps. The fact that many Americans think of him as being a Stalinist communist is what is unfortunate. I think he was a radical centrist, perhaps. He seems more connected to the business community than many presidents who are not even considered left-wing at all.
NOTE: the idea that FDR deliberately induced Japan to attack the USA is moronic. The USA was not prepared for war, and had armed forces about the size of Romania's around 1940. It would have been insane for the USA to deliberately induce some country to attack us. There was no absolute certainty that Japan was headed for Pearl Harbor to attack the USA. Conspiracy theorists today believe that F.D.R. was fully aware of the impending attack.
American ships were already being sunk by the Germans in the Atlantic Ocean well before Pearl Harbor, but Congress and the President did not want war, even after direct attacks by Germany. Charles Lindbergh with the America First movement was probably one of the most popular people in the USA at that moment, who led public opinion in the USA away from war.
Historically speaking, WWII was a suicide mission by desperate Japan against the USA and other nations, that failed. Japan was insanely involved in war due to having suffered probably the worse economic downturn in the world during the Great Depression which steered them away from commerce and into war. This is why I blame Hoover for WWII - it was his fault due to the Great Depression his policies created.
Contrary to the assumptions of so many who believe the crap written by conspiracy theorists, the USA and Japan before WWII were actually quite close, diplomatically speaking.
Japan donated thousands of Japanese cherry blossom trees to the USA in 1912, and these trees have become one of the most popular attractions which tourists seek out in Washington, D.C., even today in 2016.
It could be argued that more tourists visit Washington, D.C. to see the Japanese cherry blossom trees there, than go to Japan for the same reason.
If Americans from that era hated Japanese and Chinese people to such an extreme extent, then why were so many allowed into the USA in the first place?
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon
Notices Anti-Israeli Slant at U.N.
U.N. General Assembly condemns Israel 223 times versus only 8 times for Syrian atrocities.
Baywatch Canceled!!! Let Them Drown!!!
Recently, the Miss Teen USA organizers canceled the swimsuit competition in favor of a new competition where the girls would choose atheletic wear to model in the competition.
Of course, we never knew which girls could swim, and which couldn't. But with the swimsuits, at least there was this assumption that they all could swim. I find it sad that beauty and the abililty to save one's own life in an aquatic environment, and the lives of others perhaps, are no longer being correlated.
It makes no sense at all to promote fewer capabilities, fewer abililities, and that does not seem attractive to me.
Let's hope hydrophobia isn't spreading.
John Lennon/Yoko Ono Explored
It makes no sense at all to blame Lennon, assuming he was the "trouble-maker", for the split-up of the Beatles. If the other three had wanted the Beatles to continue, I don't see how Lennon could've "vetoed" that. Plenty of groups kick out the "trouble-maker", and continue as before. The remaining three could've done that if they wanted to, but they didn't. The other three Beatles were also very interested in their own solo careers at this point. As I recall, it was actually Paul and Linda McCartney vs. the other three in court. Lennon was actually the one who tried to save the Beatles, it appears from the historical record. But in the long run, Paul and Linda were right: Klein turned out to be a crook.
Paul and Linda were being blamed for the break-up at the time, incidentally, so this argument is more like "musical chairs": Blame the Beatle.
Lennon and Klein were in contact, and Klein was hired to manage the Beatles' affairs toward the end. Paul and Linda did not like Klein, and went to court over it. This entire conflict was what the media was reporting at the time as having split the group.
I can't think of any logical reason for anyone to have murdered John Lennon! The death of Lennon, and even the current inexplicable "noveau-hatred" of him currently being planted in the media, are also odd. It's bad form to be so hateful of someone who is not around to defend themselves from attack.
I never considered Lennon to be perfect; nor was his first marriage perfect. It was probably better to get a divorce rather than live in misery and "slavery" to someone that was not his perfect match. His first marriage was probably more harmonious at the beginning, but it fizzled. Lennon has stated for the record that his first marriage was created in a somewhat alcohol induced state.
Just like millions of others who married and mated initially too quickly, Lennon learned that good marriage should be pursued slowly and carefully. He should be congratulated for his successful second marriage and last album - Double Fantasy.
Extremists? Today, many youth think of John and Yoko as having been so extreme in their own time that in today's world, we have to HATE THEM NOW. That is absolutely not the case in terms of the extremism of John and Yoko.
John Lennon, Yoko Ono, and Richard Nixon all actually agreed about ending the Vietnam War, though Nixon did not wish to "retreat" from the war suddenly.
Even at their most extreme, I don't think John Lennon and Yoko Ono were anywhere near as extreme as many are today, politically. In fact, to call today's extremism, "political extremism", is not accurate.
Today's extremists don't care a bit about politics - they care far more about terrorism and street violence. At least John and Yoko protested in a context that did not involve the murder or beating of their opponents. However, their opponents, those who hated John and Yoko even by 1980, were far more extreme than John and Yoko had ever been.
In context, John Lennon and Yoko Ono put down the anti-war banner immediately after the Vietnam war ended, and his main opponent, Richard Nixon, became a confused has-been well before 1980, the year Lennon died. More like 1974 - Nixon was already finished. There was no reason to murder John Lennon in 1980 unless you really truely had wanted Vietnam to have been the 51st state? In that case, you were the only person in America who felt like that.
It's not that I dislike Vietnam - I don't. I just want to point out that there was never any plan at anytime to make Vietnam part of the USA during the Vietnam War that I can recall.
I.E., no imperialism. If the USA was actually planning on inviting the people of Vietnam to vote "YES" in order to become America's 51st state, I don't recall that ever happening in U.S. history. (As a short-wave listener in the late 1960's/early 1970's, I used to listen occasionally to what was once called, "Radio Peking", even by the Chinese. Radio Peking and Radio Tirana (Albania) were nearly identical at that time. Albania at that time was a surrogate of Communist China. Radio Moscow, Radio Tirana Albania, and Radio Peking (China) were all continuously accusing the USA of being "IMPERIALISTS" in Vietnam. Note that the other "Soviet bloc" countries were not so critical of the USA then, and their short-wave radio outlets concerned themselves mostly with music and art. For example, Radio Prague was not so critical of the USA.)
The true IMPERIALIST in the USA who visited very recently, is named PRINCE CHARLES. This is a fact, not an opinion. The word IMPERIAL should be used accurately. Only a judge, king, prince, or queen, or such, can be IMPERIAL or act imperially. It is not possible for a democracy to be IMPERIAL.
The last IMPERIAL in the USA was named RICHARD NIXON, unless you're talking about the CHRYSLER IMPERIAL car.
CHANGING THE SUBJECT:
My opinion: Imagine is Lennon's worst album. He himself stated that Imagine was a somewhat fake, or "sugar-coated" version of Working Man's Hero. Why not listen to the real thing? Lennon was the son of a sailor, a working man. I don't understand why so many deny this today.
My favorite album of John Lennon? Double Fantasy. It's a very coherent Rock and Roll album with a message to the world, "We're back together" (John and Yoko).
In other words, in 1980, the world was so peaceful, more or less, that Lennon was ignoring it, other than his wife, now again his girlfriend. Note that in that sense, Lennon was returning to the music roots of the Beatles - songs about new or returning romance. (I can easily imagine that the other three Beatles might've rallied around Lennon at this point in time, and the Beatles could've spontaneously re-formed around Lennon's new Rock and Roll/romancing songs.)
I still don't understand why anyone would want to shoot John Lennon at this point during his life. He seems to have left another life totally behind at this point in time when he returned to Yoko and released the album. I don't know much about the precise chronology of his life. This is just a feeling I got from listening to the new album before Lennon was shot.
Throughout the Double Fantasy album, there's this feeling of long-overdue victory over something. What is that something? I wish I knew. There was an electric feeling that permeated this album, just like the original Beatles albums, before it became blood spattered.
That feeling of victory has been largely lost by everyone since Lennon was shot. But especially those of us who heard the album before the death, and felt the victory. I wish I knew what Lennon had conquered before his death. What was it?
Changing the Subject:
Save American English: the American adjective (adjectivial?) and adverb (adverbial?) values of the words, "royal", "kingly", "queenly", and "royally"; as opposed to being nouns, as in "The King", or "The Queen", should be respected by English grammatists. American English usage of those words without capitals is quite common here: "royal", "queenly", "kingly", and so forth. But it doesn't mean here what it means in Europe or in the U.K. (Or in England vs. Scotland vs. Wales vs. Ireland (N. and S.), for example.)
I found out the hard way that "royal" or "Royal" as an adjective or adverb in Europe does not necessarily mean, "good", or "great" in the usual way used by Americans just quoted. It just means, "government", as in "Royal Post and Telegraph". A large number of European countries still call their post office and telephone/telegraph service, the "Royal Mail and Post".
To an Englishman you might meet somewhere in England, if you say, "Act royally" to such a person, (or "Act Royally") most Englishmen would not understand what you are saying at all. Literally, that would mean to them, "to act governmentally", or to "act like the government".
Americans would think "acting royally" means to "act right", or "don't act poorly, or like louts." That's actually not the traditional usage of those words. "Royal Pain in the Ass", is far more American than "Royal Post Office", or "Royal Train Service".
That's not what "acting royally" or "acting Royally" means to an Englishman. To them, it might mean to deliver the mail, or to act cruelly, or to act in a horribly bloody, errrrrr, royal manner. Such as cutting someone's head off, or seizing their property for back-taxes owed "the Crown". Those are "Royal Acts" to an Englishman.
We Americans use those same words in an extremely different manner. We use them in the fantasy manner of Dungeons and Dragons stories, not in the reality TV mode of the IRS stealing too much of your wages every month, or conscripting you to go into the army for a war not your own (drafting you), or shooting some innocent person. That's "Prince Charles", or Government, shooting the innocent person.
That's Prince Charles taking your wages as the Royal Tax Department. That's Prince Charles, the Crown Prosecutor putting you in jail. That's Queen Elizabeth, the cops! We don't call the cops Royal usually in the USA, but they are Royal in the U.K., Always.
All government in the U.K. is Royal by Definition.
If we appreciate the cops in the USA for doing some great deed, we might call that "royal" without realizing how silly that might seem to some Englishmen whose mail wasn't delivered right, or whose Royal Train ride ended badly.
Recognize Israel Diplomatically
It makes no sense to talk about being fair in terms of the Middle East when extreme inequality has always dominated the discussions, in that Israel has never been recognized diplomatically as a country by quite a few other countries in the world. Border issues are irrelevant; many countries with border disputes have fully recognized each other, diplomatically.
However, I personally do not see Israel as the only place on earth where Jewish people should live, as they should have the right to live anywhere on earth that they choose.
(Nov. 14, 2013) "Telus" is the name of one of the largest phone and internet companies in Canada since the late 1990's. Might be a good time to sell their stock. Does this make sense? The webmaintainer swore to uphold the U.S. constitution at least once, under sworn oath. I think it was the 1988-1991 period when I did that in order to register to vote in the USA.
Master of Love, Sex, & Spirituality, Mantak Chia: this great book, Taoist Secrets of Love; Cultivating Male Sexual Energy, by Mantak Chia, is a must-read for all women and men. Biography of Mantak Chia: click here. (An earlier Wikipedia biography of Chia states that his parents were Baptists.)
Chia's book indicates that the Taoist techniques he expounds help prevent the health problems that many "celibate priests and monks" sometimes experience from extreme sexual abstinence. His advice and techniques are intended also to help regular married or unmarried people enjoy much better sexual relationships, whether wishing to have children or not, etc.
He also teaches mental and physical techniques that help heal certain common sexual health problems other than STD's. Chia recommends that those with STD's get those healed first before using his techniques.
A MESSAGE TO THE GHOST OF(((NOTE: RODGER became a MASS MURDERER, and was never accused of sexual crimes.)))
ELLIOT RODGER, R.I.P.
In 2014, President Obama issued a Presidential Proclamation
for National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.
NOTE: this generally falls under state and local law in the USA.
IF YOU ARE A VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OR RAPE IN CANADA, CLICK HERE.
(August 3, 2015) Satan Loves Rape! If abortion is wanted by a pregnant woman due to rape-induced pregnancy (Satan's will), then I'm for a woman's right to choose abortion when abortion is conducted in the name of God, a woman's right to invoke if a rape victim.
Frankly, I don't think women should have to confess to being "rape victims" in this scenario, so they should have the unqualified right to choose abortion without admitting to being rape victims. In many places, admitting to being a rape-victim is suicidal, and such women are outcasts.
Enslaving women to have unwanted pregnancies is Satan's will against the free-will of 1/2 of all hetero-sexual partnerships - the women involved. Sexual relations should always be an enthusiastic expression of mutual attraction, the general presumption historically in the USA and Europe for the most part, especially since the late 1800's and into the early 1900's. If we're not promoting romance, we are then promoting some form of coercion, or rape, so natural and mutual attraction and romance are mandatory in the current modern world.
It's odd that certain segments of the internet media are today referring to photos of beautiful women as "shocking", as if having a sister is "shocking". There is a degeneration of western media at the moment toward referring to normal life as "shocking".
(December 4th, 2013) (The following advice concerns the pre-marital dating scenario, or the "playing the field" scenario that normally occurs before individuals have selected each other for close relationships, and has nothing to do with polygamy, or multi-partner close relationships. The author is biased toward monogamy. Also, this advice was written by a strictly heterosexual person. However, universal truths are hopefully illuminated a little bit here.)
How to 1)get over insanity in relationships! 2)How to get hugged and kissed by hundreds, perhaps a thousand, women, free of charge, and 3)how lightening up a lot could help you immeasurably. FACT: having 1000 girlfriends, or more, is actually easier than having ONE girlfriend!
TRAPPED IN HIS CAR, A REFUGEE FROM AMERICA'S SUBURBS: this entire section is dedicated to the 2014 victims of an unfortunate kid from the suburbs named, Elliot Rodger, who shot dead a number of poeple in Isla Vista, California after getting extremely angry at not being able to interact harmoniously with women, college women in particular. He was definitely not in the "moment" in terms of being in bliss and happiness BEFORE going out to be hugged and kissed by many women. Never go out to meet up with women unless you're already somewhat happy.
Also, get out of your car for a change! In the end, he used his car as a weapon to kill innocent people with. There's a whole world out there of sidewalks, cafes, sidewalk cafes, bicycles, coffee shops, yoga studios, dance studios, bars, discos, exercise studios, walking paths, and nice shaded areas in parks, etc., etc. Talk to people somewhere, don't just drive around all day. I also notice a certain stressed look on his face in the selfies, and a strange angle of how his head and neck appear. I think the guy needed neck massage from all that driving around all the time.
Most or all of his "selfies" were from inside of his car. I feel like he just drove around all day getting angrier and angrier, not knowing where to just "be" and interact in society. He should not have been in the car so often in the first place.
From the basis of anger and frustration, there is no way any relationship or meeting up with women is going to happen.
Relationship Light: don't be so HEAVY about it! It makes no sense to go ballistic when things don't go as planned. Over-planning relationships could be the problem.
The advice I give here may not solve ONE situation of a guy falling in love with one girl unsuccessfully, but it could result in that confused guy getting many girlfriends instead of just that one who could not honestly reciprocate, and to no longer fall into such foolish situations.
- Reciprocity. (Surprise!) In terms of non-Platonic relationships, heterosexual women find your body as interesting as you find hers. If not, then you could still pursue a Platonic relationship. There should be appropriate physical reciprocity if a proper "full" relationship is to occur. Atheletes and Tarzan types do have an advantage with this aspect, but women like small or frail guys sometimes just because they don't intimidate them.
- Don't Chase Women. Be with lots of women, but don't chase them in your mind, or... just don't chase women. Let them chase you. Heterosexual women love to chase men, look at men, and so forth. For them to chase you, you have to first be around heterosexual (or bisexual) women, however.
Something in world culture has been unbalanced in this regard for a long time. I know I was "hypnotized" by modern media culture, and perhaps, not really understanding how the universe works. But so many movies and books have helped create the idea that a guy is supposed to chase women, mentally and physically.
The problem with "chasing women" is that it quickly becomes similar to the predator-prey scenario. Women actually despise being treated as "prey".
They do want to be appreciated, even worshipped, so definitely appreciate them in all their beauty and charm, but don't chase them.
Ironically, if you stop chasing women, mentally and physically, you will find yourself immediately with thousands and thousands of girl-friends. Trust me. It works.
- Parents and Relatives On YOUR Side? Doesn't matter. Even if everyone in the world thinks you two should be together, if she still doesn't feel so inclined to go with you, then it's "no dice".
In fact, I'm inclined to speculate that many girls often like guys whom their parents DESPISE!!! This is in harmony with the concept that girls often like "rebels" whom parents often don't like.
I suppose this varies from culture to culture.
- Don't assume you are ugly to women. Women often like ugly guys. What women like in the opposite sex is totally mysterious.
- Virtually every athelete in the entire world knows that what I am saying here is TRUE. I first read about these concepts, outside religous belief concerning "celibacy", from reading interviews with famous American atheletes in Playboy magazine. Mohammed Ali has stated that he practiced abstinence before fights. Michael Jordan - same thing. But these atheletes were not as adept as Mantak Chia, who is a MASTER and who has many more important secrets to impart to those who are listening and reading, other than mere momentary abstinence.
- Master of Love, Sex, & Spirituality, Mantak Chia:
This great book, Tao Secrets of Love, by Mantak Chia, is a must-read for all women and men. Biography of Mantak Chia: click here. He also teaches "higher" spiritual things in a Buddhist tradition. (NOTE: in earlier versions of the Wikipedia biography, it states that his parents were Baptists in Hong Kong.)
Help Stop Genital Mutilation and/or suicide. Just reading and understanding this book by Chia could help men and women become happier with themselves, and the world. In that sense, I believe it could actually help prevent genital mutilation, suicide, or other extreme acts or outcomes. (Physical damage can occur for those who overdo sexual restraint. One study mentioned by Mantak Chia indicates that priests who practice celibacy have an extremely high rate of death from prostate cancer. This indicates a lack of the precise knowledge which Mantak Chia is trying to teach. Celibacy is OK as long as you do it right. Chia teaches precise massage and other exercises of the affected areas so that injury does not occur.)
NOTE: I am against any practices which increase disease, such as the current insane mania against circumcision for males. Reducing urinary tract infections of many many types is a GOOD THING. It would be FANTASTIC if women could also be saved from the horrible misery of urinary tract infections. Maybe the French really are more knowledgeable about this subject. Do a google search for "urinary tract infection france", and you might be surprised at what you find.
The Pill? Mantak Chia discusses only briefly the issue of committment, marriage, pregnancy, and having children in the book, so I recommend that birth-control pills, and contraception methods be utilized to avoid unwanted pregnancies for those with a girl-friend. Actually, I'm fairly certain that Chia would not have recommended to any couples to try his techniques unless the woman was already using "the pill", but he never confesses to that at any point in this book that I recall, though oddly, he mentions many times that beginners will often not succeed with his techniques at first. However, unwanted pregnancies are never mentioned at all, so he must believe in extremely good luck for his readers!
Or the unmentioned "pill". The ancient Tao tradition from whom Chia claims he obtained the knowledge did not have "the pill", so I find it extremely odd that Chia never mentions it.
Chia and his wife are a normal heterosexual couple, but gives support to gays or bisexual persons with no condemnation. He places everything in a basic yin/yang male/female energy polarity, but acknowledges universal truths for everyone. He also notes that aging and disease affect this basic male/female energy polarity.
I really feel that discussing the subject matter of Chia's book is essential, and that many problems with a physical or psychological origin, will simply disappear for the reader after studying Chia's books on human sexual health.
In an elaborate spiritual way, Chia explains how men are to avoid premature ejaculation (PE) during love-making, one of the most common sexual problems encountered by men and their frustrated girlfriends. He provides actual exercises which strengthen the male and female bodies, and which he refers to as sexual kung fu. He also teaches women to help men avoid PE, rather than hurrying up with it as some paid partners usually do.
Avoid partial sex, or 1/2 sex. Chia points out that once the guy has climaxed, generally speaking, love-making ceases with the women perhaps left out of any sexual experience that occurred briefly for only 1/2 of the pair. This leads to divorce or splitting up, and the woman turning to sex-toys and each other for sexual fulfillment.
Chia speculates that more marriages and relationships have failed due to incompetence in love-making, than any other reason.
Why should sex with boyfriend-husbands lead to frustration for the women involved? No wonder lesbianism is so popular among women, which could make lots of sense for the women!
Mantak's Chia's knowledge of sex and spirituality is so important to the world.
If pregnancy is not the goal, then be careful!!! Planned Parenthood.
- Reciprocity and ACTUAL Heterosexuality! Real sex consists of both partners willingly/passionately having mutual attraction in an approved context and way, not just one of them. Otherwise, you are a pervert!
- Women in groups or pairs are more confident, and less nervous usually, than when alone. Sometimes it's easier to meet people when a guy alone, or with other guys in a group, are meeting women in groups. One on one can be too intense sometimes.
- Sex workers, mistresses. In my opinion, a guy's "need" for a mistress occurs in situations of one-way, non-reciprocated love for someone other than the mistress, or when some other lack of fulfillment occurs in marriage or relationships. This is also a symptom of popular insanity, probably. (There are three persons involved here. The guy, his mistress, and his girlfriend or wife with whom there is little or no sexual attraction or passion.)
- Grooming. Trim, clean your nails regularly. Shave or trim your beard or moustache; clean your teeth, use mouthwash, and floss. Wear properly matched clothes. But wear only clothes you're personally comfortable with.
- Hair Color: nearly every horror movie ever made has at least one scene where a gray-haired person suddenly appears full-screen, scaring everyone in the theatre out of their wits. Note that in the American Civil War, the South dug their own grave when they chose gray as their color - a BAD CHOICE, and a bad omen of what was to come: LOSING.
Some people look OK with gray hair, but pure white hair is a very lucky and attractive color as with the bald eagle.
Just as we paint our houses decade after decade to keep them pristine looking, so should we color our hair to keep the gray away to help prevent scary outcomes and so forth, unless you're lucky enough to have white hair instead of gray.
FRANCE: All Women on Earth, More or Less, Wish to Visit France. Isn't it interesting that statistics show clearly that nearly all women on planet earth are highly attracted to visiting France? Paris is the most popular travel destination on earth! Why is this? The French are supposed to be cleaner all over, and have placed art, music, romance, and love very high in their society! Could that be the reason?
Toilet is a French word: be clean all over! The French also invented a washing basin device called the bidet, just for cleaning the lower areas of the body after using the W.C., toilet, commode, and for cleaning the lower areas of the body. Other areas of the world have also adopted that tradition. Or maybe France adopted this tradition from elsewhere.
If a bidet is not available, improvise.
Don't take a small or large residue of yesterday's dinner around with you in your pants! That's not very romantic. (Yes, I know that some women find it cute if their baby poops in his pants. Maybe I'm wrong about this one!)
- Keep Your "Spheres of Influence" Cooler: medical research has shown us that the male "spheres" should not be overheated by wearing excessive or too-tight clothing in that area, or by being immersed in hot water at any time for long. While the body is generally said to be at 98.6 degrees F., the "spheres of influence" are about 90 degrees F. normally as they are located outside the main structure of the male body in order to keep them cooler.
When bathing, after washing and rinsing, keep them out of the warm water. Your energy level will be higher if you do that. When sleeping, keep the covers mostly off of that area of the body. You'll sleep better also.
Staying cool means staying so clean "down there", that you don't need to wear underwear, especially in hot weather. (If you have to wear underwear, you need to take a bath, etc.)
- Beards: personally, I think most women want to see a guy's face, and prefer the unshaven face, especially during love-making, kissing, or hugging. Beards tickle, attract crumbs, and .... never mind.
Beards are OK as long as it doesn't give you the appearance of a "billy-goat". If having a beard makes a guy happy, then girls do prefer happy guys. But if you're angry with a beard? No way. Shave the beard.
Some guys look better with a beard or moustache.
- I recommend that guys who tend to fall in love too much or too often, to go ahead and love all women in your heart, not just one! Loving one women is impossible anyway! Loving all women will protect you from a delusional one-way relationship without reciprocity from the other person. And you're also being honest, aren't you? God and nature both always reward appropriate honesty!
- Women like men who are already happy. No matter how poignant your heart is feeling about "her", she probably thinks you're crazy. Women like happy men who are happy nearly all the time, not crazy ones who fall into "love", and are otherwise very very sad and lonely without "her". Find happiness in your life first before looking for happiness in relationships.
- Note that unrequitted love is the exact same thing as STALKING! Let women chase you. The problem here isn't who's chasing who, but what the women and men are actually thinking about when they meet, and what their attitude is about each other. Most guys are chasing women in their minds already. That's where the error begins - in the mind.
The more attractive women are more likely the types who prefer to chase men. I don't know why that is, but that's just how the world is.
Therefore, when you stop chasing women in your mind, this is the actual point that they begin to chase you. You should notice a "change in the entire universe" when you reach this point in understanding yourself.
- Communicate first by LISTENING AND WATCHING, rather than speaking loudly and ignoring them. Women send us signals if they are interested in us. If you're the extreme extrovert type, you may never notice the signals being sent. If you get a positive signal from women, that doesn't mean they want to marry you, or screw you. I mean, don't over-react if you get a positive signal from women!
I used to have NO awareness of these signals, and was so obsessed with my own feelings, I ignored the signals being sent. When a guy enters a room or area with women around, he should initially be quiet and watch for signals. Don't be an extrovert at this point - be a receiver of signals.
- Note that the actual process of establishing meaningful communication with women in general, is itself seen by those women as a major BREAKTHROUGH for them! Women in general are so sick of being IGNORED in terms of what they are actually trying to communicate to MEN, that when a guy comes along who consciously receives and responds to those signals, they will actually mob that guy! This is a major secret in terms of relationships. Many guys think they are communicating with women, but they aren't.
For example, research has shown that women always like to sit and face the person they are communicating with, while men, in general, like to face the same direction as the person they are talking with. Change your ways when meeting women!
- Physical damage can occur for those who haven't read Chia's book. One study mentioned by Mantak Chia indicates that priests who practice celibacy have a high rate of death from prostate cancer. This indicates a lack of the precise knowledge which Mantak Chia is trying to teach. Celibacy is OK as long as you do it right. Chia teaches precise massage and other exercises of the affected areas so that injury does not occur.
Like the battery in your mobile phone, stay charged. Women can tell if you've been doing that. Read Mantak Chia's book: click here.
- Hug-back. At most, ask her for a hug. Women love to hug. Hug back if hugged. Reciprocate, don't initiate in general.
- In terms of actual sex, let women make the physical moves, preceded by signals, and be prepared to stop at any moment. Turn over your body to her as a tool to be used as if she owns it, if and when she wants it, so to speak, but give her control and confidence. She sees you as a possibly reliable sex-toy anyway. She hates being raped. Hugging comes before kissing. Kissing before love-making. Rape leads only to jail.
Although men are supposed to lead in most dance; in sex, she leads as she's the one who can get pregnant. Many men have realized eventually that all their sexual experiences with women had been physically initiated by the women.
- Foreigners!!! Nowhere in the USA, not even in marriage, do you have the right to rape your wife, or anybody else's. Nor single women.
- Sincerity! NEVER tell big lies to, go out with, or patronize women you have no strong sincere feelings for. But be nice and honorable to all women. Do favors for all women, but don't over-do it in terms of love and dating with women you don't have strong feelings for.
However, they have to have strong feelings for you also!
- Don't assume anything, or take women for granted. Better to ask first no matter what happened in the past. Be in the moment, the NOW. That's where ALL women actually are. They are not in the past or the future as guys often are, they are NOW! But that doesn't mean they want to make love NOW! Perhaps later. Women call that shot.
No human beings should be pressured to destroy, subvert, or desensitize their own personal love and sex-life! If you seek one-way love and sex, then get an inflatable doll! Otherwise, you have to take part in the mutual sexual attraction leading to interesting sexual experiences that your partner deserves. Your partner deserves the same rights and experiences that you want for yourself, and all women and men should also all know how to avoid the women getting pregnant, especially if there is not enough affection for family building. I mean, kissing and hugging don't get women pregnant, but those are part of normal love and heterosexual relations. I believe that without the romance part, the sex is not really worth the time, energy, or trouble. If you disagree with that, you're clinically an idiot and a threat to civilization, both past and present. (The word actual was added to distinguish real-heterosexuality from "missionary-style" one-way sex, which most consider to be rape, actually.)
- I conjecture that most or all gays, bisexuals, and lesbians were more inclined to be truely reciprocal than some so-called heterosexuals! This explains why many women often praise many gay or bisexual men, and maybe some heterosexuals also, hopefully. This conjecture is based upon the assumption that "rape-among-lgbtq" people may be less common than "heterosexual-rape"? (I'm thinking that there's no possible way that lgbtq people would be that way from being coerced into it. Therefore, we heterosexuals have to realize the historical errors from pseudo-heterosexuality, or one-way "missionary" style sex. One way heterosexuality is not really heterosexual.)
Make sure she's into you physically before investing your life with her unless you want only a Platonic relationship.
If a girl wants only sex, then advise her to get counseling. That sort of thing (one-night-stands) often destroys a guy's heart eventually. (On the other hand, real passion is also the validity "key" if a couple wants to have sex.)
- REJECTION, PLAYING THE FIELD: You have to be prepared, and to expect lots of rejection if you are very "forward" with women. Most men also reject lots of women. If you're sensitive to signals she is sending, the overt rejection may never take place.
I find it interesting that modern dating in the USA is mostly in line with high-Vedic concepts about marriage and dating in terms of choice: the swayamvara is considered the highest form of marriage in India. The same concepts can easily be applied to dating, although the involvement of the parents would probably not take place as often in the USA. Perhaps, friends could do the same things that parents did (or still do) in ancient India in terms of organizing the swamyamvara. But ordinary traditional dating in the USA has always had most of the characteristics of the swayamvara, anyway.
- Ego: some Hindus believe that the female exists to destroy the male-ego. If you don't believe this, just wait!
- Many fools would conjecture that many women chasing a certain guy might be violent when they catch up with him. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women are basically gentle people, and are nearly always like that, 99.9 percent of the time.
But men or women who have been abused their entire lives might not be so gentle. Some people do have psychological problems that need solving. However, until their problems are solved, they can be problems for everyone else. Men or women who allow themselves to be abused sexually, for money or whatever other reasons, are not healthy or normal.
- Charity and Relationships: first of all, if you're not being sincere, that is a red flag. Also, if people are well matched, no one is condenscending to help the other one out. Better for well matched couples to work together.
- Attitude is so important, that once a guy has the right attitude, women will immediately take notice and reward such men with unbelievable attention and love. Intuitively, over thousands and thousands of years, women have developed a keen sense of intuition.
When a guy comes along with the right attitude, they are so overjoyed, they mob that guy with attention since it's much too rare.
That's my theory of why things happen the way they do.
Every class in every school always has one, two, or three guys (but unfortunately, never more than that) that easily seem to always attract many women. (Or at least it appears that way.) Why? Mostly attitude. I wasn't one of those guys, figuring things out at about age 35 or 36. However, it still resulted in an incredible change in my "ability" to attract and meet many women beginning at around age 35-36 or so.
- Do You Actually Have a Relationship? If you haven't had the conversation, and there is no committment, then there is no relationship. Society used to use the word "dating" and "marriage" and "going steady", etc., to define various levels of committment, and should continue to do so. Without that explicit gradation and progress toward committment, perhaps in letters exchanged, I would not live in such a fantasy world for long if I were you. If you have not given yourself to someone, then there is no relationship.
Without that explicit agreement and committment, there is no agreement, unless agreed to. There should be a conversation between the parties to define the sort of relationship that both want to have. If either do not want a relationship and committment, then none exists until agreed to.
- The real problem today is too many not enjoying single life first with lots of contact with single women, etc., which has traditionally been the norm before committment, etc. Some may never leave that state of bliss in comparision to the various forms of slavery imposed by many in society. However, voluntary slavery is an accurate definition of marriage. Otherwise, no sane people want to be enslaved.
NOTE: if scars or wounds, are part of relationships, I don't think that makes much sense.
Most of this is from Wikipedia references, which do change all the time. However, research this yourself if you doubt any of this!
OK, so the term "slaver-13" was erroneous except before 1780. This was before both constitutions. Sorry about that! Mass. banned slavery in 1780.