10 November 2016

If you want to hide away from someone or never have them in sight, Facebook lets you hide their posts and all activity. So conveniently, just as if they didn't exist. At the same time you can avoid conflict and hard feelings because you're still in each other's friends list. But an unfriend... that is a whole different story.

Unfriending is brutal. It hurts. It stands for “I don't want you in my life anymore”. “I'm completely done with you”. “I have nothing left to say to you, only a virtual door to slam in your face.”

"So this woman I was talking to unfriended me..."

You will find loads of articles on this topic and they all tell you the same – which is actually true in many cases. A woman unfriending you is most likely 100% done with you (and you probably exhibited impardonable behaviour). If you've discover a woman you were dealing with has unfriended you (doesn't matter the depth of the relationship you were in, the insight is universally valid), it is not the end.

Unfriending is not the end

You may feel now like a ray of hope is shining through, but you don't quite know what to do about it, still. Yes, she is angry with you. Yes, she may not be able to forgive you. Yes, she virtually slammed that door in your face, as she considered there is no more room for niceties. When this happens, you have to do the following.

Acknowledge what happened

Unless the woman is a total lunatic (hints: has no friends, does drugs, is an alcoholic, is usually antisocial), you must simply acknowledge the fact that you did something that is simply not right in her cards. You are guilty and she's taking you out of her life for that. Leave your ego aside and just accept that. It is the first condition to your healing and perhaps to healing the relationship or friendship you had. It's time to be LUCID and that ego and hurt pride will not help you become lucid.

The Unfriend may just be your best chance at it

I know you're going to be shocked at what I say but it is the truth. After all, don't women do all sort of things that men label as illogical? This is one of them, but if you pay attention and look deeply into it, you will actually find it much more logical than any other version you may have. So pay attention.

She wants you to STEP UP

It's a fact of life and of female psychology and you have to believe it. I've done it countless times, my female friends have done it and women worldwide will continue to do it. Yes, in most cases a woman who's unfriended you will not want to hear from you again... but trust me, it won't hurt if you ASK ABOUT IT. In fact, it will help you know where you truly stand and will make you look like an involved, straightforward, honest and responsible person.

Therefore, what you must do now (and it's counter-intuitive!) is to CONTACT HER!
That's right. What she did was to step away from you and create a gap. She gave you space, so she can see what you're going to do with that space. Now, there is only one way you can come out clean and rehabilitate yourself: contact her.

Why unfriend when you can block?

Stop and think about this for a moment. If she wanted to never hear from you again, she would've blocked you. Heck, that Facebook feature is helping millions of people worldwide keep bullies, psychos and abusers away. It's simple and effective. Yet she didn't do that... she only unfriended you. Now doesn't it seem like a milder thing? It is the milder thing. You can still send her a message. You can contact her friends.

You see, unfriending is a woman's way to force you to act out. Your consequent attitude will give her the answers she needs: did he really care about me? Was he really invested or just playing me? Is he man enough? Is he worthy of another chance? You may think it's the end of the road, but it's not. And even if it is, you have the duty to contact her and ask her about her decision. Trust me, this is the best you can do. It's only logical: if she wanted you completely out of the picture, she would've BLOCKED YOU. I've seen countless situations like this and this is the way females act. We want you to step up and BE A MAN. She probably invested time in whatever you had. And emotions. No one wants to waste an investment. This is your chance to repair what was broken. It may not be easy, as she is hurt, but she wants you to prove your worth.

Women are looking for reliable men, not for wussies who turn their back and give them the silent treatment, or who put up a fight with them. We have our own sensibilities, we have the PMS and a lot of other things that make us the sensible and moody ones. We don't want to waste our time with guys who don't commit and who aren't strong enough to be in a couple. We require mental strength and if you have it, this is your chance to prove it.

So, my friend, take an honest look at what you want from yourself, your life, from her.

If there is anything worth saving, you can save it.

Pull yourself together. I know you are probably mad or hurt, but that is your ego and the ego is not a substitute for dignity. What you must have is dignity, not pride. If you contact her and she engages in a fight, don't fret. If it's the end, she'll just be silent or she'll tell you clearly. But if she engages in a fight, it means there are issues left unsolved and the best thing to do is to solve them. No matter how painful, just go through it!

6 July 2016

Posted by Anna Notaras |
There is no good way to respond to a fat shamer.

Any comeback will make it worse, guaranteed.
It's because REAL CONFIDENCE means paying NO attention to shamers at all.

If you stop and give precious time of your life to make a 'burning' comeback or whatever you think will show you as smart and confident, you're wrong big time.

You're only showing that you care, that it hurt you, that the hater could actually be right.

I have never seen a good response to fat shaming.

Usually, it's a sort of shaming in itself. It's offending the 'hater', it's spilling hate, it's oozing insecurity.

To all overweight women, plus size models etc:

You're never showing yourself as confident when you try so hard to show 'haters' that you're fine with their remarks, that you don't care... because you're actually proving how much you care.

Falsitatea in persoana e cel mai nou actor in telenovela cainilor comunitari din Romania. Nu e o metafora. Ca si falsii Anghel (dovedit de anchete!), nu e decat o marioneta pusa sa instige prostimea... ca sa mai intre niste fonduri in niste buzunare. Daca nu v-ati dat seama de asta, am vesti proaste despre intelectul Dvs.

Vedeta asta care cica a facut muuulte pentru tara noastra (da? ce anume?) nici macar nu a fost atinsa de caine, dar se da ATACATA. Unde sunt ranile atunci, femeie? Descreierata a reactionat normal dupa unii, auzi! Conditia normala a omului, deci, e sa faci spume la bot, sa iti iei vecinii la injuraturi, sa urli ca te doare in cur si ca ai sa ii omori tu. Repet: SA II OMORI. Vi se pare normal deci...

Hai sa va arat punct cu punct unde gresiti voi, 'civilizatii' lui peste, care nu stiti cum sa va mai scuipati ura si veninul! De cand se pune semnul de egal intre civilizatie si rautate?

1. "In tari civilizate nu sunt caini liberi pe strada..."
Dar de UK si de vulpi ai auzit? Ai vazut cum umbla vulpile libere prin cartiere si prin centru, printre turisti? Stii ca sunt mai pericuolase decat cainii? Nu stii, pentru ca ai stat toata viata in satul tau, iar daca ai calatorit, nu te-ai uitat in jur. Inca ceva: nu ai sa vezi caini pe strazi pentru ca oamenii (care i-au domesticit acum muuult timp, ai aflat asta?) NU ii abandoneaza. II STERILIZEAZA... Da, chestia aia cu adevarat eficienta despre care tot vorbesc aparatorii animalelor si voi tot nu vrei sa bagati la cap... Voi, jegurilor, crescuti cu mentalitatea rurala, lasati cateaua sa faca pui in nestire... sau va luati un animal de fitze, de rasa cand ajungeti la bloc, il lasati si pe ala sa se reproduca, apoi aruncati puii pe strada... In plus, in tarile civilizate nu ati mai fi VOI in libertate! Legile v-ar trimite direct la ospiciu la asa amnifestari de ura si ostilitate! Sa doresti raul unui animal sau om este semn de boala psihica!!

2. "Luati-i la voi acasa!" (scris de obicei gresit)

Cea mai de cacat (irationala, ireala, jenibila) replica posibila! Felicitari, esti primul/prima la scoala de prosti! Bai vito/bou sinsitru ce esti (desi nu meriti comparatia cu niste animale blande si inteligente), de unde stii ca nu ii luam? Ai venit tu la casele tuturor sa vezi cati caini avem? Nu, tu doar latri ca sa zici ceva... si nici nu te pricepi ce sa zici. Asta e nivelul tau de zero barat. Chiar ma intreb cum de stii tu situatia adoptiilor din tara stand la calculator pe paginile vedetelor de 2 lei. Sa te ia pe tine ma-ta de pe strada mai bine, ca scazi dramatic IQ-ul strazii!

3. "Iubitorii de animale sunt agresivi!! Ne urasc!! Ne injura!!"
Huooo, bre! Ia stai asa... da putin inapoi... CINE a inceput? Oare nu tu, ca andreea marin, urland si amenintand, insultand si facand spume la bot cand situatia era sub control? Cum ai tupeul sa nu iti vezi propria rautate manifestata fara jena si sa ii acuzi pe ceio mai empatici oameni de pe pamant ca sunt rai? In primul rand e absurd, un om care iubeste vietatile are in mod clar compasiune si nu se exprima agresiv decat atunci cand e atacat (la fel e si cu cainii). Pai daca voi sariti ca nebunii cu vorbe spurcate, vreti ca ei sa va pupe?
Jigodii ordinare! Mai vezi si cate un blogger ratat care simte sa isi spuna parerea si sa o apere pe fufa furioasa... de parca poti apara nerozia, rautatea, violenta!
Bloggeri de genul cu siguranta ca se isterizeaza la cuvintele mele... fara sa vada ca ei folosesc un vocabular si mai 'elevat', complet gratuit, care nu demonstreaza nimic decat cat de prosti si limitati sunt ei. Dar ei au impresia ca sunt razboinici, ca jignesc si zic lucrurilor pe nume. Nu bre, singura pe care o jignsti e ma-ta, careia ii pare rau ca te-a adus pe lume! Noi stim bine cum stau lucrurile si nu ne sinchisim de cacaturile pe acre le scoti tu pe gura.

Asadat... invatati sa iubiti, sa respectati viata, sa fiti oameni si sa actionati rational fara de animale (da, se poate! si GARANTEZ ca nu va vor mai ataca!) si atunci veti avea un raspuns pe masura. Pana atunci, daca esti un tembel ipocrit care insulta si injura, dand vina aiurea, e posibil sa fii ranit de adevar.

4. "Cei care hranesc cainii sunt de vina!"
Serios? WOW, cum omorati voi logica elementara!!!
Bai jegule, tu stii ce se intampla cu cainii infometati? POT DEVENI AGRESIVI. Deci care e concluzia logica? Sa devii un ciumpalac orbit de furie sau sa ai grija sa fie hraniti? E la mintea cocosului ca oamenii aia care le dau de mancare va fac un bine!!
Si de ce nu ii pot lua acasa? Pentru ca au luat deja! Pentru ca nu mai au bani! Sa le fie rusine cucoanelor onorabile care s-au luat de oameni de buna credinta pretinzandu-le sa mai ia caini acasa si sa mai faca donatii? Sa faca andreea marin daca tot e atat de deranjata, nu?

5. "ONG-urile fura banii!!"
Mi-am dat seama, te-ai nascut idiot si urasti tot ce e viu, bun si frumos. Totusi, puteai sa-ti fi dat seama ca nu iese mare lucru dintr-un ONG, de vreme ce nu prea multi se baga! Daca ar fi rost de bani, nu ne-am bate pe posturile astea?? Logica ce iti spune?? Politicienii, primarii si toti rahatii care chiar au bani... aia trag pe partea lor... nu sarmanii oameni care chiar se chinuie sa faca o diferenta! Nu stiti ce sa mai inventati ca sa manifestati plenar ura organica pentru cei mai buni oameni din tara asta!

6. "Iubiti animalele mai mult decat pe oameni, huuoo!"
Aaaa... de unde concluzia asta sclipitoare?! Te-ai uitat in jur, sa vezi cate familii fericite, implinite, cu copii, iubesc animalele si le ocrotesc? Asa e firesc, uman si frumos. Cine sare in apararea unui caine nu uraste oamenii. Din contra, e capabil de infinit mai multa iubire decat ciumpalacii agresivi. Degeaba bagati oamenii in extreme, concluzia asta e ridicola si mai extremista decat ISIS-ul. In plus, terminati cu tampenia aia cu Ionut Anghel... cazul a fost dovedit in mod clar un fals, dar voi il tot fluturati ca sa aratati in ce pricol de moarte sunteti.

7. "Zoofili!"

Prostanilor, zoofil e ala de 'iubeste' animalele in alt fel... adica are relatii sexuale cu ele. Asa cum se iubesc la voi la tara rudele intre ele, de ies odrasle inteligente ca voi, doar ca ala se cheama incest. Un iubitor de animale n-ar face niciodata asta, pt ca nu ii sta in fire... dar voi sunteti incredibil de prosti si nu stiti ce termeni folositi.

8. "Daca va muscau pe voi, va schimbati parerea"
Iarasi, vorbesti fara sa stii, needucat penibil ce esti. De unde naiba sa stii tu daca un iubitor de animale a fost sau nu muscat? Au fost multi! Diferenta? Au trecut peste, ca stiu ca ala e animal si a avut motivele lui si si-au recunoscut greseala daca a existat (un gest agresiv de ex., mersul cu bicicleta sau alergatul). Si-au folosit RATIUNEA SUPERIOARA DE OM, nu instinctele josnice de a face rau. Dca ati intelege voi macar un minim acolo, nu v-ar mai ataca nimic! Omul are datoria sa fie mai inteligent decat restul speciilor (prost = agresiv, cu sete de sange sau macar de injurat 'cutofili' pe net).

In concluzie...

Cum sa fii atat de imbecil sa nu iti dai seama ca a fi superior, a fi OM BUN inseamna sa ai compasiune? Mai ales pentru niste fiinte care rationeaza asa cum pot... Ce e atat de greu sa intelegi CUM anume actioneaza acesti caini? Cum de noi, restul, putem trece linistiti pe langa haite intregi de caini fara sa patim nimic?! Pentru ca stim cum sa ne comportam! Nu mai intru in detalii stiintifice legate de hormoni, feromoni si alte substante, pentru ca e prea mult pentru voi! Stiinta nu exista pentru prostime si nici nu conteaza... si cand am explicat prostilor cum sta treaba, ca sa inteleaga agresiunea animala, au negat pur si simplu. Savantii.

Din moment ce ai o problema cu cainii si vrei sa fie exterminati, din moment ce ii ataci pe cei ce ii apara si le gasesti tot felul de apelative, NU ESTI OM. Nu esti nici animal. ESTI DIAVOL.

Pune mana si citeste daca nu te duce mintea sa gandesti singur. Statisticile mondiale in psihologie si psihiatrie arata clar: daca nu ai empatie fata de animale, nu ai cum sa fii bun cu oamenii! Si se vede, la cum va comportati online si pe strada! Voi, agresivii anti-caini de azi, sunteti puscariasii de maine! Voi lasati pe internet urme inteligente si beinevoitoare ale trecerii voastre:
Ce oameni minunati sunteti voi! cata toleranta si iubire! asta aveti in voi si asta manifestati... si nicio scuza nu e valida. 

E OK DECI SA DORESTI MOARTEA SDEMENILOR PENTRU CA SUNT IN STARE SA AIBA MILA SI SA IUBEASCA? Pentru voi trebuie sa existe un iad, trebuie... il cereti cu insistenta. Nu uitati ca postarea asta si limbajul ei sunt un RASPUNS la tot ce ati varsat voi pe internet unor oameni pe care nu-i cunoasteti si carora nu le ajungeti nici la glezne, daca e sa ne raportam la omenie, inteligenta, logica si cultura!

7 October 2015

We've got this Britain First hashtag trending and originally it's supposed to be a wake up call to see the invasion for what it is. Not the immigration but the invasion but alas... the distinction isn't easy to make when you're a leftist.

Well here it is, it's about the lefties after all. All I see on that hashtag is the angry, hateful, intolerant left side spilling insults (with its usual complete lack of arguments) doing what it knows best: to attack those who dare to be different. Oh, you dare state a different opinion? You dare point out the real logic and a true situation? you deserve a bitchy, senseless, ridiculous comment from the pissed off leftists.

Just have a look at the comments and see it for yourself. Don't be an ignorant leftie covering their eyes and ears so they can keep all evidence away. Go on and have a look. You will see the hatred leftists have for anyone who dates to think differently. You will see how they're demonizing them. See how angry they are when their lies and propaganda are failing?

Liberals, as they constantly prove it, are just like the communists - they only tolerate those who perfectly agree with them. even saying "I agree, but..." is too scandalous for them. They can't take criticism or any different opinion. They will insult you, demonize you, chase you away and try to completely eliminate you if you dare to say otherwise. It's plain to see who they are. In the name of fake tolerance, they do the exact opposite and shout their half-truth with such nerve it's ridiculous. Bedsies, most of these are too young to have even known basic history.

6 October 2015

There's this generally accepted idea that skinny equals privileged and few people get to speak the truth about it. Also, there's the much worse part about this - when people feel entitled to bring thin people down, because "they're already privileged and have it better than the rest."Let's have a realistic, most honest look about what it really means to be skinny and see what such people put up with from their oh-so-loving and so kind fat buddies.

They always make ridiculous assumptions

People won't think you were born like that. They'll just quickly assume that you're either this or that and it's always going to be something negative and shameful.They'll never take into account a fast metabolism, the thyroid, stress, depression and anxiety, nor disease. They'll assume you're skinny on purpose.

You're a slave

Yes, if you're that thin you must be a slave to this social construct of the ideal body image, you're torturing yourself in order to look like society wants you to.

You're doing it for the men

Obviously, you want to please men and be like those cover models, whom are all photoshopped anyway. You're starving yourself for others.

Of course you're starving yourself

I mean, how could you achieve that? Everything is fattening, even water and air, too. So how can you be that skinny? Poor creature, you're refusing a life of joy to look like that and do the society's game...

You're on heroin

Yes, we've heard that too. Us, skinny people, must be drug addicts, because how else could one look like this?

Do you even eat?

They have a hard time believing you've actually discovered the existence of food.

It's easy for you to climb the social ladder

Actually it isn't. when skinny is paired with beautiful, guess what. Women will be jealous of you and shut all open doors in front of you. Men will want to take advantage of you and will only see you as a piece of meat and will also shut all the doors for you if you refuse them. It is exceedingly difficult for a pretty, skinny woman of integrity to have a blooming career, unless it's a career that actually calls for such looks.

Because everyone sees you as privileged, the opposite happens: they leave you behind, they push you away, they take advantage of you, they hamper your progress.

This is the reality out there and skinny is rarely privileged. There is always harsh judgement and many lies being told about you. There's always a wrong assumption. Some people show appreciation, while others do anything they can to get you down, to stain your reputation, to make themselves appear as genuine and better human beings.

To understand whether homeopathy is s scam or an actual science of healing, one should have an honest look at the existing arguments. I summed up some of these already - you can read the first part here.
As with all other things, homeopathy can be tested and analysed through logic means. Experiencing can be rather difficult, since it takes great skill and patience to find the right remedy for each case. This is the main issue with it: homeopathic remedies are in great numbers (hundreds) and only one fits one particular case. Therefore, it can be extremely hard to find the perfect match - which is why homeopathy may appear to 'fail' at times. Anyhow, let's proceed to some more argumentation.

I assume you believe in your mobile phone. Well, that's because you already tested it and you've seen it work. Let's pretend though that I've never seen, nor used a smartphone before. You own one and I'm wondering what on earth is that device.
So what does it do?
"It lets you call people, you'll hear them talk, it lets you navigate the Internet, read, watch videos, find any information you want, play games...", you say.
Wait, hold on... You're telling me this little rectangular box, almost as thin as a match, can do all that?
But how can all that stuff be inside of it? It's small. You can't even put a CD in there. How can an infinite amount of information be in there? How does it do, does it being or capture people inside so they can speak to you? What kind of sorcery is that? Are you aware that it looks like sorcery to me, since I've never seen one before?
"Well, it's not like that, it's based on electronic circuits and it can display the information..."
And what is this information? Is it made of thin air? You're speaking of sorcery again. I'm opening the case of your smartphone. Hmm, all I see is plastic and metal... Are you telling me that this little rubbish can hold so much information? It's only plastic and metal after all!"

See what we have here? It's the same conversation that goes on between a homeopath and a skeptic. The skeptic is simply ignoring how information works - even now, when information technology has come to such an extend. If a sorcery like that is possible, then why does it come so hard to understand homeopathy, when it's based on the same principle?

"It's only water/a sugar pill", skeptics say.
So? Your smatphone is just plastic and metal, yet it can accomplish so much and 'extract' infinite information from the ether for your use.
A homeopathic remedy is nothing but information extracted from a substance, attached to a solid or liquid, palpable material. 

This is how it can work like an antidote or even a vaccine, but more on this later.

27 September 2015

Posted by Anna Notaras | File under : , , , ,
Whenever an atheist meets a believer, there is usually a confrontation. In the vast majority of cases, it's the atheist who's very intrigued and bothered with the believer's existence and doesn't hesitate to ask for a proof that God is real.

Every believer is different and will give you a different explanation. Some may not even be able to put it into words, because God simply is there, in everything they perceive. The design of the world, its intelligence are simply God to them. Some will go into philosophy, others into psychology and esoteric knowledge. Because the "belief experience" is so personal, it's hard to come up with a universal explanation to be used by all spiritual humans.

However, in one such conversation, the atheist gets to bring a certain solid proof. It's the proof that their path is wring and horrible. What do you see the atheist doing? Arguing, being offensive, insulting, attacking, taking a superior and condescending position, throwing false arguments (blatant lies, fake history and science etc.) to destabilise the believer. It is impossible to have a rational conversation when one has the position of the atheist. All the hate he spills, all the insults and lies represent a very solid proof that atheism is evil, ignorant and most hateful towards the rest of the human species.

After all, it's atheism that has led to the most murders and wars in history. It is impossible for a believer to be violent or start a war, since most religions tell not to kill or do any harm. Therefore, by logical conclusion, anyone doing so (even in the name of religion or God) is in fact not a believer and does not obey to the chosen spiritual doctrine.

Crusades? Religious wars? As just proven, those who start those, no matter what they declare, do not stand in line with their religion. In other words, they adopted the atheist stance. How so? Well, when you're an atheist, you don't have to pay attention to a god who tells you not to kill. Thus, it's the atheist influence that leads a believer to kill or do other terrible acts.

Many say how Hitler was a Christian. Was he? Posing as a Christian or supporting it in your country, so that the masses don't revolt against you doesn't make you a Christian. Did he obey to any of the Christian rules? No. Did he represent any of the Christian virtues? No. Then why consider him a Christian?

Atheists don't ask for proof of god because they want to find it. Whenever the believer starts explaining, they close their eyes and cover their ears. Always. They refuse it from the start, because they've already taken the decision: "I won't believe. I can't believe. I don't want to believe". Also, it's not actually about believing, but about seeing, observing and understanding... but that's too complicated for the simple, primitive, animal-state atheist mind (any atheist reading this part would be totally raging and definitely not trying to analyse and understand it). The atheist fears that he may go beyond his comfortable present position. He doesn't want to evolve, to think of complicated things and explore. He fears those who are different, because their horizon may be a broader one. This is why he rejects a truly rational fight, a true exploration of the universe; he jumps to hating and insulting because he feels the terrible urge to crush the different person, the believer. It's been proven far too many times. Atheist regimes have imprisoned and killed believers for what they were, for the threat they posed. Not much tolerance, nor love here.

13 September 2015

Footage of a Muslim man in the UK asking a woman to take her feet off a train seat has recently become viral. We don't get the whole incident, but there's some strange talk involving religion, which really makes no sense here. The issue is clear - she put her feet up on a seat and he wants seats to be clean.

Now what's so scandalous about it? Yeah, that's fair enough, it's a mostly Christian country and she doesn't care about whatever he has to say about Islam. True, I wholeheartedly agree. But that's not the issue here...

However, commentators are enraged, like at the press of a button. It's the same brainwashed person talk: "Muslim scum, who are they to dictate us the rules, I don't care about your religion, look what they're doing to us bla bla bla". In fact, they completely invert the whole situation. The Muslim man was actually defending nothing but the British etiquette... and the common sense.

Putting your feet up in public transport is:
  • rude
  • non-hygienic
  • inconsiderate
  • arrogant
  • an attitude of superiority ("It's my comfort that matters, not your clothes or health")
  • definitely not Christian
This lass who's presenting herself as Christian is actually proving how non-Christian she is. Christians think of others and try to see themselves as equal to everyone else. They wouldn't out their sirty shoes up to leave germs and mud on a seat.

Besides, those seats belong to everyone. It's incredibly inconsiderate and even abusive to make them dirty. The cushion doesn't let one see whether there's dirt or not. Now, people who wear either dark or very light clothes will have their garments stained... and that may compromise their image, their careers etc. Don't believe it? Try have a PR or front desk/hosting job in London. Get to know its standards. I bet you will never want a speck on your clothes.

So there it is. The hysteria is working just fine, every time. Get a Muslim who's actually right (he had a legitimate complaint to start with) point out a rude fact in a Western country... and watch the brainwashed roar in defense of the real law breaker (the woman).

Yes, she was in the wrong. any white Christian with some common sense would tell her to put her feet down. The police is probably doing the game of political correctness. After all, we have to do something about all these immigrants (but that's a wholly different story).

Common sense, common etiquette and especially British etiquette tells you not to leave dust, mud, piss, poo, vomit and all the kinds of germs that your shoes collect on a train/tube/bus seat that's supposed to be clean, on which other people will sit. It's inconsiderate, rude and abusive.

31 August 2015

It was a few years before the first Tolkien-based film trilogy hit the theatres when I was avidly reading the Kalevala. As I was insanely passionate about the old Nordic cultures, anything that would delight me with a taste of it was welcome. As expected, I became enraptured with Tolkien's world once I could see how deep its roots grew into the Nordic myths. The Professor was a fan of it, as much as I was myself.

It happened that the Kalevala bit that impressed me the most was the story of Kullervo.

The news hit me like thunder. It was glorious seeing that book finally come to life, yet it was bittersweet somehow This was because, in spite of it being published 100 years later, it was a bit early for me. I've always wanted to point out J.R.R. Tolkien's involvement with the Finnish epic, Kalevala, which The Story of Kullervo is a part of.  I don't have the time to write the book I would've liked to write on this topic, sadly. I wish I had continued my research, but now I'm expecting others to do that, with this newly released book.

I was a teenager and a true fan of Northern epics when I got my hands on the Kalevala, the Finnish collection of myths and lore, and read it several times. Very soon after that, it was J.R.R. Tolkien to influence my existence for good. The two - Tolkien and Finland (I cannot just say Lonnrot here) then became intertwined in a magical way. I loved Kalevala. Tolkien loved it, too. More than 10 years later, I finally read The Children of Hurin - the masterpiece in the shadow of The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, the book that draws its fascinating and tragic substance out of the ancient Finnish story of Kullervo.

Tolkien the Story of Kullervo

 The Story of Kullervo is what it is: the life of the slave Kullervo retold by J.R.R. Tolkien, much better developed than in its original form to be found in Kalevala. It is a 100% Finnish story of old times and is in no way connected to Middle-earth. The names of the characters also belong to the Finnish tradition and are no inventions.

Many are wondering where does this book stand among all the other works of the professor. Hence it's got no real connexions to his Arda, we can place it on a different shelf. Yes, it contains the substance the author used later to create The Children of Hurin, but only the latter was set in Middle-earth. It may be confusing, but the average Tolkien fan needs to know that this late publishing comes from the writer;s youth and is not included in his fictional universe. It is, however, the book that later made him give birth to his darkest work.

Kullervo Akseli Gallen-Kallela
Kullervo, by Finnish painter Akseli Gallen-Kallela

 The Story of Kullervo will hit the shelves in October 2015. It makes for a precious addition to a fan's collection, but it won't add to the beloved fictional world. However, it will reveal a wonderful source of all that - one of Tolkien's best appreciated sources of inspiration.

30 August 2015

Posted by Anna Notaras | File under : , , , , ,
I had thought all the possible thoughts about reincarnation and past and future lives. At some point I could believe in them - I had unexplained strong connexions with places and people, certain affinities that were truly strange occurrences in my life.

Do I really need past and future lives though or is one just enough? Are we not trying to justify present weaknesses, coincidences, strange things through this belief of previous lives? Are we not trying to find an excuse for our shortcomings? Are we not postponing our growth for a next life because we're too lazy to do something NOW?

Here is why a so-called past life regression will never help you out.

There may be parts in your personality and your life that you want to explore and find an explanation to. There could be some flaws that bother you. You will still have to face those things and deal with them. You may be having a million lives ahead or none. At some point, you will still have to do it. To take action and force your growth. Then why do you keep postponing it? It's not going to help.

You want an explanation for your encounters, passions, obsessions, weaknesses, anxieties, affinities etc.? Your "subconscious mind" will tell you the "Stories" from your past lives. How will that help you though? Will that deliver you the means to change and grow?

Elite psychologists of the world have agreed: past life regressions are only a trick of the brain, a brain which desperately wants to have some aspects explained and sorted out, so it fabricates these believable memories. It's not that we have to believe automatically something because scientists tell us so. However, this is a most logical, plausible explanation to what certain individuals experience.

I do not think we need these past life regressions to heal ourselves and to understand. After all, all that we have is here and now. This should be all that matters. It doesn't matter that, let's say, you were robbed in a past life and now you have anxieties about your money and possessions. You have to face these anxieties NOW if you want to change anything. Otherwise it all stays the same.

Therefore, past lives are completely useless. Whether you believe in those or not, it will not make any difference, your life is still the same. Therapists allow past life regressions to happen because they say the experience truly helps the patient. It's something that provides them with an explanation they've been seeking for and can calm them down. Regression is most often used to treat trauma and fear.