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.

15 August 2015

You may be a good writer on your own merit, I'm not going to discuss that. Still, everything was said and done in the high fantasy world. We are only recycling. You wrote something that gathered many fans, good for you. However, keep in mind that Tolkien was not only the one to start it all, but also the one who did everything. He stands the test of time, always and forever. This is because he relies on timeless ideas and principles, not on the trends of our times. You are the man of your time, he is the man of all eras, gone and future.

Tolkien, by the way, doesn't need sex in his books to make them interesting. He's fascinating millions of people without using that trick. I get the feeling that you, by using sex, are trying to hook up people and to fill in some empty spaces. I guess it would be a little boring without all that, wouldn't it? Well, Master Tolkien succeeded without. He's got class, as someone put it.

Let's face it - you have a bit of arrogance because you believe you're offering more than the Professor did. After all, you write some kinky action into all that high fantasy. Well, it's easy to spice it up with sex and get the modern crowd to read something like this. However, I say this trend will fade... People will soon have enough of it. It won't be so special anymore. This is only a moment in time and the history of our species has seen many such moments. These are the eternal eons we are meant to go through.

Is there any interview in which you don't mention Tolkien? You keep on crediting him and expressing how much he's inspired you, but I feel it's more than that. It's an unhealthy obsession. Perhaps it's bait for his fans. You want to drag the ringers to your side. Or it could be that you just like seeing your name along his, believing you belong to the same league. I'll stop that here, because all this attention I'm giving you now could make you believe you're actually worthy.

Let's face it: like some readers put it, you're hating it that you're not Tolkien himself. You wish you were - terribly, terribly much. You're probably enjoying that some of his fans seem upset because your books are largely inspired by his. I say, enjoy your popularity for the time being. Stephanie Meyers and E.L. James are also popular. Today, however, we all know that popularity is no fair measure, it no longer speaks about the literary quality of a book.

In fact, I don't think I have an issue with you, George Martin (oh really, you even have the double R?!), but with some of your fans. Especially those who claim that you're original through the characters you create and their fate. That's ignorance!

J.R.R. Tolkien created characters that were no black or white. They could be grey or turn from white to black, for example. In the Good vs. Evil fight, the good ones also died, usually. If they didn't, they were at loss for sure, one way or another. Anyone claiming that Tolkien wrote only black or white characters and these always vanquished Evil has probably only watched the LOTR films. Superficially. Anyone who has actually read Tolkien knows that this is false. Many of his heroes died too early; some died along with their enemies; some could never enjoy some peace or happiness; others turned from good to bad. Also, the women in his books were as fierce as their men, often coming along in battle. They had the power to turn tides. The level of ignorance of some fans is truly horrifying.

You made many awfully wrong comments that made Tolkien fans say: "Has he even read those books?!" That alone makes me wonder: do you really admire that author or are you just trying to cash in through his name?

Anyway, I don't expect real understanding from those who see Tolkien's works through such distorted lenses. In the end, dear George, I really hope you can live without saying Tolkien's name with every breath you take. That's not going to get you closer to him. Just saying.
While some welcome it, others loathe this "unexpected" R-rating for The Battle of the Five Armies. their main issue seems to be something that has to do with the childish nature of the book. The Hobbit was, after all, a children's tale and it was expected to keep its innocence and magic intact on screen.

However, when you have brutal deaths, war and tragedy, it's pretty much impossible to translate it on screen without qualifying for a different "rating". There is no point in being scandalised by what The Hobbit has become. It's always been like that. Only that, as a book, you don't see the violence, you just read about it.

I will argue in defense of this R rating for the Extended Edition.

You can't see The Hobbit through pink lenses. It's as gruesome as the next fairytale. The Little Red Riding Hood anyone? There's a little girl who gets eaten by a wolf, then the huntsman cleaves the animal's belly to free her, along with her grandmother. There's all sorts of horrible, violent things happening in so-called fairytales. There are bloodthirsty monsters, horrible death, evil characters, mutilations, torture etc. You read that stuff to your children, but if you were to watch a screen rendition, you'd be hesitant to show it to your kids.

Therefore, there is nothing surprising, nor outrageous about this R rating. It's perfectly fine. Besides, it's not like this film can't be watched by the younger ones. If they're with an adult, as far as I know, it should be alright. It's hard to understand the complaints that the rating limits the views. I'm not worries about how violent this extended edition is. We've already had the best loved (and quite innocent) characters die in such terrible ways. How far can it get, can it be worse than that? It seems that they will add some more "imaginative ways to kill orcs" that that would worry me. That would be the only thing that feels more like Hollywood than Tolkien.

6 August 2015

Ridiculous but true: some "Tolkien fans" actually complained on the Internet because an article dared to present J.R.R. Tolkien as a devoted Christian (!). The reaction was simply terrifying: a number of so-called fans, not numerous but very aggressive, attacked the article author for spitting out that horrible label, claiming that they should "leave Tolkien untouched by Christianity" or something like that.

It doesn't take a brilliant intellect to simply know that Tolkien was a Christian. It's been stated a billion times and from highly reliable sources. He simply adhered to that faith and, by all means, it seems he actually practiced it. There is plenty to prove that, whether his fans like it or not. Now, to claim that he should never be mixed with his declared faith is beyond ridiculous. It's incomprehensible. Firstly, one cannot be seen as a Tolkien fan if they are not aware of whom this author was and what he was about. Information like this has never been hidden. It doesn't matter what his work was like. It could be 100% pagan. The man was a Christian, as everyone around him knew and all scholars and real, educated fans know to this day.

It's no isolated case. Many anti-theists and fanatic atheists often happen to be in denial. Their intolerance to Christianity reaches aberrant levels. One excellent example is the infamous C. Carrie, of whom we shall only mention very little. this is a person who normally wouldn't deserve a mention, but I believe it's necessary to point some things out for those who have not had the chance to find out.

This man's hatred for Christianity wouldn't allow him to accept that a Christian writer could become so famous and inspire millions. You may look it up, the case is well explained online. It looks like this Carrie hated it so much that he started a fake pedophilia scandal in an attempt to defame the author's son, Fr. John Tolkien (Hating a Catholic priest? You know what to do! Just accuse him of pedophilia!). He wouldn't stop, but actually drag other members of the Tolkien family to the court. If you find his comments, you realise what he's all about - just pure hatred for Christians. Thankfully, he lost big time.

Even if Tolkien didn't write his works as Christian allegory, you cannot separate his faith from his art. It can never be done, because a faith - any faith - or lack thereof, is deeply embedded into a man's being. It is the sum of all that they believe about the world, about life, about how people must behave. If you know what Christianity really is about, you will find it in Tolkien's work. It's in the message, attitudes, in the choices made by characters, in the final developments, the moral layer and much more. The work itself doesn't have to be in any way Christian, but the essence will always shine though, simply because artists don't just adopt different views than the ones they've got. And why would they? After all, each artist is trying to promote something. Naturally, it is in tune with what they believe.

To those saying that "you can be food without Christianity", a little more education would do good. in Christianity, there are many more aspects that go beyond the common rules of 'being good'. It's a wholly different paradigm.

6 July 2015

Posted by Anna Notaras | File under : , , , , , , ,
As one who's been analyzing dating and romance for years, I could never understand blind dating. Why do people ever do that? For the thrill perhaps? OK, I'm not into bungee jumping but others are, so it must be a similar situation.

Still, blind dating is awkward by default. It does not create the grounds for attraction. It's probably the strangest form of dating and is totally unnatural. I will explain why.

Here is the usual way attraction works. Regardless of where you are, you need at least a few moments for observing the other. In fact, the more time you have to observe them without them being aware of you, the better. The biggest passions were born when people were able to observe their chosen one for a long time before they actually met. It's a sage way -- they don't see you or know you, but you are free to analyse them. It's essential and totally beneficial.

Even if it's someone you meet in a bar, it's better to have at least 5 minutes prior to your first talk to just observe each other in that environment. It's simply how attraction is born. You get to see how they move, how they interact etc., without the nervousness, the stress that comes when they're actually dealing with you.

When you're having a blind date, you know nothing about them. You find yourself right in the middle of it and you can't freely observe. You have to present yourself nicely and carry out a conversation. It could be my very own way of falling in love, but I tend to believe it works for everyone else, too. Blind dating just cannot work. Instead, go out (or on the web) and prowl; have a look around and see who catches your eye. See how they behave and what feeling you get from them. Take your time. Be casual. Talk to them but don't jump to dating. When you push for a first date, especially if it's a blind one, it's hard, if not impossible, to avoid the awkwardness and the embarrassment.
Posted by Anna Notaras | File under : , , , , , ,
Recently, American singer Ciara has been trending on social media sites after her boyfriend mentioned they decided not to have sex before marriage. It appears that the social media popularity of this news is mostly due to the shockwave it has created.

Looks like exactly those people who would usually say, "It's their life, people should choose to live it however they please" are horribly judging this Christian couple. No surprise here. You are free to do whatever you please unless it's something Christian. Still, I can't understand why the hypocrisy isn't obvious to more. Or maybe it is...?

Yes, Ciara and her man are absolutely free to choose how to live their life as a couple. If we have rainbow profile pictures celebrating gay marriage rights, we could as well celebrate the option of being abstinent. Why don't we?

In a hyper-sexualized culture, it's hard to understand why would anyone want to become abstinent. Science, human experience etc. have enough means to prove that it's OK or even better to be abstinent. How about the spiritual side though? Well, it's both simple and very complicated. The simple way is saying that those people trust God and His choice of making them come together. So they will marry and only after that make love to each other. The complicated explanation goes like this: when you want to share your life with someone, you have to get to know them well. You'd better focus on their mind, their soul, their life, their views and opinions, their ways to handle different situations etc. Too often sex just takes away from all that. It's hard to focus on what truly matters if you're in heat, thinking of and planning your next shag. It's totally admirable that there are couples who want to focus on the essential things (that will make or break their relationship) instead of catering to the physical side and being absorbed in it. And after all, this decision is only temporary. When the wedding is over and done with, they can start their sexual life.

You can sleep with anyone. You can find sexual compatibility quite easily. However, you won't find other types of compatibility so easily. It's terribly hard to find someone who's a great match. You will say that sexual compatibility matters, too. That's right, but do you know what gets to ruin sex? Fear, a lack of trust, lack of communication, the fact that you don't know each other that well etc. On the other hand, when you know you absolutely adore the person next to you and you know you will get married and totally belong to each other, that's when the true liberation occurs.

That's when all the anxieties are dissolved, when you can finally embrace the passion because you know them and you love them. Waiting until marriage is like saying: "I'm taking my time to get to know you. It's fine like this, I want to focus on it, without sex clouding my mind. We will have plenty of time for that. I'm certain I'm making the right choice and absolutely sure that what we already have is the best I can get."

Abstinence doesn't happen just because "God said no" and people are blindly following the Bible. It happens because they understand the benefits and have a different focus. The kind of focus that truly matters, that will release amazing passion after marriage and will make them happy in the long run.
Abstinence is a mature choice and it should be respected.

15 May 2015

It seems that the two most controversial topics revealed by the Internet are Jesus Christ and homeopathy. What do they have in common? Perhaps a desire to do good without the technology, without the money and the greed. Perhaps it's the logic that others fail to see, because they live in a very limited, evil world of their own. Jesus healed people through love. Homeopathy heals people through information available in nature.

There is endless hate for homeopathy (as for Jesus) from those who are unable to grasp its principles and wisdom, from those who reject any proof that it can work. These are the people who only retain the failures of the method (as with the failures of the humans/the church - if one priest did something bad, then the whole faith is rendered null).

Homeopathy is a scientific method and has never done the harm traditional medicine is causing. It is growing worldwide and one of the reasons is because people have experienced the failures of traditional medicine and are at least willing to explore new therapies.

Besides I debunk the usual beliefs and pseudo-arguments of homeopathy haters, I want to ask this:

What do you prefer?

You're ill. Do you want to be prescribed a medication which you don't know how was made and with what, you don't know if the studies concerning are truthful and valid or just sponsored, or would you like to be analyzed wholly, based on all your symptoms and prescribed a customized remedy? Would you like the doctor to care about who you are, how you feel and what your lifestyle is, to understand your health problem? Or would you like them to just observe the symptoms and prescribe a generic medication to cover those up?

"Homeopathic specialists are scammers and they never healed anyone"

Traditional doctors are often scammers, too. If some of them do this for the money, this doesn't invalidate the method itself. Anyone is free to choose whichever therapy and be a complete scammer. There's equality between these doctors, yet you refuse that. Yes, of course you will find all kinds of healers to be scammers. This doesn't mean anything.

As for the healing evidence, the word of mouth is doing its job. Reality will never change - people try these remedies and, when they find healing, they spread the word. This is the only way homeopathy got to expand and prosper. Note that finding the right remedy is the big challenge. This is why some patients are not healed. This is the reality of homeopathy - it takes a lot of patience, honesty, hard work to understand a patient's problem and select the right remedy. That's why it fails at times. Why not see the failures of traditional medicine, too? they are countless. Why you excuse those, but not these? Besides, homeopathy never killed and cannot kill. The skeptics themselves say it's "only water and sugar". Therefore, how can a 'scam' so harmless kill someone?

"That person stayed ill/died after using homeopathic remedies"

What was their illness? Was it an emergency? Homeopathy never claims it can replace traditional medicine 100%. It is a helper. It leaves the urgent cases to the emergency services. Traditional medicine can heal with a heart attack, a broken bone or organ, but cannot understand ailments like anxiety, depression or any psychosomatic disease. Why not see all the people who got worse and who died because of traditional medicine? It happens every day in hospitals. All mindlessly treated through the same methods, regardless of the differences between patients. A headache can have a hundred reasons, it's ridiculous to believe that masking it with a painkiller will get you rid of all those reasons. This is only one example, mind you.

"It's only water and sugar!"

You'll mostly hear this ridiculously childish complain that homeopathic medicine has no active principle in it and therefore it cannot heal. This is a very primitive 'logic'. Homeopathy is based on information, not on substance quantity. I ask the skeptics:

Do you believe in mobile phones? in computers and tablets?

Of course, you'll say. "I use these objects every day, they work and they help me, what's the deal with it". Well, you believe in them although it doesn't make sense. You use your smartphone to get such a great deal of information. Where is all that stored? How can you have so much in so little? Physically, your phone is a very small object. You can't cram too much in it. Secondly, you can open the case and see what's inside. Metal and plastic. You can't find the apps, the information, the sounds, the visuals, nothing of that is inside. Just some tiny metal and plastic pieces. Then why don't you ask yourself how is that possible? You were taught to never question it. It's the way electronics and information work. If we were to step back (or just go back in time with some decades), we wold consider it like magic. Would you have imagined smartphones 2 decades ago? No, the idea would have seemed like pure magic! Crazy! Yet you're using a smarphone these days and have the world at your feet.

The same goes with homeopathy. Its remedies, though only sugar and water and alcohol physically, are loaded with information. Just like the Internet. Can you see the Internet in a purely physical form? Can you touch it? Can you use scales to weight it? A knife to cut a piece of it? No, it's entirely 'abstract', yet you can use it s you please. Yet you don't believe that a remedy can be like that, contain information in it and be beneficial through that.

"There are no studies to assess the benefits of homeopathic medicine"

Studies require a lot of money. Money go in industries where huge sums are being handled. It's not the case with homeopathy. It's a simple law of economics, you cannot invest in something that brings no real profit. Homeopathic medicine is very cheap. The time of the doctor is precious, hence why consultations are expensive (by the way, one consultation lasts about 1 h), but the remedies are not. It would never be logical for the money to go towards this method. And sadly, without studies many will dismiss homeopathy without getting educated or trying it. 

"Homeopathy is not compatible with Christianity, it's witchcraft."

Honestly, when I heard this claim, I started to think seriously about the possibility. I am not 100% convinced about the 'cleanliness' of the preparation method for homeopathic remedies, but I have some common sense observations to make.

God created plants and minerals. The Bible says God left herbs for our healing. By all means, it is impossible for humans to get to know ALL the plants in the world and identify the right ones for ALL the conditions in the world. Therefore, it requires some sort of revelation, of divine inspiration.

The Bible also tells how "like cures like" (by looking at the metal snake, the people were healed from venom snake bites; Jesus saved mankind by being born as human; Jesus vanquished death by dying).

It's impossible to say we should not use natural remedies because pagans have used them and because they were ones to rely on the "like cures like" principle. Pagans also ate plants and drank water, perhaps Christians should stop doing that because it's something 'pagan'.

A Christian myself, I do not agree with such over cautious attitude. Plants are from God and God says He wants us to use them to heal. Could this be a farce, because it's impossible to get to know all the plants and their effects in normal conditions? Just like with Hildegard von Bingen, it needs inspired people to discover a method of healing. It's not witchcraft if God wanted it so. It's not a farce from God. There's no devil calling and no incantation involved, but ordinary chemistry and physics.

In conclusion, no amount of saying "It doesn't work", "It's ridiculous", "It's a scam", "It's doing nothing" can ever suppress the logic and the evidence. Some people will always think for their own and investigate. Some will simply try the treatments and spread the work if they work. This is how homeopathy didn't die, but actually got more and more powerful and popular, without the support of corporation and without the streams of money that are being usually pumped into traditional medicine.

4 May 2015

Lately, many of the bigoted (and vastly intolerant to different views) homosexuality supporters have been enforcing their opinions by claiming how animals are often homosexual and therefore it's "normal and natural" for humans to be that way, too. This post is going to provide a clear explanation as to why it is 100% inaccurate and misleading to call animals homosexual.

Animals are PANSEXUAL.

Pansexuality is a sexual orientation that makes one attracted to everything -- yo the opposite sex, to the same sex, to other species and to inanimate objects as well. "Pan" means "everything".
Ever seen a dog humping on a human's leg? It is because it is pansexual. Ever seen a bird displaying courtship behaviour towards a human? That is pansexual, too.

In other words, the animals do not have that discernment. They just breed when they feel like it. They are ruled by their breeding instinct. Thus, it doesn't matter to them how they're trying to satisfy this drive. It is simply ridiculous and manipulative to use this as an arguments in today's debates.

Besides, what these people support is a downgrading of the human species. If we are to accept or adopt homosexual or pansexual behaviour ourselves, then it means that we return to the animal state. Are you ready to say goodbye to millions of years of evolution? Funny thing, it's the same supporters that claim they're oh so evolved and everyone else should have their views in the 3rd millennium.

What this animal homosexual propaganda is in fact saying is: "forget about the long way the human species has come; forget about discernment; forget about the purpose of the sexual instinct in all living beings. Just become a mindless animal and tell those who oppose you that this is the "normal" and "evolved" way!

No wonder so many are saying, "No, thanks!"

Instead of blindly believing what the Internet or a fanatic supporter tells you, better have a look at nature yourself. A good look. See things for what they are. Animals don't have enough discernment to make the difference. They're just driven by a blind breeding instinct. If you want to be like that too, fine, but let the others be humans and mind their own stuff. Don't push false education and pseudo-science down their throats!

No matter how much footage you see of "homosexual animal behaviour", you should know that this is only part of what's out there. They show you that because that's how they want you to see it but remember, animals are pansexual.

Also, if you are going to say that "it's normal and natural to be pansexual", then I hope you realise you're also supporting things like necrophilia, pedophilia and zoophilia! After all, where do we draw the line? What is "natural" and what isn't? (it's rhetorical, yes) Who are we to tell others how to behave sexually, right?

13 April 2015

I have never had any sympathy for those who are against the screen versions of J.R.R. Tolkien's books. Being totally against screen adaptations is an attitude which is doing a disservice not only to fans everywhere, but also to J.R.R. Tolkien himself. We are going to see how exactly this happens.

An Era of Different Entertainment

Director Peter Jackson
People consume art and entertainment in a different way that they did 200, 100 years ago, even 50 or 20 years ago. The general taste is ever changing. If you want to spot obvious differences, compare old romance movies with new ones. Or, compare Bible-themed ones. You will see a great difference in tone, costumes, cinematography etc. Music, writing, painting etc., all have changed with time. Nowadays we like our art in a certain way. We are entertained by certain features. It's only natural to accept and understand than an author who created many decades ago will be envisioned later in a 'modern' way. It cannot be as back in the day, nor as it all was in his mind or any of his readers' mind.

Bringing The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit on the silver screen in a 'commercial' manner is no crime, especially as it perpetuates the noble message of the author.

Harsh as it may sound, Tolkien's writings would have been far less popular by now if it weren't for Peter Jackson's adaptations. He'd still be a classic, especially in English-speaking countries, he'd still be mentioned as the father of high fantasy, he'd still have his avid readers... but things in general would be tremendously different. He'd be more like a piece in a museum. Nowadays he's so alive! His heart is beating in thousands and thousands of hearts who feel the gratitude as they both watch and read the Middle-Earth stories. Without the support of a movie, Tolkien would have a very different status.

A Fierce Competition

Let's take two of the most popular examples of successful literature today: George R.R. Martin and his Game of Thrones or J. K. Rowling and her Harry Potter books (I wouldn't want to mention Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey, because I believe those to be geared towards the teen crowd and not aimed at the general adult audience). While I can't compare these to Tolkien's brilliant work, we can sure talk about what success and popularity mean today. Nowadays, turning a book into a film is the method that works best if you want to boost its appeal and reach more people. Undeniably, these examples are powerful.

Imagine a world where Tolkien wouldn't benefit of screen adaptation, but these writers would. Could that be fair? Would it really be nice to have a fabulous author like him fade into oblivion, while these ones who do nothing but copy him enjoy such massive success? Would it really be fair? I am surprised the Tolkien family isn't thinking about it.

The Films Do Him Justice

Keeping Tolkien in the literature zone only would be a terrible thing to do. If he never got on screen, the Tolkien phenomenon would have been greatly reduced today. He could even become misunderstood. Now thankfully, through these films, be they good or bad (it's not necessary to discuss this here), his name is known to the world, to every nation, even to the youngest of us... and a huge gate is open - the gate to his books, now made easier to connect to.

I dare to think that his aura would fade with time, outshun by the less original authors. Totally not fair. Tolkien is, after all, the creator of a highly successful genre and no one did it better than him.

Why Royd Tolkien Is Admirable
Royd Tolkien, great grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien

If you are part of the fandom built around Peter Jackson's 6 Middle-Earth movies, you must have
noticed Royd Tolkien by now. He's active and, most important, is supportive. Moreover, he's quite a contrast to his other relatives, it seems. While he's not exactly in his twenties, nor thirties, he is young enough to taste entertainment as it is enjoyed today. He's a man of the newer generations. He understands the appeal of movies and the fact that this can only do good and no harm to his great grandfather's name. He had cameos in the movies, participated in promoting them, attended the premieres and voiced his opinion when needed. Royd always has a word of support when asked about the films and he's very enthusiastic in his answer. This should matter.

It is also worthy to observe how Royd embodies some of the virtues cherished in Middle-Earth. Personally, I greatly admire his friendly, open and easy going nature, as well as the honourable way in which he speaks his mind when he has to. He's one to understand completely that there will always be a difference between books and movies, that people want to get inside the story (hence the fanfiction, cosplay, conventions etc.) and that every such story will be lived according to the fashion of the current time.

As long as the author's original message is intact, no harm is done.

We Are More Visual

Entertainment got to be centred on visuals. We are not necessarily getting dumber. Lazier perhaps, but not dumber. Besides, it's only normal to become more visual nowadays, since technology has evolved so much in this direction. We have means that have been unheard of, unspoken and undreamt of until very recently. It's fabulous to have these.There's so much more that's possible on screen now. It was only a logical step and an honourable attempt to create Middle-Earth in a visual form like that.

It is a dear hope that, one day, someone will be daring enough (and allowed) to bring The Children of Hurin or maybe a few tales of The Silmarillion on screen.

8 January 2015

We've all done it at some point. Ever wondered why? Ever happen to get upset yourself about someone else bringing you offence? I'm going to talk about a trending topic... and no, perhaps you won't like it.

The free speech right is often used to give way to offensive attitudes. The offenders claim it's a basic right to insult and it shouldn't be censored, but when others confront them, the double standards apply. They will silence the offended or anyone criticising them. How is that free speech then?

When we are truly at peace, happy and content with ourselves, there is no need to offend. We are simply at peace. But when we feel frustrated, angered, weak, when hate starts to dwell in us... we start looking for weapons. Sharp words are the easiest to use.

Why do you need to offend? What is there in you that has already caused you harm that you need to leash out onto someone else? What makes you feel so inferior that you must take the other down in order to get up again?

Offending is a frequent thing in childhood and teenage. It has an infantile thing about it. When you keep on doing it in your adult age, you look like you've never grown up. It can only be a good move if you back it by real facts and arguments. If you simply make a statement that's based on nothing (say, "Your mother is a whore" or "God is not real, you're stupid"), you're only talking volumes about your low level. You haven't proved a thing about the other, but about yourself.

When you take the freedom to offend, you must also accept any of the possible consequences. Do you go into the forest and poke the bear? That bear may not be at the same level of understanding as a human being... therefore it won't understand when you tell, "Stop, I was only having fun!". No, that bear will come to get you. It's silly to make any excuses after poking a bear. You should've known what you were getting into.

I frequently offend, too... and each time I do it I know it comes from a place of weakness.

7 January 2015

Posted by Anna Notaras | File under : , , , , , , ,
We should all be free to express our opinions and criticise, right? Then the following one should be equally free to our western world, I believe.

Imagine you are dealing with wild animals. A group of savage beasts has invaded your territory and caused loss and destruction. They've done it repeatedly in the past and they are doing it now, too. What do you do? Do you go out and talk to them or do you use something that actually works to get rid of them? Do you show them drawings? Do you talk to them? Do you laugh at them? Here they come again to wreak havoc and spill blood, in spite of your 'clever' ridicule.

Here begins the truly rational take on the recent events. While doing what those terrorists did is an abomination, some reactions to it are equally disturbing. You can't say - no one can say, in fact, they didn't know how the Islamic State reacts. Everyone knew they're violent and unreasonable. Then why in the world they kept on using the same triggers instead of doing something that would actually get them rid of such threat? For the sake of logic, why do westerners think they're so smart by making satires when they know that a group like this will only react in a violent way?

"Feedom of speech bla bla". Ok, of course we should have it. But you already know their reactions. The whole world knows it. Remember the comparison above. If you're going to 'arm yourself' with papers and words in front of the wild creatures, expect to be defeated by their force. If this happens and you're complaining and victimising yourself, then you're not as smart as you believed.

You're not there for the humour of it or for a legitimate critic, you are there with the sole purpose to offend. Only the weak and the mentally troubled find pleasure in offending like that, that's a fact. You just want to pick on religion because you're a hate-ridden, intolerant anti-theist.
You're just like those extremists. You are an extremist yourself.

You saw they started a war and you kept on fuelling that war.
That doesn't make you a pacifist.
You don't tolerate a different world view, but you expect to be tolerated?
You say you hate fanatic extremists, but you have a fanatic extremist attitude yourself?

You're a special breed of hypocrite.

Then comes a rebellious writer to spill more of his ignorance. I won't name him. He's just like the Islamic terrorists, albeit he sees himself as superior and enlightened. Unlike most people, he fails to see that it's only a small group to do these horrible acts, not the entire Muslim community, nor the other religious people of the planet. This dude uses the supreme weapons of ignorance and stupidity by making a general attack on all religions. You got it, it's one of those 'rational' haters who can't miss an opportunity to spill hate on the entire spiritual community of this world. His dream? "Oh, if only all religious people would just go away... I can't tolerate anyone who's having a different opinion" Get it? See the hypocrisy?

This makes me wonder, are these western critics really superior to those barbaric and violent terrorists? Apparently not. Good thing that most people won't buy this. Most people still have discernment and can grasp the differences. Shame on those who use this terrorist attack in Paris to aggressively display their ignorance, narrow views and hatred.

Later edit:

A routine check on Twitter has actually shown me that my take on this topic is not unpopular at all. In fact, people are showing they're no longer that easily fooled into hostility and attitudes of separation and hate. Way to go!

6 January 2015

As of 20 December 2014, I joined the ranks of those who could proudly wear a t-shirt with the "I survived BOFA" inscription. Many tears were shed, priorities were re-checked and all hope was lost. Not sure if that qualifies as proper surviving though...

Much has been speculated, many endings envisioned... Like some dedicated fans have said, this version that we saw on screens was probably the best possible for a story that was, sadly, rather carelessly written by master Tolkien (all made worse by the film team's efforts to make it more mature and more fitting to LOTR - therefore more tragic for the audience). I'm not meaning to be disrespectful to the author. It's just that The Hobbit as a book was not intended as a piece of writing for adults, nor was it meant as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings. It became so only much later. The difference was huge and, when this book had to be filmed, they had an almost impossible task to deal with.

Did I like it as a work of art? Oh yes! Did I find anything to criticise? Sure, but that was too little in comparison to all the things I applauded. The 'sins' of this 3rd installemnt can be easily counted as below:
  • poorly inserted comic moments (I know there is a rule of breaking tension or tragic moments with a comic relief, but it didn't work here. Yes, I'm looking at Alfrid.)
  • subplots and story moments that were important to the theatrical version but were left for the EE
  • too much fight scenes with Legolas, for the sole purpose of pleasing his fans
  • rushing events and leaving too much to the EE.
Generally, there was this obvious struggle of having to please both the old fans of the Elves and the new ones, of the Dwarves. I understand it was a tough thing to do, both sides demanded to be pleased. As for the often-mentioned 'rushed pace' of the film, it's the whining viewers to blame. Honestly, I have no idea why they were even cared for. they were the ones to complain about the length of the two films (and no real fan would ever want less of what he loves!) and now I bet it's the same ones that whine about how it's been cut too short.

Let's go on to the juicy part now... although it's hard to have any positive attitude when it comes to a film that's grabbing your heart and tearing it to pieces, a film that's built the most lovable characters for you, only to have them mercilessly killed by deadly weapons in the end.

Success Is Counted in Tears

Well, we can look in a different way at it, though.
Tragic as it may be, it succeeded in drawing many tears in every theatre around the globe. For weeks during the screenings (and even weeks before), pretty much every Hobbit-related social media comment would mention tissues for the tears. That is another definition of success - to make people cry at your show. Congrats for that! I bow down to those who managed to give Thorin Oakenshield a heroic death and who made those plot twists that clearly showed who was more of a villain and provided some ways of evolving (Thranduil being metaphorically slapped for his bitchy-ness and then admitting his parenting failure - Yes, thank you!)

Shakespeare comparisons

This is not your average fantasy/medieval/hero production. This is something far deeper and complex. Don't get fooled by its popularity and take it for an action flick set in mythical times. A psychologist would find a lot of delight in this film, especially in seeing what exactly is happening to Thorin and to his friends in close connection to him. The 'madness' is so realistically portrayed! Richard Armitage knew so well what he was doing there. He can act with even the smallest muscles on his face. He can show you one emotion, then go to its opposite in a split second. These quick changes are impressive and what's even more impressive is that they are real - they really happen so when one is affected in that way. There is no exaggeration about that.

Thorin here is a deeply troubled character, a king with a burden. Consumed with his duty feeling of protecting the treasure and facing the reprimand of others, as well as the hostile armies at his gate, he goes through a personal inferno and comes out of it on his own. He's brave beyond measure, fair in his dealings with the enemies, stoic, caring and truly warm to those whom he cares about... and really takes on the role of a magnificent, legendary warrior king. It was pleasing to see that even those bitter, usually overly critical reviewers have said grand words about his interpretation and compared his drama to that of Shakespearean kings.

Bilbo. Martin Freeman. Damn, he can act!

His acting is superb here. I don't know who was responsible with writing his final lines next to a dying Thorin, but that person should be probably banned somehow... My apologies, but that makes me burst into tears whenever I think of it! "The eagles are coming... Thorin... the eagles are coming", all said in a cracking voice, so innocently, like a child hanging on to the smallest hope... No, that was too much. That was premeditated murder of thousands of sensible fans.

Some voices informed that the scene we're talking here was mostly spontaneous and the actors never really rehearsed it. If this is truly the case, it's hats off again...

The one scene that's worth all the gold in Erebor. And then some.

Is there anything more touching than the Bilbo-Thorin scene? For me, it is. And it's touching in a most positive way. Thorin charging for battle. There, I said it. As he comes out of Erebor followed by his loyal Dwarves, with Dain shouting enthusiastically "To the king, to the king!", I can't help but feel shivers from head to toes. It makes me ecstatic. It's beyond goosebumps. The cinematography is excellent, it builds anticipation in a stunning way. Just watch as the huge bell smashes the gate and the camera goes backwards... yet you can't see a thing coming out of the mountain, but you expect it, and seconds later they appear, running full speed but in slow motion. Fabulous! That's the one scene that gets me every time, that seems the best of the entire movie... of the trilogy... of maybe of all 6 movies?

I'm usually judging my films based on my first reaction to them. Nevertheless, I'm surely paying attention to how my feelings change with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th viewing... and this battle charge hasn't changed a bit. 100% success. I just want to install a big screen on a wall of my room to play that scene in a loop. I need it in my life.

Pleased with the fan service

Of course, some basic needs couldn't be left out! A sure fan favourite is Thorin's majesty being completed by a most majestic battle mountain goat (or battle ram, as is frequently encountered). apart from this, it was vastly enjoyed that Kili finally learnt to smoulder majestically, like his uncle. Not only that, but he actually breaks into some serious anger there, shouting about how he's not going to let others fight their battles for them. Then comes that sweet Thorin and Kili family moment. Precious! Dwarf fans like me also got a generous share of fun and joy as Dain was allowed to mock Elf king Thranduil by calling him a 'woodland sprite' (it gets a satisfied smirk from me every time). Another moment of similar intensity (but of a very different tone) was when brave Tauriel confronted the same elf king and called him loveless.

No Tauriel hate, really. Her presence is essential, she gets to oppose characters and attitudes that are so negative. I can't describe how happy I am to see someone facing Thranduil and wording out his biggest flaws. Also, she's one to show that the Dwarves are cared for, that they can conquer and melt hearts, which is important for this film. Ultimately, she is the voice of the fandom. "Because it was real" speaks volumes about who we are and how we feel as fans... and why it hurts to see BOFA. That may be an overly simple dialogue, but she's right. Too right.

Further thanks to Howard Shore for extending some of his best musical themes.