So What It's Like Being Skinny?

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.

There Is NO Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom

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?

The Science Behind Offending

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.

A Scandalous Opinion about the Terrorist Act in Paris, France, 07/01/2015 #IAmCharlie

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!

Emma Watson's Speech on Feminism - Emotional Enough to Be Bought by the Average Viewer

First of all, let me say that I'm not buying when a celebrity ( = influence and many, many views) is addressing an issue like this. Secondly, she is an actress, yet her voice was trembling all the time. "Oh, but she is really invested and really cares for that cause, that was real emotion!", you will say. I'm not entirely sure. I repeat, she's an actress.

I liked her speech for the real issues it emphasised, though: feminism getting a bad name because of bad feminists, men being asked to suppress their feminine side etc. As a woman with a very strong masculine side, I enjoy my personality as a whole and would never suppress its masculine traits. I also support men in becoming 'whole'. This shouldn't mean ditching their 'manly' traits. Yes, I stand for 'girly' and 'manly'. I love these. These will keep on going until we no longer have people born with penises and people born with vaginas, but have a hybrid of the two.

Food for thought: if both genders are being discriminated and feminism got a bad name through numerous bad actions, why we call it feminism and not egalitarianism?

Like many have said, feminism is defined not by nice quotes, nice dreams and speeches, but about the deeds of feminist individuals and groups.


What deeds do we have in recent years? Extreme feminists have spread hate, intolerance, violence. Unfortunately, this kind of feminists are much more numerous than the good ones like Emma might be. Most feminist I've known rejoice when a man is suffering, call a woman bad names when she disagrees with them, hate religion (but hide behind a speech of "accept anyone, any race, religion etc."), hate anyone who dares to disagree, spread false statistics, beat up people, break down stuff, objectify themselves, support murder of human beings in the womb and call them as their own body and much more.

More Wrong Things in Emma's Speech

 

• Her girlfriends dropped out of their sports teams because they didn't want to appear muscular - Wasn't it THEIR choice, Emma? Why do you insists on all other people doing things your way? Yes, feminists do this all the time. God forbid you want to do things differently, like choosing how you want to look!

• She was sexualised in photos - Then why did she accept those photo shoots?!

My Very Recent Experience with a Feminist

Just go on Tumblr or dig up Ukrainian feminism to see more negative feminist examples than you can take. I'm going to entertain you with the latest one in my life.

House party, numerous guests of various skin colours, beliefs and so on. Everyone's having fun and discussing about the things that unite us. One woman decides to make herself heard and, without having been in any way provoked to do so, starts avertising herself loudly as 'feminist'. Loudly. Repeatedly. In the company of very decent men. She starts poisoning the party atmosphere with her gender issues, with her false statistics (one in every four women is raped?!? who taught you maths?!). Her body is muscular and her voice is rough, coarse. Next to her, I see women who truly honour their femininity. Soft, gentle, loving and kind, smiling, talking positively. She, on the other hand, insisted to turn the party into a fiery feminist speech that was never required. Some of the men left early. so did I.

Another shocking claim she made was about phrases that speak bad of women's bodily parts (such as when you tell someone, "You're a c*nt"). She complained how only women's bodily parts are given a bad meaning. Well, I can't even start telling how wrong her opinion was! How about "Don't be a d*ck"? Ohh, perhaps we are allowed to talk badly about the male body? Also, it is a cultural thing. In my country, people speak badly only of male genitalia, while women genitalia names are used to describe something as 'cool'.

The whole thing left me wondering why do feminists always have to be so strident and stand out in inappropriate situations. That gathering was made of Christians, Hindus, non-religious individuals, vegetarians, omnivores, white, black, straight and maybe gay people. None of these ever felt the need to speak about their options. The feminist did.

The Feminists I Know

I wish I lived in Emma Watson's fairytale. Sadly, the feminists I know are awful, most of them. Also the feminist 'men'. They are only hoping to have more of a change to get some p*ssy by siding with feminists. I've known them all too well. A confident man needs no such gimmicks. He loves and respects women without sporting a fancy label. Also, a confident, proud woman doesn't need to beg for men's help to become equal. She simply becomes.

5 Solid Reasons Why the Cosmopolitan Dating Advice Is So, So Bad

There are good reasons why the Cosmopolitan dating advice is known to suck.

It's been more than once that I encountered bad words spoken about the dating and sex columns in Cosmopolitan. Not that I ever had any high expectations of it. That thing's only purpose is to sell - not to inform, help or enlighten. All those things and selling have nothing to do in common.

Sadly, at some point I got to face the disgusting reality - the awfully bad dating advice Cosmo is pushing down innocent throats. Do yourself good and never read it. Or, if you do, keep in mind to act the exact opposite way. Here are the undeniable reasons why it's so, so painfully bad.


1. It's written by extremist modern-day feminists. 
Feminism achieved wonderful things back in its days of glory. It's great to stand up for women rights and for equality, but not to be a complete ignorant on how the male-female thing works or adhere to all that non-sense like being pro abortion = pro CHOICE (you had a choice when you had sex, you know? ever heard of contraception? perhaps you need to emancipate yourself and find out about those real choices out there?). Cosmo editors seem to be just that type: ultra-liberal, pro abortion (= pro irresponsibility and pro murder), extremists and hateful. Also, they will push anything else into the conservative extreme or whatever they have there in the US.


2. It aims to change the laws of physics. 
As a woman, it's perfectly OK to ask a man out, to make the first step, to be the first one to initiate sex, they say. Go on, you're a modern woman, forget about how it worked for thousands and thousands of years! (like you could erase all those evolutionary traits so quickly... yeah). Actually, no. Men and men and women are women, still. Scientifically, our brains are different, just like our bodies. Our hormonal make-up is different. No matter how the Cosmo people prefer, there are still millions of women out there searching for a "real man", meaning a man who is a provider, a man who dares, a man who makes the first move and maybe the second, too. That does not make them lazy or inferior. They will do their part. The feminine nature is receptive and responsive, it receives and nurtures. The male is the achiever, the provider, the protector, the initiator. A large percentage of men still want that and it makes them happy to be so. Of course, you may as well choose to be a dominant woman and take on that masculine energy yourself. But then, your partner may be the kind to spend more time in front of a mirror than you do and cry over a broken nail. Your choice. Many women I know (in fact all of them) would not be happy with a partner like that. It's not yet possible to change the way most people (nature) work(s). See point 3.


3. It completely ignores reality.
Why are you still waiting for that guy to ask you out?! Make a move!! Like, heeey, it's already 2014!!
Oh, don't they love saying this... What's this supposed to mean, anyway? It's like saying, "The Earth has been revolving around the Sun for billions of years already. It's time to change that!" Seriously, are you not bored with this Earth & Sun thing? It's like soooo billions of years ago. Yes, dear "emancipated women". It's THAT stupid. Just like human beings still have 2 legs, 2 arms, 2 eyes, 1 nose etc., just like men and women have different sex organs, so we have different energies: masculine and feminine. It's not always in the same percentage, but if you have a penis you're at least a little more masculine than a person with a vagina. That was the weakest 'argument' possible'. Go ahead and ask men out. Let's see how happy you'll be. Talking to all the women out there will reveal to you a very different truth: just hear them out - there's a big choir out there yelling how bad things turned when they asked men out. Why? It's simple. No matter how flattered they are, real men will unconsciously feel repelled by a woman who has to be so active in the dating game. Not only that such action unconsciously repels them, but it emasculates them.

4. They publish false statistics.
According to this wonderful and enlightening and life-saving magazine, over 90% of men (crushing percentage, isn't it?) would want the woman to make the first move. Do we really need to say how many statistics give a way different number? Look for what people really say, look for what the good psychologists and dating coaches out there word out. The reality is the complete opposite. There's a really easy way to prove them wrong. Go out there and try it yourself as many times as you want. Talk to people and see what they say. See what works, see what bring happiness and fulfilment. See what people really want.

5. It tries so hard to offend.
Are you against abortion? You are an idiot (yes, it's out there, written by their brilliant contributors. How professional and smart!). Basically, you are an idiot if you have a different opinion on anything. Are you a woman who wants a manly man and expects him to make the first move? You are sooo old-fashioned, which translates to retarded and idiotic. Is this really worth any attention since it has no problem badmouthing people with different views? That doesn't even meet the basic requirements of journalism. FAIL.

Let me say that again. BIG FAIL, Cosmo. That's why you never have the respect of smart people.

The #Fatkini Trend: Things Confident People Don't Do

The same old story - large women feeling put down, not really doing anything about it (and this may range from making healthier choices to working on their own psychological acceptance issues) and deciding to go on a parade. What happens is that they attract the comments and attitudes to naturally follow such behaviour.

This post is meant to paint a picture of what really happens there. I am in no way put off by the fatkini photos, but by the attitudes behind this form of activism. I think beauty comes in many shapes and sizes. I am aware that some are bothered by such posts. I've tried to be as nice as possible to people with extreme weight, but they can't seem to accept any other view but theirs. They could never accept the fact that skinny people are being bullied equally. They usually say "OK, I know you get your share of rude behaviour, BUT...". There is always a 'BUT'. The fat ones always pose as the more victimised, the more abused, the more hated and unaccepted. Endless victimising and we all know what that is - it comes from a lack of self acceptance and no will to take charge and do something for yourself.

Sadly, this is mistaken for... confidence.


1. Confident people don't parade.

When you are truly confident, there is no need to expose yourself like that. You are what you are and you go about your business happily, not needing to prove anyone anything. When you are confident, you are not put down by a bully's opinion. You don't feel the need to post pictures of your own body in order to feel accepted. If you are mentally sound and healthy, you don't need to do that to have self-acceptance. Also, you don't have to get anyone's acceptance.


2. Confident people look at themselves only.

Compare yourself only to what you really want to be. You like yourself fat? Fine, but be aware that there are very real health risks involved. Want to slim down? Get a good physician's advice and start doing something about that. Don't hunt for those skinny people and tell them how they should eat a sandwich or more. Don't spit at the 'evil media' for not preferring you. Look inwards at your own acceptance issues. Needing to make condescending comments on people who look differently that you do shows nothing but self-hatred and low self esteem.


3. Confident people understand how standards are being formed.

Being thin is the norm? You think it's the media that made it so? Think again.
Tomorrow, the media may want to promote a different ideal. What if this one would mean having 4-inches long nails and a dozen nose piercings? That surely wouldn't gain much popularity. Would people conform? NO. In order to become the norm, a standard needs popular SUPPORT. In other terms, people like skinny, that's why it's popular. It would have never been the norm without the support it's been getting. This is a fact and nothing can change it.


4. Confident people understand and accept that overweight or obese isn't healthy.

You may be feeling well now, but soon those ugly health troubles will creep up on you. This is a proven, highly visible scientific fact. Too much fat leads to illness and to premature death. The other big issue is that the fat activist are starting to spread false science, claiming that thin individuals are prone to the same conditions. FALSE! Unless one looks like a poor starving African or they make huge dieting mistakes, there is no need to worry. Being thin in itself, even very skinny, is no problem at all.

5. Confident people know the facts.

OK, some of these facts were already mentioned. In general, we mean that smart, accepting, confident people who are fine about their looks know what the truth is. They don't buy the fat activists' lies. They know, for example, that the healthiest and longest-living people in the world are rather skinny. Take a look at the Japanese and the monks everywhere. Of course, there are skinny people in Africa and Asia, but that is because of poverty. There's not much poverty in Japan though, is it? In any case, social groups like the monks are very thin, yet they live long and healthy lives. Again, a fact you cannot change.

6. Confident people don't need to put down anyone.

This one speaks for itself.

7. Confident people don't see others as privileged.

Since thin is the norm, many large people somehow believe that it's OK to pick on thin girls (it's mostly about the girls), because anyway they're put on a pedestal. "They are already accepted, so they won't suffer like we do!" I smell DOUBLE STANDARDS here! If you want to be admired and accepted, don't act to others in the opposite way. If you think the others have too much cake, don't try to get some of it on your plate. Go and make your own cake and enjoy it.

Therefore, if you are large/fat/overweight and reading this, do yourself good and stop blaming others. Stop blaming them either for your weight or for your lack of acceptance. Go ahead and post bikini pictures, there's nothing wrong with it. Just don't do it out of desperation, out of a desire to be accepted by others. Society will never be like we want it to be. You're not saying anything positive about yourself when you are doing that.

Skinny Shaming - Do You Do It? Shame on You!

Are you aware that Marylin Monroe was "skinny" for her time? That the absolute symbol of elegance and femininity, Audrey Hepburn, was actually underweight? Do you realise that by putting down people with a different figure you only point to your own bodily and image issues?


I came across a post explaining how women called "whales" are actually happy, loved and enjoy all the good things in life. OK, I get it that it's insulting to call a fat woman a whale, but isn't it a bit too far-stretched to say that your fat is the product of wisdom and knowledge? Come on... That's fairy-tales for kids you're telling there, you know it. Also, the same post claimed that "mermaids don't exist, and if they did, they would have no sex life, would not enjoy dinner with a husband or fun times with friends". Oh, dear! How hate-driven you have to be to invent such things? To completely shut your eyes and say that those skinny women don't exist...

Why in the world would skinny women not be able to do all those thing? There are naturally skinny people there - me being one of them - and trust me, they stuff themselves with all the goodies possible, they have sex and nothing stops them from having dinner with anyone they want! So what is the problem exactly?

You hate thin women so much that you close your eyes and pretend they don't even exist? Get over yourself and accept, truly embrace the way you are... So far, you are only pretending to accept yourself. You're not happy with your life when you are posting such things online, I can really tell the hate and shame underneath it all.


You hate the beauty industry and the standards it promotes?
Think about it... Would people accept standards that don't resonate with them? It's all very simple: people like what they see and they want it. They are not forced into accepting that standard.

Are you aware of the weight loss industry? Do you know how huge it is? It's because people want to lose weight. If people didn't want this, that industry would simply fail at some point. Instead, it is THRIVING! What does that tell you?

Is there a weight gain industry out there? Try looking for fattening supplements or solutions. They are hard to come by.

See? I'm talking about facts here. No need to insult or to shame you. Just facts and realities you can easily observe on your own. No hate. I just hate your way of telling skinny people they are "wrong" or claiming they don't even exist or that they are the absolute most miserable beings on earth.

Miranda Kerr - Victoria's Secret supermodel: skinny and adored. She is married to Orlando Bloom and they have kids together. No sex life, no happiness and no husband, you say?

She's making loads of money on that, darlings!

Skinny women can eat whatever they want and as much as they want. There are countless medical reasons why one never stores fat. You already hate them for this, don't you.

Skinny women can model for any famous brand and don't need to diet.

Skinny women are never worried about calories when they're invited over for dinner. They don't count calories when they cook, when they shop for food or when they reach for a snack.

Skinny women don't feel jealousy when they see models or cover girls (ok, I admit I am jealous when they have better hair than mine).

As for men... they prefer whatever they prefer, and that ranges from obese to skinny. Try ask a thin woman how many dates she gets, there's a lot more than you believe. Now stop closing your eyes saying that such women don't exist! I'm real. They're real. 

Also, in your desperate efforts, you could be doing real harm to people who just don't deserve it. Some people may be too poor to afford adequate nutrition. Some have been dealing with too much stress to keep the weight you want them to have. Some people have food allergies - do you know how hard it is to live with that? Some people have awful diseases that keep them thin. Some people are actually thin because they are constantly told they are! The mind picks up on it and it shapes the body as told!

MARYLIN MONROE.  Skinny-haters nowadays promote Marylin's image in an attempt to show that fatter (or 'curvy', as they feel better calling it) is superior to today's standard. However, they ignore that the way MM looked back in the day was actually SKINNY for those times. So, this means that in those times there were actually loads of women who would loathe MM and call her a skinny ugly bitch, eh!


"Real women aren't skinny"
So if she's got a fast metabolism that is simply genetic, she should be taken out of the 'women' category? Or should she be ruled out just because she isn't like you?

Breaking news: skinny women have vagina, have breasts and even have curves that you don't notice or that their clothing may not show. It's all about the hip-waist-shoulder ratio and about proportions. Her thighs will still be wider than her calves, for example. And if some men lust for fatter women, it doesn't mean that you have to ignore all those who actually drool for magazine models.

I came across another desperate attempt of fat women: a post telling how "real men choose curvy women". Luckily, there was a post in response to it: "Real men choose whatever they prefer!". Now that's a truth! So you're not only trying to shame thin ladies, but also the men who prefer them... How insecure and hateful of you!

Sorry my darlings, but no matter how hard you try to make thin women 'understand' that men don't want them, they're still dealing with all those suitors lining up at their door. Ask any skinny girl who takes care of herself and who's pretty enough.

Let me put it like this:

If you don't like it when you are called fat and society wants to reduce you all to one size, then why do you want to bring others to your size? Isn't it just as evil?


You haven't accepted your "curvy body", you have only replaced your shame with skinny shaming!


The oppressed become the oppressors. Low and weak....

Also, why do you pick on thin women but not on thin men? I bet your only concern are women - when it comes to weight. Are you somehow afraid they're better than you? Is it the fear of competition?


Here's some further reading for the matter at hand:

http://birdeemag.com/skinny-shaming/

"a bullying tactic: if I put her down for being skinny/thin/athletic, I will feel better about myself."

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2013/aug/05/skinny-shaming-fat-size-appearance

"I write about this in my new book, The Ministry of Thin, and I've been shocked at the backlash. The plus-size sisterhood can be frightening. Among the messages I received (only from women, and mostly anonymous) I was called a skinny bitch, a body fascist, and a fat-nazi. I was informed that men "love something to grab on to", and that "curves" are sexier than skeletons. And yet my book contains not a single word of criticism about larger-sized people"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-oliver/skinny-shaming_b_3506313.html

"Before you even think about prejudging a woman (no matter her size), think really hard about what it says about you."


Before you get to full-blown rage against me, please note that I haven't shamed anyone fat in this post. I only attacked some for their low self esteem and for their hate and intolerance. I used no bad words about being fat per se. 

George Gently and Ricky Deeming - a Stunning Social Synthesis

Set in the 60's, the plot of the pilot episode for BBC's George Gently series involves the charismatic and rebellious leader of a motorcycle gang, Ricky Deeming (Richard Armitage) and a shoe-licking, conformist young cop eager to climb the career ladder. At least that is how he appears in the beginning. Later, the cop realises he was after the wrong person and eventually saves Deeming's life.

I did not expect much from this episode, but it had a great effect on me eventually. Armitage was an excellent choice for the role, as he suceeded in bringing some very human traits to his character. If you are looking for the biker stereotype, you will not find it here. This gang leader is a dreamer, an idealist, even a poet. When faced by the police, he describes motorcycling like a spiritual matter. And he is right. All his actions are righteous. His voice is calm, he is eloquent and honest and, overall, an elegant presence. Yet, he is accused of being a criminal, an ordinary one, hunted down and discredited, mocked, because two members of his group died mysteriously and evidence seems to point at him.

The interesting part is the clash of the two at the interrogatory. The dialogue and the character portrayal reveal two iconic types which we can find at any time, in any given place in our society. The young cop has a condescending attitude and, after he has conformed to every rule, ignored society's real problems and climbed high enough to claim some power of his own, he feels free to have a vulgar display of power. He is now cheeky, ambitious as ever, ignorant and is treating Deeming with an irony that was uncalled for (and totally undeserved).

Ricky Deeming, on the other side, is the rebel with a cause. A real and good cause. In a deeply human tone and with great composure, he exposes the ills of the society and of the system. He condemns those who crucify human liberties and true values in the name of false goals, mental comfort or riches. Moreover (and unlike the cop), he never says or does anything rude. Instead of sarcasm, he prefers to express things just as they are. In response, the others are only mocking him and considering him to be "living on another planet".

The truths exposed by Deeming offend the cop, who is set to hunt him down and prove his guilt. They laugh at his metaphors. They laugh at his righteous rebellion. They laugh at him for being different... when they are all the same. "If you don't live by our rules, you are pathetic!" - that would be their truth, so widely spread everywhere these days.

Here is a fragment of the dialogue:
"The Durham Defenders... What's being defended?"
"...We are, I suppose."
"From what?"
"From the bull****! Dead end jobs, hand-me-down values, second-hand opinions, mortgages. No offence, but it's the sort of life that Johnny here leads".

His observations are in tune with the despising and very truthful phrase he threw to the cop earlier on when this one was trying to play the smart guy with him: "Was anyone ever more pathetically grateful to get the Prefect badge?"

He expresses (with more suffering and less arrogance) his disapproval of the mediocrity and the banal lives the rest prefer to live. In the end, he spills all his discontent and asks:

"What did your world offer?"

The ambitious arrogant cop can't stand it anymore and quickly changes the subject, trying to attack Deeming by using his metaphors, but in a totally wrong way. His intellectual impotence reminds me of Anderson in BBC's Sherlock. Incapable arrogant individuals who happen to have a nice warm seat in some institution, usually because they kissed the right bottom and made sufficient compromises, attacking anyone who refuses their world order and mediocrity and who dares to criticise them.

The real murderer comes face to face with inspector George Gently and insists that his son was killed "by the depravity of one man"(Ricky Deeming). The murdered son, a boy in the gang, held Deeming on a pedestal, he looked up to him. He drew him as Christ on the cross. He was his idol and saviour. And then we get to see that he's being chased by both the police and the real murdered himself.

Watch the whole episode below:

The whole interrogation room scene line from Ricky Deeming (0:30:00):

Dead end jobs. Hand-me-down values. Second hand opinions. Mortgages.
No offense but it's the sort of life that Johnny here leads.
Forty years of chasing guys like us up and down the streets so the world will be a safer place for other mediocre people to live their banal lives in.
You. And your little woman on the front of Whitley Bay and the whole world rolling on forever and the whole structure never skipping a beat. And nothing ever changing... Except the weather....
What did your world ever offer a little kid like Laurie Elton? Real dad dead before he were born, mother abandoned him? Your straight world pushes him and pushes him into ever tighter corners. Failed at your schools, couldn't hold down your bullshit jobs, life of crime beckoning, predictable. Well maybe not, just maybe not....
He got himself a bike.
A family.
A set of shared values.
And you know what, George?
He took a look at your world and he wasn't interested in it. And neither am I.
Your world's coming to an end, George... it's inevitable...
You won't know England in 20 years.

We Want Kings! On the Fascination for Monarchs (Richard III, Aragorn, Thorin)

by N. C. Wyeth

Royalty has always been impressive, and not all due to the fairy-tales hailing from medieval times. It tends to go beyond the opulence of royal families and the attractive high social status. Even the power factor itself doesn't fully justify the fascination, as we can see there is more to it. Presidents, statesmen and politicians today certainly do not have the same aura as a king, nor could ever inspire the same sympathy. 

People in need of true leaders

Even those who would never admit it still need them. Not to be controlled by them, but to be inspired. A loyal, caring but fierce, righteous and firm leader easily becomes a role model. For this reason, people have usually loved kings - those of older times mostly - and still do. Have a look at the quest for Richard III's grave. Many had even donated money to support the archeological dig. The people were there, for a king dead long ago, a king who was vilified. As the findings were made public in February 2013, enthusiasts from all over the world knew a renewed interest in ancient British royalty. It was fascinating. Moreover, it was not about him being a presumed murderer (there is nothing unusual in that, considering his era and status), not about the discovery itself even, because it could simply be reduced to a skeleton found underneath a parking place. It was about having found someone important from those times, someone who ruled and fought.

Warrior kings

King Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen)

Unfortunately, the days of true monarchs are gone. There is no way to compare an 'office ruler' to a sovereign who would take his horse and sword, charge the army and go into battle. Those sovereigns of the past were ready to die - and for a noble cause. To this aspect let us add the values they used to embody and profess. Kings, unlike state leaders nowadays, based their rule on certain ethics. Unless we are talking about tyrants, they were quite charming, captivating, awe-inspiring, courageous.

What do we have left today?

The history passionates may not feel completely deserted, because they can easily take refuge into history books and contemplate what once was. Nevertheless, this could hardly be a universal solution to our hunger for kingly values. Luckily, for the rest of us there are the books - the fiction ones especially. Also, there are the movies. It seems that, wherever we look, the best stories are those involving royalty and perhaps some war, too. 

Kings in movies and the people's reaction nowadays

Prince/crownless king Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage)

Without a doubt, they absolutely love them, plain to see. Fantasy writer J.R.R. Tolkien and now director Peter Jackson have been milking this frantically. They created fascinating monarch figures, addictive even. (The Game of Thrones is not far from that, either).

Pop culture has been invaded by long-haired, more or less bearded, armed kings and princes - characters the world once thought to be just relics, incompatible with our times. For the disbelievers, there is always available evidence online of the legacy of Aragorn Elessar, to give the most prominent example. More recently, another warrior king claimed the spotlight. As of December 2012, when the first film of The Hobbit trilogy got on screen, Thorin Oakenshield quickly gathered an army of thousands of followers. The character, although invested with traits that weren't supposed to attract sympathy, surpassed all expectations and became a detached favorite of the crowds. Handsome, incredibly daring and courageous, fighting for honor, loyal, caring for his kin, proud, determined, rugged, aware, this noble hero enraptured viewers in a way rarely seen before.

Kings with all their might, even with their burdens, turmoil and failures, embody everything that many of us find fascinating. Some may have forgotten, some may be denying it, but there is a longing for all of their kingly traits, for their rare qualities. Those like me are fully confessing it: we feel that the world has never been in a greater need of righteous kings than it is now. 

10 Things You Do on Facebook That Show You Are an Idiot

Building yourself an undeserved brand.
Unless you are a professional of some kind, there is no reason to get yourself a fancy title, a logo, a watermark with your name and so on. Also, do not present yourself writing in third person. Do not mention it is your "official Facebook profile" unless you really are a celebrity.Let the fame come first, and then tune your profile to match it if so you wish. Don't brand yourself just for the sake of it.

Arguing over tastes and opinions.
"Welcome to the Internet, where opinions are facts", a good observer said once.Sarcasm, I hope you detected it. Sadly, most users are acting as if all opinions - their especially - are undeniable facts. Getting all inflamed because someone praises a book you didn't like, is a fan of an actor you hate or has different beliefs than you is a sign of severe immaturity. Unless they try to push their choices on you, there is no reason to get alarmed, really. You wouldn't want to be jumped at for choices that aren't harmful.

Starting an argument with someone, then unfriending/blocking them yourself.
Nothing spells 'psycho' better than behaving like this. If you provoke someone, overly criticise, insult, condemn or troll in an open manner for what they have posted, and then you are the one to act hurt and upset, you shouldn't be on Facebook at all. It's up to the other person whether you stay in the list or not.

Over-bragging.
Alright, Facebook is indeed a place where everyone want to be seen as better than they really are, where they show to their ex their so-much-better actual partner, where they post holiday plans and pictures, show how many parties they attend and so on. Therefore, bragging is normal here, but when you overdo it you sent a terrible message out there. No one will be impressed that you ate 3 types of expensive French cheese for dinner, that you just went shopping where none in your friends list can afford, or that you look astonishing in bikini. When too much is too much, you simply pass as desperate to prove your worth. The breaking news is that such despair will never work in your favor, to state the obvious.

Being hostile to nerds.
It's OK to have a passion and it's OK to not take Facebook so seriously. Let those nerds be, let them post and share about The Lord of the Rings, Sherlock or Star Trek - at least they have a passion and they're having fun. If it's too much for you, filter out their updates and remember that we are all here to post whatever we like. Maybe your friends are also sick of your objectifying pics of naked women. There is really no reason to turn hostile or to ridicule those people. After all, you may be that annoying user who plays FarmVille or other extremely intelligent form of entertaining, pestering others with game requests.

Being the rebel.
Maybe some find it cool in school, but when you keep on being the rebel just for the sake of it and you overdo it, there is nothing good to believe about you. It spells no intelligence whatsoever to post only 'scandalous' words or photos, to talk dirty, to mention all the time how 'naughty' you are, to brag about how you don't conform to social or moral norms. It is boring and ridiculous.

Getting inflamed at grammar Nazis.
Grammar Nazis spotted a mistake and they want people to respect their language and to write in an acceptable manner. Point is, you wrote something wrong. Deal with it. It makes no sense to start a flame war because someone corrected you.

Too many post.
Some users out there make at least 20 posts a day, which is beyond more than we can take. Even though your posts are cute, interesting or you really want to share them so badly because they are pure treasures, temper yourself and understand that everyone eventually gets tired of having their newsfeed invaded by a single user. This forces us to unsubscribe and thus your really important updates may be seen by no eyes in the end.

Being there all the time.
Whenever I go to my account, I see the exact same people posting, liking or commenting right at the time. No matter the time of the day.When I check friend's updates, the same people have already liked or commented. Everything. They leave their prints on everything there is. Stop it and get a life. If you think that being there all the time is going to improve your life, stop now. You're not social, you're creepy.

And ultimately... liking your own posts.
It is beyond obvious to anyone that the update/news/photo/video/status you posted is relevant, important, funny or likeable to you. Therefore, what is the point of giving it a 'like' yourself?...

Looking King Richard III in the Face

On February 5th, The Richard III Society officially unveiled the facial reconstruction of the English king, after having assured the skeleton found in Leicester was his.

The monarch died aged 32 in the Battle of Bosworth, and no contemporary portrait had survived. The existing postmortem ones invested him with less than flattering features, now to be proven wrong.

Photo: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

It has certainly been a great adventure, this chase for King Richard III. As the skeleton found under a parking lot in Leicester was finally confirmed to be the king's, through DNA tests and matching with the descendants. To the identification process also contributed the battle wounds evidence.

The facial reconstruction was in no way aided by any of the portraits, except for when determining the colors and the fashion. The result revealed was stunning: not only that we can state that Richard III was a handsome monarch but, although features like his nose and prominent chin were existing in portrayals as well, the reality put his enemies to shame. History is written by the victors, as we know. Once again, it is being confirmed to us. In Richard III's case, those who came to rule after his reign did their best to invest him with flaws and create a mean appearance. Centuries after, their scheming turned against them, finally. Richard looks noble, kind, serene and handsome. It may seem like an unscientific approach to make statements based on physical features, but the leader of the project, Philippa Langley, didn't censor that herself. It is a natural reaction to do so, perhaps stemming from a long experience of seeing physical features as matching the ones of the psyche.

By all means, the most touching part about his appears to be this: that thousands, or rather millions of people get to look Richard III in the eye after so many centuries, that we can all see his face right now, as it was back then. And what do we see? A human, not a monster. It is interesting how, among the first reporters and scientists, many got to discuss his features, in an attempt to draw the man's character from his physical appearance. It seems that we, humans, cannot resist this. It is like an irresistible temptation to start observing one's facial features and make a whole profile based on that. 

Killed on August 22nd, 1485, Richard III could never be fully condemned for any atrocity, not even with the modern investigation techniques. Moreover, he did not have a wretched arm or a hunch back, since he only developed scoliosis, which only causes the spine to form a sideways curvature and uneven shoulders. He made donations to the poor, and he wanted the throne like any other heir would.

To the others, the Richard III Society had been just a bunch of fanatics lost in silly medieval dreams and defending these - with fanaticism, of course.These detractors might have never heard of Schliemann and his Troy...

Insight on the Law of Attraction

Just a comment from a reader on http://healthybliss.net/jerry-hicks-has-cancer-will-leukemia-chemotherapy-affect-the-future-of-abraham-hicks/ , consequent to Jerry Hicks' death:

Thomas says:

28 November, 2011 at 6:30 am

"I know that anyone can provide evidence for their beliefs. Was it’s main intent to give hope ? possibly. does it work for everyone ? no. In some cases like mine it can cause harm, so even though I explored the concept I never fully agreed with it. Does it mean I have ill feelings towards the people that support this, no, the methods ? At one time I did and it took quite a few years to get past.
One of the most challenging things for me to get past was my childhood. I don’t consider myself to be a victim, but listening to the loa experts sent me in the wrong direction. I can’t get that part of my life back that was wasted following this nonsense.
I can fully understand why people do buy into it. Life has many challenges and we’d like to think we have the all the answers, somehow that knowing gives us peace.
Life happens, and the only control we have is our reaction to the challenges we face. I think to myself, thank god I didn’t give up searching for a better way."


Later on, he continues:

"Thomas says:

1 December, 2011 at 6:40 am

Its a good thing I’ve made a habit of questioning many of the things i’ve learned since exploring this field. In my own mind I wonder if abraham even exsists, or is it simply the ramblings of a schizophrenic woman who claims to have a direct connection to information no one else has ? No one knows for sure. Yes I’ve heard it all when it comes to this law of attraction, but no one knows anything for sure. The conflicts arise from the meaning that is given to the events.
As an example in this case the only thing anyone knows for sure is that Jerry died. Everything else aka the meaning, is simply a story thats being told, a meaning that people are making up in their minds."

Your Guru Died of Cancer

This subject is a tragic one, so in no way I'm going to treat it disrespectfully or ridicule any aspect of it. The matter is a crucial one and, given the common sense, I cannot help but ask this: what would you do if your spiritual teacher would fail exactly his own teachings? What would you do if your solid beliefs would crumble down under the weight of an undeniable events?

Lots of people worldwide faced this situation when their mentor, Jerry Hicks, was diagnosed with cancer (leukemia), rushed straight into chemotherapy and eventually died. It is not of my competence to say what kind of person he was. I could hold no hostile feelings towards him, knowing he aimed to empower people and save them from ignorance, negativity and helplessness. It is, however, shocking and strange to find out that the Law of Attraction guru, who preached that we can all avoid any trouble in life - illness included - because our thoughts and attitudes create the reality, got such a terrible disease. Cancer is not a cold, you don't just get it like that. Moreover, if you happen to get it and you believe in the law of attraction, you try first to improve your health by correcting your thoughts.

Among the articles commenting his death, there was one that proved me the gross ignorance of some of his followers. The author had remembered that Hicks had never mentioned the importance of healthy diets. Therefore, he probably relied solely on the power of thought, but harmful food killed him. This is where common sense, reasoning, science and whatnot come in: aren't there countless people on bad diets, some of them getting cancer and surviving it? Yes, they do, and even when their illness had been seriously aggressive, they managed to win over, even without the help of positive thinking. And if you wish, look at the happy optimistic people. Many of them, indeed, never get ill. Our inner world does decide a lot regarding our health. Then, what is the secret? What makes certain people become ill and others stay healthy, when their lifestyles are clearly not the cause?

What makes it look like we are all taking part in a Russian roulette? Most fans of Jerry Hicks will never ask what in the world has happened, what led him to die of such illness. Maybe they do things right for themselves, maybe they don't.
The truth can be found out only by going beyond, and beyond again. As I said, I couldn't go into Jerry Hicks' existence and soul to tell what were his real 'colors'. However, I can conclude that was not doing everything right. To claim that absolutely everything in life is created by the person experiencing it is a gross exaggeration, an insult to natural laws, to human rights and to all creative powers above us (nature, God, Universe). Although at some point it makes perfect sense, this is only inducing a fake idea of responsibility and a terrible ignorance of every human being with the same rights around us.

People who believe in the unseen, like Hicks and his followers, are supposed to grasp the concepts related to the invisible universe. Mere observation of things that happen in life tells us to accept that we are not the only creators of our life. No matter how much we struggle to be the pilot of our own plane, many events we wish to control are simply not in our power. These do not invalidate, however, our divine capacity. Yes, we were made to resemble our Creator, but acknowledging this does not equal with taking the place of this divine authority. LOA freaks tend to have this kind of logic: "God made me like Him, I become God, therefore I don't recognize God's authority". Well, the last part obviously contradicts the first one! It is often forgotten that, in the case we are meant to become one with the divinity, it happens after death and not during life. If it was so, at least one person in humanity's history would've become a god by now.

Jerry Hicks was not necessarily wrong in his teachings. However, if he did not know the whole truth about how the world works, his cancer would be easily justified. Ignoring one single aspect of the truth leads to lie and failure. Hicks was probably seeing himself as an all-powerful god, completely ignoring his actual role in the universal hierarchy. The truly life-giving and empowering spiritual traditions speak of the secrets of health and happiness, but in relation to a humble attitude, unconditional love, lack of greed and so on. Their most determined followers have defeated pain, torture and many physical limitations, also reaching to help others. Only the opposing ones have placed importance on catering to the self only, accumulating possessions and focusing only on the now. Giving names is useless...

If you are still unsure of my point, take a look at what the wife, Esther Hicks, is preaching:
"At a recent seminar (Jerry Hicks absent) Esther was asked by a concerned mother what to do about her young son who refused to share toys. Nothing, Esther advised. The child was "in alignment," tuned into his toys by the law of attraction.
The mother then said that it worried her that her son was also kicking their cat. No problem, says Esther, don't interfere. The cat is teaching him."

(http://wizzley.com/jerry-hicks-cancer-scam-an-update/) 

Attendees at this workshop paid $200 a head to listen to this "spiritual insight" on "the leading edge of thought." Online attendees got to pay $75 to stare at their screens to for a couple of hours of Esther Hicks wisdom.

Enough said. The blind will remain blind.

REBT - A Therapy for Dehumanization

Facts about REBT:
http://24-7help.com/about_rebt/Guide.php

Its founder:

A. Ellis

• atheist (explanation comes later)

• a liberal humanistic sexologist - promoting liberal sexual attitudes - are extremes ever healthy? Or take this phrase: "if this be heresy... Is pornography harmful to children?"

•  considers religion harmful to mental health (So this is how humanity actually survived for millennia... Right, Mr. Ellis). He doesn't see that his own ATHEISM is actually a matter in the religion field, as opposing to any dogma/religion. He fails to see, as many other atheists in science, that he is actually imposing through his theories his own beliefs regarding religion! Such matter should never be included in anything scientific, especially not in psychology! 

 
I  came across some websites which titled him "the greatest living psychologist" - now, thinking with a bit of realism and decency, how many "greatest" people out there are actually great? Are the top politicians great people? Are the MTV pop stars truly great? The "official thing" is almost  always a FAKE, a LIE. A manipulation."The Best" is usually crowned only that one who's a king of deceit, one who can take away the eyes from the truly valuable things. Oh, not to mention that his therapies do not actually work on everyone and, to this day, most of the methods used are far from this one...

Carl Rogers holds a similar place - also humanistic approach, but a genuine interest in truth and wellbeing . Read about him and you'll see the difference.

Why REBT fails:

REBT is a satanic child, it makes promises for 'the now', the easy way, the immediate happiness, focus on the self only. The patient is taught that no one else matters but him. It ignores all theories and therapies which reveal the role of love, forgiveness, investment, focus on the self for the sake of everybody, connection, constructive thinking and action. Luckily there are still enough people on the planet who feel the importance of these and who won't fall for the traps on REBT.

It is only half-true. Seductive on a superficial level, but deeply destructive. Only a person with great values can master it, the others will misuse it and fall. Unfortunately I had the chance to see myself how people who didn't use their thinking and awareness until the end have fallen to become selfish and mechanical, empty inside, dehumanized, alone. Having integrated these teachings, they were no longer able to connect deeply with anyone. They were happy with themselves, though, but never made others happy. They were isolated in a bubble. Moreover, reactions like anger, frustration, discomfort (healthy reactions which can trigger beneficial change) were not fully stopped, as they are naturally human, but were diverged and emerged into inappropriate situations, with greater destructive effect.

The A(event) - B (belief) - C (response) model:
This is what REBT has at its core. With this scheme being somewhat correct, the method focuses on changing B in order to achieve the desired effect. 
B is often good to be changed/replaced, but sometimes B is a precious belief acquired by humanity or the individual. Many Bs simply keep us alive and bring good, though they may seem bad. Bs are triggers responsible for growth, evolution, benefits, even those that look negative.

A better perspective on A-B-C:

REBT insists on changing B. Many other approaches, however, suggest that C (= the reaction, the response) is within our power. It is more so than B, actually! The Belief is very hard to change. It is better for us to acknowledge it and to use our will, wisdom and freedom in choosing a better reaction. No matter what we believe in or how an event makes us feel, we have the freedom to choose our response. We can pay it back, we can ignore, go on just like before, fade away, respond with love and much more. This is where our true power resides - C! By insisting only on B, there's no real result. It only creates a vacuum, to be filled with arbitrary ideas. Changing C is the rational way to change one's situation. C allows humans to create, to exert their true power, to become wise. When they work on C, B is no longer important, it fades away!
Found on a website: "There is no law of the universe, as Albert Ellis has humorously pointed out, that X is going to get his way just because he demands it." - how about LOA, used correctly? to give just a generic idea (because the law of attraction is at the core of countless philosophic and spiritual systems worldwide) How about the morphic fields by which today's science explains Magic itself and ESP? Once again, gross ignorance.


"Who do you think you are to change me?" - the 'innocent' question and attitude in any REBT exposure I found. Defending human rights and freedom? Maybe. Affirming lack of gratitude, of tolerance, of discernment etc? OF COURSE! I cannot believe how many simply let such a statement be... and I could not believe the examples they give to support this... One concerns with a person's bad odor. In the view of the REBT followers, anyone has the right to smell bad and NO ONE has the right to complain about it. Where is the ignorance: when one tells you that you smell bad, they're actually HELPING you. They're telling you to shower, so you won't be chasing away all the people, losing your friends, your job, your status. Is it so bad? It's YOU who's going to suffer the consequences. They're not pointing a gun at your head to shower, they are only suggesting it, to your benefit. It is deeply human. Is it really so bad when people complain about you and tell you to change? And even if they don't care about you, they all have the right to work in a odor-free environment. The fact that one makes them puke is an attempt at their wellbeing and rights. Moreover, they have the right to do something about the air they breathe to be pleasant. They could simply throw out the smelly one and lock the door. There. Who do you think you are to smell like that? Take this, Mr. Ellis.

Following REBT, each person is secluded in a bubble, all human interaction dismissed. Reality (healthy reality, for that matter) is totally different. The Flower of Life is the pattern to be found in anything - see its symbolism for this matter at hand:

Each person is a circle. Each circle is someone's reality. They interfere wonderfully, equally, supporting a perfectly balanced pattern. See how they interfere in a healthy way, a way that build structures.

Here's more of how such "therapists" brainwash patients: "No matter what I might do differently that you would like, or even that might make life better for me, I don't have to do it. I can still do as I please no matter how absurd, wrong, illegal, or stupid it is". This is the attitude they want to imprint! That IS right actually - we're free to act as we please - but this allows us to go as far as possible, to unspeakable crimes, cruelty, perverted behavior, anything one can think of. They encourage this! Again, I am stunned how there's no resistance move against such full-blown stupidity! Total freedom, total anarchy. Even more - let people drink poison or cut their wrists in front of you - who are you to tell them it's not good? Let them become truly psychotic and don't stand in their way when they want to kill someone, please. You're nobody to deny their right to manifest whatever action.
What's the big advice for the by-standers and those involved? To ACCEPT. Yes, that's right. Accept one's freedom and behavior. This doesn't look to me like a good life at all - to simply accept all that there is. Or to adopt the ultimate passive behavior (leaving). It is the absolute denial of what we are as humans, as social creatures endowed with superior faculties.


"Ellis was careful to state that REBT was independent of his atheism"(Wikipedia) - Why? is it because he realized the opposite of this statement? He's a psychologist, after all... I'm very sure he knew what he was doing by stating this. Quite some care, indeed.
"While Ellis maintained his firm atheistic stance, proposing that thoughtful, probabilistic atheism was likely the most emotionally healthy approach to life, he acknowledged and agreed with survey evidence suggesting that belief in a loving god can also be psychologically healthy." - Any comments needed? Only much later in his life he tried compromising and worked with religious therapists to make REBT suited for religious people too. With great stretch and effort, it seems. He is pushing a dogma (his atheist belief) and such thing is against any kind of ethics when it comes to healing people. Take EFT, for example: it is not an invasive therapy. LOA has no such invasive concept either. They do good and change people's emotions for the better, without having to deal at all with their spiritual beliefs!

To sum up:

- REBT interferes (and plans to change) people's spiritual choices, freedoms and manifestations.

- promotes zero spirituality

- promotes total isolation of the individual

- gives a better emotional life to the patient, but takes away their soul

- represents non-evolution

- mistakes the response choices with the beliefs

- acceptance becomes rejection and rejection becomes acceptance (the natural situations inverted)

- too material and limited, denies everything about the spirit

- ignores the role of many factors that lead to emotion.

From Wikipedia cons:
"Some have criticized REBT for being harsh, formulaic and failing to address deep underlying problems" REBT is a sterile rebellion against the real psychology discoveries, such as cumulative events of the past, the ego or the subconscious. It falls out of place in a world which discovers beneficial tools like NVC, EFT, LOA. These are restoring human dignity and connect all levels of the being, from empyrical to deeply spiritual. Apart from being proven to work in the emotional field.

R E B T   K I L L S    !

Why New Paradigms Don't Work for Some

Positive thinking all over. Power of thought, the hidden god within us, divine consciousness, unconditional love, the higher self. You create your world. Such concepts have started to appear everywhere we look, trying to solve the deep crisis of mankind in our times. With them being widely spread, not many people can complain they could never know. And many of us know, and some of us use the knowledge. Then... why don't we witness spectacular changes? Why some of us still complain, question, wander and even deny?

I think it's because we can barely get the force, understanding and determination to make the changes of patterns permanent. We don't understand that it takes tremendous time and effort to become one with the newly discovered knowledge. Persistence, endurance, faithfulness.
It is not enough for one to be convinced of the truth of a principle. Soon, the old patterns kick in - those patterns that we inherited from countless manipulated generations. It takes long enduring therapy to replace them, or... surgery. Well, surgery is done by a brutal opening of what normally stays closed, it implies direct intervention and a lot of blood flow. Yes, there can barely be any surgery without blood. I hope the metaphoric meaning of this is easy to see... For example, in a lot of 'brutal' interventions of a therapist/psychologist to heal a patient, the patient will firstly be forced to access all the pain inside, to get it all out in the open, feel it and cry to the limit.

In most cases, an 'enlightened' person will stick to the discovered truth at the level of their intellect. They will even enlighten other people too and everything will be smooth and pretty until a disruptive element, a challenge of sorts will come their way. In their conscious minds, they will still be convinced that they follow the good, chosen path.

Have you ever heard people saying that, whenever faced with another's bad attitude, "It's not what I want in my life"? Or similar phrases, like "I'm not in resonance with your behavior", "I do not support your thinking" etc. What they say is not wrong in the first instance. They try to teach the other person the good way. But what they actually do is to run away, to turn their backs not only to the other person, but to themselves too. One who is aware of his mind power and inner divine consciousness will know that, in such situation, they have to keep on creating their reality, the outcome. If the man in front of you is giving you an unpleasant experience, sure you must spot it and reject it in itself (disagreeing). But why forgetting of your own transformational power? BE what you want to experience. Show what you want to receive. Prove what you believe in, instead of keeping it at an intellectual and sterile level. When running away, there is no way one can be that. Moreover, it ruins the entire world view that the person supported, which will lead others to perceive it as something fake. One who preaches the benefits of being positive and loving but not manifesting them, will not convince others of any such benefits. This, in fact, will only push them further away into negativity.

So, the 'positive person' not only didn't get the desired reality, but they actually made it worse by themselves.

Reincarnation - An Excuse for the Weak

I am not going to discuss whether reincarnation is true or not. This is beyond my possibilities of knowledge for the moment, and this might be valid for most human beings, at least.
There simply is no proof yet that reincarnation exists. Just like in the case of other spiritual beliefs - no objective proof that would please anybody and convince them.

However, here is what I've come to notice: instead of other doctrines and spiritual beliefs, people prefer the one of reincarnation. They have no proof of it, but they truly like believing it. So why is this happening?
Reincarnation talks about the perfecting of a soul through several lives in the earthly plane. When perfection is reached, the soul is welcomed into Nirvana, the state of plenitude, ultimate bliss and freedom of all suffering. If one is not quite perfect yet - no problem. They still have a few lives ahead to make it right. What a convenient escape, isn't it?

It is no tragedy that one didn't find the right way yet. Next time they come on earth, they will have different surroundings, different people to deal with and other kind of experiences, that will allow them to see things better. It's alright, you can be a complete idiot in this life. You will fix it in your next one.

Also, reincarnation is great in explaining the unexplained connections between people, the "love is blind" moments, the failed relationships, the hate for no reason. "It's a karmic meeting!", they shoot. "We were close in a past life, that's why" or "He must have been my enemy in a previous existence, that's why we hate each other now". Do you see what all these are hiding?

It's pure cowardice. Those who refuse to deal with all things in just one life will never make it better. They replace responsibility with something that may be pure fantasy. Now, I have nothing against people who might have experienced past regressions or any other things that might have brought them the conviction of past lives. Some experiences can be very strong and logical. I have no intent to fight such experiences of one's subjective world.

What I clearly see is, however, that:
Reincarnation is the perfect excuse for those who can't take real responsibility for their lives and the connections they establish with other people.

They are looking for excuses and are enjoying this one terribly much. These people have a hard time in getting their act together and give themselves endless chances out of their own imagination, refusing to believe that what we have is here and now.



I'm not looking into the reasons for believing reincarnation or not, I am only looking at what this belief does to people.  The fantasizing around the issue has taken enormous size. When I found on the web an article about numerology and reincarnation, I just laughed and cried for how pathetic it all became. It said that numerology can help one know which one of his 9 lives is the current one. I calculated for myself and got an 8. "Ooh, sweet!", I said to myself, indulging in a ego pat. Then I calculated for different people I knew, and got numbers from 1 to 9. Well, 1, as they said, was supposed to be the number for those folks who don't believe in anything spiritual and just live by their senses, while 9 would show the most enlightened ones. To my surprise, my test showed much the opposite. I got complete atheists as 9's and very spiritual people as 3's or 4s. Enough said. Anyhow, just like Christianity has its hypocrites, other systems of belief have them too.

What's the Reality of a Reality?

"We all have the reality we make by ourselves" is no longer a queer statement. The new age 'teachers' out there try their best in explaining and proving how the power of our thoughts leads to the creation of our reality. To a certain extent, psychology supports that too. It's not always a mystical concept or approach, but it can be a very grounded one as well, simply by observing mere facts. Yet it raises many questions and endless quarrels, like I've come to experience myself.

Isn't it more like water circles?

The critical point in my view is: to what extent do we actually consider reality to be our own creation?
Is it 100%? In this case, it perfectly validates the idea that each of us is a god. A god in his own world. Perfectly isolated, since that 100% leaves no room for anything else. Human interaction is thus meaningless and absolutely futile. Even more, we play no role at all in other's well being, since they are 100% responsible for what they have in their lives. It's no maths, just common sense. Whatever we chose to do, it will not interfere with other lives. Therefore, why would we need a life with human interaction and with all that sentimentalism, involvement, duty, loyalty etc? Also, we can throw away any spiritual idea about oneness and about the connection of all living creatures. Or human creatures, if you wish.

Personally, I find a horrendous aberration this 100%-thing. This is not even directed by one's choice of  spiritual or philosophical beliefs. As I said, it's common sense. Or pure, easy maths, if you wish so.
In a certain article I read about Stephen Covei's 90/10 rule. Definitely a decent, meaningful one! 10% is for what happens to you in life. The 90% signifies how you respond to it. One can't control the 10%. One can't control, for example, a flight that will be late. But they can act foolishly and negatively, thinking they will miss a job or a meeting, arguing with everyone on the phone, causing themselves illness because of the anxiety and so on. In such situation, the harm extends to those in contact with such person, if their defenses are down. The family will feel hurt, they will withdraw or act upset in return, the colleagues and boss might lose trust and be suspicious of that person... But if the troubled one faces the problem and deals with it consciously, on the spot, he will eventually realize there is of no use to be stressed. And everything else has chances to remain the same, undisturbed.

So what about the 100% and its supporters? Oh, you think there are none...? I'm afraid I have to contradict that, as I've met a few. I can't answer why they like to believe it so or why they prefer to lie themselves, and enthusiastically spread it to everyone. I can see, however, that it serves them very well when they have to defend themselves. And blame others. "It's what you made of it!", they throw in the other's face. "It's your problem", says the admirable believer in a reality shaped entirely by his will and actions. Empathy suddenly appears to be a concept that never existed... These are the people who are not moved by the pain and tears of others. Those who won't understand the condition of emotional trauma or weakness, mental illness or anything related. The betterment of other's lives are a concern totally out of their world.

Put these people next to the truly caring ones. The first ones only live for themselves, naturally. The second group will prefer to search for hidden fault in themselves, at least for making sure they haven't caused any harm anywhere; and they are the most likely to actually do something for the others, instead of sterile phrases about how one should be aware of his total control over what happens. Total control? Seriously?
90/10.

On to another level, it's good to teach one to fish instead of just feeding him with a fish. But is it still useful to teach fishing if the man in question has no hands? Or if there is no water nearby? Better teach him first how to cultivate a vegetable... And maybe one day he'll grow some amazing crops...

Yes, I do believe we are responsible for what we have in our lives, especially when we are aware and able to choose how we respond. It's a terrible exaggeration, however, to say this responsability covers everything.

The Illusion of False Freedom

This is one delicate topic, and very broad too. It goes to the conspiracy theories out there and it touches everything we've been taught or all that we've gotten to see as 'natural' and true. It is not of my competence to reveal what is going on there at the large scale, because there are already several theories with their followers. There are documentary movies that take it step by step (The Secret, Zeitgeist, Esoteric Agenda...) and... oh, beware here! This is how we actually get into our topic:

...There are more and more "revealers of turth" out there, filling Youtube and the whole web. Believing them all is believing in some truth, but in much scam also. They teach about quantum jumping, discovery of the higher self, raise in consciousness, power of thought or, on another side, about the world politics, the conspiracy behind 9/11, the fake economy crisis, the new world order etc. On top of it all - about FREEDOM, FREEDOM, FREEDOM. It is the word that sells nowadays! Buy them by saying "freedom" and the "freedom seekers" will fall at your feet, letting you tie them in chains easily!
Now, some of us are well aware that some things they claim are true... And here is what they do:
They give us truth. Yes, they do. But only part of it. They liberate us from the bad patterns of thinking, from ill prejudice, they save us from the social slave condition. And, of course, we buy it. It feels good to wake up to the real reality, and it makes perfect sense! But oh, how we fail to see that there is more...

Since the old system of religions is failing, they now decide to give us a terrible picture of its failure and initiate us to the "world religion", the new holistic spirituality that will enhance all our existence, that will make us become superior beings. Well, I do not stand against such spiritual ideas, but these will solve nothing in the hands of the unprepared people (remember that in many ancient times, the true religions, the "mysteries", were only for a closed group and not for the population mass, because the mysteries=true knowledge was considered dangerous). And how many of us are actually ready to implement such ideas? So, it is plain to see what they do. They replace on old way by giving something that only appears as freedom... but that something is meant to make people even more distracted... They won't see what is going on around them, but pay attention to their "inner, spiritual growth". They will forget  their brothers in the world, because they focus on the self and the inner god. This only leads to separation and to better implementation of the evil schemes of those in lead.

Since I mentioned religions... - when the old, controlling paradigms don't work, offer them a new one: tempt them by giving freedom of all religions! Reveal the old control scheme and bring in a new one!

The principle is a very simple one.
Give people the illusion of freedom, and they will blindly follow you.

Freedom is, to many of us, the greatest gift. That who can offer it, becomes a sort of god.

Let's illustrate it with a very mundane example of psychology, which is tested, proven and is working in countless situations everywhere: when a woman wants to seduce or keep a man, she does a very effective psychological trick. She pretends total self control and total empathy, offering the man the type of freedom he is not likely to find anywhere else. She usually encourages him to do "all manly things" (like watching too much football, drinking lots of beer with the guys, watching porn etc.) or even gives him sexual freedom. Automatically, he will be convinced that she is the best, because the others don't give him such freedom. It is the effect of creating distance, as well as of using one's psychology to your advantage. It is also giving freedom when you actually want to limit it. Therefore, the controlling woman will benefit from the mask of kindness, empathy and understanding. Instead of "Don't do this, don't do that!" which would repel her man, she will do the opposite. The result: her man won't feel the need for affairs, for hangout with the guys, because she offers him perfect understanding. He will be willing to spend his time with her. and yes, that happens for the very reason that freedom is very dear to him. And understanding too.

The same thing happens at greater levels. Companies, corporations and governments give us wonderful opportunities from time to time. As we are hungry for benefits, we will gladly go and pick them. And, being pleased for the moment, we won't feel the need to look any further. We allow them to make their secret moves and to take over, turning us into their slaves. Happy and willing slaves, however! Or, better said, unsuspecting.

In my country, its very poor areas were not long ago a very good place for the porn industry. Child porn, especially. The tricky but kind Western perverts would come to the countryside and lure kids with the simple gift of a... chocolate. Yes, it was that simple to trick a poor child, who barely gets any such sweets. It was not all for the sake of porn industry, however. The simple perverts were using this method for their own sake, because it was too complicated to fool the kids in their advanced countries, where they wouldn't be tempted by chocolate and where they probably already had a bit of basic social and sexual education. A better known example of such trick is to give to young and desperate people of less developed countries exactly what they need: the promise of a job abroad. They already know that foreigners earn better and live better. They crave for that status and lifestyle. And that's how countless young women got our of their countries - not for a decent job though, but for being eventually forced to prostitute. An undeniable reality.

The method will keep on working with great effectiveness, at more subtle levels... It works everywhere. It gets even smart people to fail and become slaves.


Note: what is 666 (or 616)? It's what the Revelation tells that will be accepted by most people, the stigmata of evil. And... those who won't accept it won't survive in the material world. They wil need it. Therefore, whatever this 666 will be, it will grant a benefit. Here, physical survival. But in fact it will only grant death in the end... So, no matter how one takes the word of Revelation, I'd say it shows exactly how that trick operates...