Vegeterianism and other ethical questions

''Only mediocrity is safe. Get ready to be attacked, and be the best''

Paulo Coelho

This is part of the view from my school balcony.You can also see a dead plant in my flowerbed right after my first unsuccesful effort to uproot it.

Given the fact that I love my plants and personally take good care of them, I was understandably upset about it. More so because I couldn't understand why on earth this particular one withered and died when it received the same amount of care as every other plant and all the rest of them are thriving just fine.

When I tried to uproot it -to plant a new one- I found out why.

As soon as I got hold of the root,myriads,legions of ants started crawling all oner my hands and arms, biting, yes biting me viciously. You see they had built their nest directly underneath the roots of the plant and I was about to expose their evil, destructive plans.That was what caused the death of the plant.They chose the poor shrub to serve them in the multiple role of cover,shelter and food .

They, of course, had every legitimite reason in the world to do so,their survival depended on it. But the fact remained that they killed another living thing, my plant, in order to do so, right?. And I am sure that if I let them, once they were done with it, they'd move on to the next one. And then the next. Until my entire flower bed was completely ruined. A flower bed that I have paid money for and devoted time and care for.

So of course the decision was easy.I uprooted the plant, unearthed the soil along with the ants and their nest in it and threw it away. And saved my flower beds from doom.

See, in all of nature the same pattern is repeated over and over again. Eat or be eaten. The survival of the fittest,etc etc. The ants kill my plant. Spiders or me kill the ants. Hell, I kill spiders too, but spiders, in their turn, might kill me. Certain people can't or won't kill spiders, just as certain spiders can't or won't kill me, but others can and would, if I let them.

So, what is my point here? My point is, God/nature could have made us self sustained, like, being able to feed and take energy directly from the sun and earth and water, no need to rely on other organic forms to provide food for us. But that's not the way it works. It never was and it never will be. Some animals eat plants, then they are eaten by other animals who are eaten by other animals. There are even certain plants that kill each other on their quest for survival. A never ending circle.

Now here comes the tough question:

What justifies my eating plants more than my eating animals?

First off, before I go on with my argument, let me begin by saying that I admire vegeterians./vegans Really, I do. Not because of what they eat, though. I admire and respect them because they have the courage of their convictions. I admire and respect them for their willpower, for the consistency between their beliefs and actions, for their compassion for the animal kingdom,etc. I love animals too. I fight for fair and humane treatment of them. I am as much appalled and opposed to the cruel and unnatural mass production of them in those farms of horrors as anybody else. Experimenting on animals is another issue that makes me seethe with anger and indignation.

So why am I not a vegeterian? I sure do fit the profile, after all. Actually, there have been many cases that I posed this question to myself: shouldn't I become vegan/vegetarian? Isn't this the obvious, ethical thing to do? 

Invariably the question was met with unease and opposition from my higher self, or soul or whatever you choose to name it. Having learnt to trust those gut feelings, I faithfully obliged, telling myself that not everything is for everyone. But this last time-a couple of months ago actually- that I asked the same question to my (shamelessly carnivorous) higher self, I received an explanation along with a 'No' and it felt right to share it with you, not because I would like to convert anyone to my way of thinking or justify my choices, but because I hope that maybe someone might be inspired by it and use it as a starting point for their own quest towards truth.

So I pose again the same guestion here: 

What justifies my eating plants more than eating animals?

What makes the life form of a plant less sacred and more worthy of destruction (and consumption) than the life form of an animal?

Is it the fact that the animal has more self awareness than the plant the deciding factor? But if awareness is the deciding factor, then would killing or abusing a severely mentally handicapped person who totally lacks self awareness and has no touch with reality be OK with you? I mean, why not? If the amount of awareness a living thing is capable of having decides their fate,then is killing a fish more justifiable than killing a dog, since the latter is more self aware? And what makes you thing that the fish is less self aware than the dog or that the plant, also a living thing, is lacking in self awareness more than both the fish and the dog?

''Oh, but the plant doesn't feel any pain when killed or abused'', is your next arguement. Well, to begin with, how can you be so sure of what a living form so totally different to your species feels or is capable of feeling or how pain is registered and felt by that form of life? For those of you believing in aliens,would you consider eating an alien or their offspring, dead or alive, if their life support systems and their ways of registering pain and feelings were totally different to yours and if they couldn't communicate their pain to you, just as the case with a plant (or its seeds) is? 

Did the ants in my flowerbeds suffer more when they died than the plant suffered when the ants were killing it? If you honestly think so,what evidence is there for you to support it beyond  the data of your own senses which are specific to your species and not to the plant's? Is boiling a lobster alive more abhorrent to you than having a radish uprooted and chopped up while it is technically still alive?

What's next? Eating flesh is barbaric and not at all befitting to a human being? One of the classic vegan arguments is that we have superior intelligence. With our consciousness and our intellect we should know better than to eat another animal's flesh. The fact that predators eat meat is because of their barbaric animal instincts, they claim. Opinions about taste,of course,are highly individual. Some Hindus who will not eat animal flesh readily drink their own urine for the sake of health. Whether each of the above mentioned activities is more degrading and disgusting than the other or any other is a matter of opinion. And as for the barbaric aspect of killing an animal, the fact that most prey are eaten while they are still alive testifies to the heartlessness of nature (compared, say, to the slaughter house, where death is comparatively much quicker). Also, to suggest that our higher consciousness makes us more superior to flesh-eating animals is clearly hypocritical, as it negades the very same animal kingdom worth that it supposedly tries to elevate.

The notion that humans are designed to be vegeterians rather than omnivores is not supported by scientific data, either. Here's a relevant study, to start with. Or if you' d like to investigate the ethical and planetary implications of being for or against vegeterianism/veganism,  this link   is a good starting point.

So for me,it's that simple:

On this planet every living creature, from the microbe to the human being, needs to feed by destroying and consuming another living thing, be it an animal or plant or another form of life. Usually,ruling out cannibalism, a species won't feed on members of its own species, purely for biological and survival reasons. Aside from this exception, the argument about what kind of life form should be consumed seems not an ethical one but a matter of individual taste, after all. Death is inevitable for all living things and part of life as we know it here. 

Treat every life form around you with respect and humanity. But please understand that when it comes to food, nature dictates that all is fair in love,war and feeding..

Love, peace and sharing

Eirini

The extreme way

So I was having a rough day on that particular day. I had to deal with a  lot of of 'difficult' behavior from people around me that wore me down and almost drove me to despair. After work I sought the company of a good friend of many years to vent. He listened  to all my rantings and then he reminded to me of a story  that I would love to share with the rest of the world,along with its morale:

''There lived a wise man in ancient Greece whose name was Diogenes. Men came from all parts of the land to see him and talk to him.

Diogenes was a strange man. He said that no man needed much, and so he did not live in a house but slept in a barrel, which he rolled about from place to place. He spent his days sitting in the sun and saying wise things to those who were around him.

When Alexander the Great came to that town he went to see the wise man. He found Diogenes outside the town lying on the ground by his barrel. He was enjoying the sun.

When he saw the king he sat up and looked at Alexander. Alexander greeted him and said:

"Diogenes, I have heard a great deal about you. Is there anything I can do for you?"

"Yes," said Diogenes, "you can step aside a little so as not to keep the sunshine from me."

The king was very much surprised. But this answer did not make him angry. He turned to his officers with the following words:

"Say what you like, but if I were not Alexander, I should like to be Diogenes."

According to other sources Alexander and Diogenes shared a lot of things before Alexander concluded that he would love to be Diogenes. We will never know exactly what those two great men said to each other. But here is the morale of the story,cordially given to me by my friend:

Both Alexander and Diogenes were men of extremes,two very opposite extremes. Alexander was the man of action ,bold,decisive,massive,indomitable,unstoppable action that helped him conquer the world. Diogenes,on the other hand, advocated total denouncement of anything wordly, total letting go as the road to bliss and wisdom. Both men were outstanding and successful in their own chosen (extreme) path.

What does that tell you? If you'd like to live a 'normal',peaceful,happy life you should do,be,act and think with the motto 'everything in moderation' in mind. But if, like Alexander and Diogenes, you would like to achieve exceptional results,there are two roads ahead: either massive,bold action and a fighting spirit or total surrender,trust and letting go.

Both approaches lead to great results,both are bound to give you what you want. Because absolute truth,my friend,is always hiding in the extreme and never in the lukewarm 'middle road'. However,you  can't just begin with the one method,then switch onto the other,then change your mind again and go on faltering,expecting to achieve anything this way. This is not how it works. You have to be consistent in your chosen method or else you're on your way to confusion land.


My friend concluded: ''Eirini,you are definitely not a balanced person. You are Alexander's version of extremity.''( I guess that's why Diogenes approach appeals so much to me, it's something I'll never be able to achieve, so I'm in awe of it.).''Sometimes you take things and reactions to the extreme. ''(fucking right he is, I can listen to the same ole' song that I like at that particular moment for hours on end,like 50-60 times without tiring of it!) ''Take today'',he went on. ''You blew things out of proportion and you hate the guts of everyone and everything because of a few nuisances. You're about to wage war on all humanity for being stupid and assholish. You are overreacting. But that's OK,'' he added,''because that's how all great things were accomplished on this planet, by someone taking things to the extreme. The same passion that fuels your anger and frustration,fuels your creativity. And believe me,if you sacrifice the first,you'll end up losing the latter as well,because they are the different sides of the same coin. So go on taking things to their extreme.  Keep  at it!''


Τhe more I think about it,the more I conclude he was right. 


The two extreme ways. Of course.


Be a  man/woman of the extremes! Life is big,life is larger than life,life is extreme. The more you try to prove it is small and contained, the more it sets about to prove you wrong,with extreme life experiences or 'lessons'. 


Be an action,passionate driven maniac or choose total surrender. They are both cool and if you choose the one but you still feel critical of the other,you obviously have a long way to go. And you'll probably fail, because being critical of something means that you need and crave it like mad,so maybe you should choose the other way instead. 


Be like Alexander. Be like Diogenes.


Be your extreme self, the warrior or the prophet. 


The world is too tired of mediocrity and your safe version.

                                    Love,peace and taking it to the extreme
                                                           Eirini

Food won't fix it

 Find ways to comfort , nurture, distract, and resolve your issues without using food. Anxiety, loneliness, boredom, anger are emotions we all experience throughout life. Each has its own trigger, and each has its own appeasement. Food won't fix any of these feelings. It may comfort for the short term, distract from the pain, or even numb you into a food hangover. But food won't solve the problem. If anything, eating for an emotional hunger will only make you feel worse in the long run. You'll ultimately have to deal with the source of the emotion, as well as the discomfort of overeating.

                                                    Love,peace and emotional balance
                                                                         Eirini

The Appearance of Things

The appearance of things change according to the emotions, and thus we see magic and beauty in them, while the magic and beauty are really in ourselves.
- Kahlil Gibran

                                                                                     
                                                                                     Love,peace and magic
                                                                      Eirini

Sex and Sexuality in ancient Greece

Having studied and specialised in ancient Greek culture and literature ( Aristotle University of Thessaloniki) I was often intrigued by the inconsistency in what the public opinion was -and still is- about sexuality in ancient Greece and the hard facts that I encountered when studying that ancient Greek culture for myself. So here's a small report on the matter,based off on personal studies studying and exercising,to the best of my abilities,critical thinking.

Sexuality in ancient Greece

When we use the term ancient Greece we refer to the periods of Greek history in Classical Antiquity, lasting from 750 BC (the archaic period) to 146 BC (the Roman conquest),

The sexual habits of the ancient Greeks have been greatly misunderstood. This happens because of the misinterpretation of the sources, or the biased Christian morality. People often disagree over the specific subject and that's why average readers are often torn between two or more theories.Such an example of controversy is the alleged homosexuality of the ancient Greek society.But first things first.

The sexual preferences of the ancient Greeks were often represented in plenty of vases, dating mostly between the 6th and the 4th century B.C. To begin with, there were vases of religious-devotional character, mostly associated with fertility, others had the role of warding off evil, and others were indeed intended to provide sexual stimulation. There were finally some vases whose main purpose was humorous and where the artist painted his fancy. ( if you would like to see those depictions for yourself,a quick google search is all you need).


All the possible ways and positions of copulation are depicted: vaginal, anal, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation,(who do you think invented dildos,people? During those ancient times women were masturbating with the help of a leather dildo called olisbos or baubon which was manufactured in Miletus which was a wealthy city and then exported to other countries as well), use of sex aids, threesomes, sixty-nine, sadism, orgies, bestiality etc.There is only one known depiction that could be considered lesbian sex but even there it is not clear whether the scene is sexual or not because it is not sexually explicit.


 Fellatio (the man receiving oral sex) and cunniligus( the woman receiving oral sex) were very rarely  depicted. Cunniligus was rarely depicted either because it was frowned upon as a practice or probably because the aim was for the male clientele to be aroused by the scenes and not the other way round or  because all the erotic scenes were with the hetaerae(=higly paid and educated prostitutes) from whom men wanted something more male-pleasure oriented than pussy eating.


Fellatio was also rarely depicted  because it was not considered 'manly' enough; even though it is the woman who offers pleasure the man remains passive as the woman is the one who acts. But being passive in bed was seen as not manly enough for men at a society that manliness, along with bravery,was one of the highest virtues a male could possess. So in order to balance this male passivity the artists depicts heterae kneeling in a position of submission.However,the missionary position is nowhere to be seen since usually women are shown on their knees or bent forward or lying on their back with their legs on the man's shoulders. Another rare position is a woman seated on a reclined man (like the picture above).

There was of course a general feeling of appreciation for the naked human body and its sexual functions unimaginable for most western societies that have come out of centuries of puritanism. For example,it was a common belief that the phallus and the eye possessed mighty powers over the Evil Eye and accordingly people used both as amulets. Athens was full of hermes, marble pillars with elaborate head (of Hermes, or other gods later) and a phallus. On some vases we frequently see the two main symbols combined in one -a large phallus with an eye or pair of eyes! Again,this so frequent use of the phallus, may be explained by the supremacy of men.


In spite of (perceived) male dominance,as far as rape against women and children was concerned, it was considered to be a criminal act and the rapist had to pay a double fine to the victim and the state as well. The fine was quite high for the time, about a hundred drachmas: 

Εαν τις υβριζη εις τινα η παιδα η γυναικα

 η ανδρα των ελευθερων η των δουλων

 η παρανομον τι ποiηση εις τουτων τινα 

γραφεσθω προς
τους θεσμοθετας ο βουλομενος Αθηναιων 

οις εξεστιν οι δε θεσμοθεται εισαγοντων

 εις την ηλιαιαν τριακοντα ημερων 

αφ ης γραφη. Οτου δ
αν καταγνω η Ηλιαια τιματω αυτου 

παραχρημα οτου αν δοκη αξιος ειναι 

παθειν η αποτεισαι>>.

(Νομος υβρεως,Δημοσθ.Κατα Μειδιου 47)

Meaning <<Whoever abuses any child or woman

 be they free or slaves or breaks the law 

regarding to them should be accused of

 commiting a public offense from
any Athenian that wants and has the right (to sue) 

before the lawmakers and they 

must at the latest in a month to bring him to trial 

to be judged and suffer 

the consequenses of the law

(note the word used for 'abuse',it was 'commit hubris'=commit a sin agains Gods)

[Here I cant help but compare how the Bible advocates the death penalty for innocent victims of rape along with the guilty party:
Leviticus, Chapter 20: “14: And if a man takes a woman and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you''.]


In ancient Greece the most severe punishment of all,death, was kept for pimping:

Και τους προαγωγους γραφεσθαι κελευει

 (the law) καν αλωσι θανατω ζημιουσι>>. 

Αισχιν. Κατα Τιμαρχου

Meaning'' to those condemned of pimping the penalty of death is given''

However,prostitution was not frowned upon. Hetaerae were independent and sometimes influential,highly paid 'call girls' of the time, women who were required to wear distinctive dresses and had to pay taxes. Mostly ex-slaves from other cities, these courtesans were renowned for their achievements in dance and music, as well as for their physical and intellectual talents. Τhey were the only women who actively took part in the symposia, where their opinion was welcomed and respected by men. Hetaerae should not be confused with common prostitutes of the time, who sold sex by the act and worked on the streets or out of brothels. They were the only class of women in ancient Greece with access to and independent control over considerable amounts of money.(remember,pimping was condemned by death...)

Now on to the homosexuality subject:

 Television,cinema and corrupt historians have created misconceptions about ancient Greeks and the widespread use of homosexuality in them,for marketing or other murky reasons of their own. Let's see if the ancient texts support this popular view:


First off, homosexuality was,is and will go on being a part of any society throughout history. So of course it was part of ancient Greek society as well. However,ancient Greeks could be considered one of the least tolerant of societies regarding homosexuals: the latter were forbidden to take any public position or become priests or even vote or speak their mind in public:

Αν τις Αθηναιων εταιρηση 

μη εξεστω αυτω των εννεα αρχοντων 

γενεσθαι μηδ ιεροσυνην ιερωσασθαι 

μηδε συνδικησαι τω δημω μην αρχην

 αρχετω ουδεμιαν μητε ενδημω 

μητε υπεροριον μητε κληρωτην 

μητε χειροτονητην μηδ επικηρυκειαν

 αποσταλλεσθω μηδε γνωμην 

λεγετω μηδ εις τα δημοτελη ιερα εισιτω

 μηδ εν ταις κοιναις στεφανηφοριαις 

στεφανουσθω μηδ εντος των της αγορας 

περιρραντηριων πορευεσθω . 

Εαν δε τις ταυτα ποιη καταγνωσθεντο

 αυτου εταιρειν θανατω ζημιουσθω>>.
(Αισχινης Κατα Τιμαρχου 52 , 1)

Meaning <<Whoever Athenian gives his body 

to be had(sexually) by another man is forbidden

 to be elected as one of the nine lords 

and be a priest or lawyer or any place in public office

 or any other position internal or external by voting

 or chance and never to be sent as messenger

 never to speak before the parliament or the forum (Agora) 

or to enter in public temples or take part in public festivals

 or wear the festive ring of Demeter and enter the market.
Whoever condemned thus breaks the following prohibitions

 must be tied <<δησαντων αυτον>> 

and once the civilians have tied him to be delivered

to the eleven to be slain 

before the day has passed <<τεθνατω αυθημερον>>

According to various plays (comedies) like Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae homosexuality and sexual relations between two men were unacceptable and condemned by society in general and not just by the state. The passive homosexual was the most disgraced since he was the one penetrated, not because of moral reasons but because he had chosen to take on the role of the woman and denounce his male nature.( It was considered both an honor and an obligation to be a real man).That's why there aren't many scenes showing anal intercourse between men.




Homosexuals were called ''κιναιδοι'', (κινω+ αιδω) meaning the ones that 'move',cause shame,the ones devoid of shame. You can tell a lot about a society from the way it names its people. In modern Greek the slang expression for gay is 'sister',in English the word 'gay' holds a positive connotation since it means 'the merry one',but in ancient Greece a homosexual  was called 'the one devoid of shame' or'the one resembling a whore'=εταιριζων..

The only logical explanation for this harsh treatment

 from the most free and liberal state of ancient Greece

 is the regard of such actions as abomination (μιασμα)

 as a disgusting act that made them ''οιονει εναγεις ''

=forever polluted, that <<εμιαινον>> polluted the city 

thus and divine wrath would fall on everyone . 

This is also proven from the fact that they had 

the same treatment as murderers ,that is

to remain out of any public event or sacred places

 and lose all civil rights.

Note: Please do not start ranting about me being a homophobic because of posting this information because I assure you I am not. One's sexual preferences is none of my business or concern and any variations in them are as good as anybody else's,so long as they do no harm to anyone. We're all in the same shit, just different shit for each one of us, according to taste and preferences. I am just presenting facts taken from authentic sources here and letting you form your own opinion .The only thing that I hate and I am indignant about is the intentional manipulation of historical facts to present a story that simply isn't true.

Facebook Fun

I love facebook. No other social media site does it for me the way facebook does. Sure,I maintain accounts in Twitter,Linked In,StumbleUpon,MySpace,Pinterest,YouTube and even Google+. Except they never suceeded in keeping me hooked the way facebook has;I only use them to promote my blog,that's all.

 I see facebook as life itself. Do not be fooled into thinking that just because you maintain an online persona you can manipulate it the way it suits you ;your real self will shine through. In fact,the only way for your real self not to shine through is by remaining a lurker forever,never interacting at all. Just as in real life,the most important thing that draws or repels people from us is the energy we put out. No,its not our looks/profile pics,its not just the way we talk/comment,not our ideas,not just the posts or videos we post, (though of course it is all those things too), it's mainly our energy. This intangible aura that surround our physical body can permeate everything we come in contact with and even spill over into our online persona.

I see my facebook page as a magazine reflecting my various interests at the moment. These include:

-My fascination with dolls:
They are cute and reflect my mood at any given day

-Inspirational posts
I mainly post what I'm reading on that particular day that I find interesting or intriguing

-Fun stuff
Because laughing is good for the soul

-Promoting my blog
Of course

-Promoting my country
Again,of course

-Interacting with online friends
This is my favorite part of facebook!

-Spicy stuff
Because what would life be without it?


Here are a few suggestions for making your facebook page more interesting and fun:

1.Be a regular
You should be a constant presence,posting,responding,encouraging or monitoring discussion. Make it a regular thing,a routine,like checking your email

2. Ask questions
Put a call to action,asking the reader to do something or just ask them for their thoughts. Everyone has sometrhing interesting to say. When people answer,thank them for their replies.

3. Share other people's stuff
Everyone wants to feel wanted. Appreciate your friends. When they post great stuff,share it and thank them for their contribution.This ecourages everyone to share more,including your own posts.

4. Integrate your other online activities
Maybe you have a blog,a youtube channel or an awsome collection of pinterest boards. Share them with your friends regularly. People would like to know,you know.

5. Variety,variety
Post pictures ,articles,inspirational stuff,youtube videos,songs,polls,other people's stuff,your stuff. Rinse and repeat.

6.Kick out the cancers
Those who disrupt or damage the environment you want for your page should be given a warning first,then they'll have to go,jerks can intimidate or scare really nice online friends away.Cut them off mercilessly

                                                     Love,peace and online fun
                                               
                                                             Eirini

One year and a month anniversary

Exactly one year and a month ago I posted my first blogpost. It was an introduction to my life.

I picked up a name for my blog that spoke to my heart and went on to post stuff that also spoke to my heart.

My intention was not to create a blog that would be a money making machine, like so many aspiring new bloggers do. First off,because in order for someone to create a business that would bring in money ,you'd have to invest lots and lots of time,energy and even money to it ,which I was not willing to do,not really. I should know about it. I have created from scratch an offline business myself. No,that was not my vision for my new-found blog.

I just wanted a medium through which to express my creativity, have fun and share it all with other people from all over the world.

Mission accomplished.

All those wonderful people that commented and appreciated my posts warm my heart and keep me going! Thank you guys,you rock!

Now there is one thing that remains unclear ,even to me.

What is this blog really about?

At first,I thought it was all about inspiration and uplifting stuff. I have read all those articles about how if your blogposts are not consistently about one topic,you are seen as amateurish,shallow,uninteresting,a scatterbrain. I mean,you've got to keep within a general frameline,you can't just about posdt about anything? How unprofessional is that?  Your readers are reading you because they expect you to stay on topic,to serve them one more generous helping of whatever it is that you are good at 'cooking',right?

Wrong,wrong,wrong. And Boring,dead dead Boring.

What makes a blog interesting is not the amazing,ingenious stuff the blogger posts per se.

 Maybe that was in the past. But not any more.

My friend,there is nothing new under the sun,especially when it comes to blogging. What is considered new upon writing it is old news already before you even finish your last sentence.  So what does any blogger have to offer that I can't find on, say,Wikipedia, or Youtube? Now,don't get me wrong, I love reading interesting stuff online as much as the next person. But hey,what makes them interesting is not the fact that they are original or exceptional or whatever.

What makes them interesting is how this particular blogger presents his topic by adding his/her own personal flavor to it .

It's all about the personal element.

ANY KIND OF BLOG= MOSTLY ABOUT THE PERSON THAT WRITES THE BLOG.

You are a fashion blogger? I am interested in your personal interpretation of fashion.If you are just talking about fashion in general,you are boring and drab.

You write inspirational stuff? I wonna know in what particular ways you integrade the stuff you write about in your life. I am inspired by your life,not your platitudes.

You are an interior designing blogger? Show me how you make the most of your teachings in your space.

Cooking blogger? I wonna know what you have for dinner at any day,how you serve it and if you are so kind,who you eat it with,please.

 You are a sex blogger? Show me -or at least tell me about it!- some action in your life!

The list can go on forever, The point is,I might search on line for a particular topic I am interested in at any given moment and I might visit an 'expert's page to find the information or the tools I need. But that's a one night stand,so to speak. I won't be going back to them unless there is the personal element that can keep me hooked and interested and almost make me go back to their page again and again.

If you are a private person and you hate this shit,blogging is not for you.

So here's the thing: A blog is never about a topic as much as it is about the blogger himmself/herself,

Having figured that out,I decided that since my life is multi-faceted and full of a myriad of things that I love and enjoy,my blog would have to reflect my multi-faceted character.

I love attracting new customers as much as I love chocolate recipes. I am into retro fashion but I will also fight passionately anything that remotely smacks of new world order shit. The global warming scam piques my interest as much as the latest law of attraction fad. Enlightened sex is my thing as much as ancient Greek writers and mystical experiences. Got my point? I am interested in so many things that it would be a shame to confine myself in just one! In fact,the very idea makes yawn.

Life is full of colours,why should I stick to just one? OK, ity's my favorite colour,I might use it more often in my paintings,but exclude all others? Nah,not me!

Life is about combinations and variety. And so is my blog.

In blogging and life variety is the game.

So I changed the name of my blog to my name.

Eirini Haritou. Which means Peace Of The Graceful One in my language. And is pronounced:
 iːrˈeːneː (e as in peace and the stress in second syllable)  hah-' rhi - tou (stress in second syllable again).


I have written just about everything in this blog.From stuff about astral projection,parallel universes,to weight loss,being sexy,being spiritual and sexy,thinks I've never done in my life,things I've done in my life,why I love being in business,why I hate being in business,how my life is a mess,love stories, my own love story,how I am a bad ass,how to give in order to receive,appreciation of the female,appreciation of the male,how to practice truth,my outlook on God,what I'd tell my daughter if I had one and practically everything you could think of.(And no,I won't be providing links for those posts this time,go on and search for them yourselfin my bog,you lazy ass!)

Yes,my blog is a pot pourri of all things under the sun. So is my life. So is yours.

So let's celebrate!

                                                    HERE'S TO LIFE!

                                                                    Love you all 


                                                                         Eirini

Powerful Secrets: How to be irresistible

Ever wondered why you become much more attractive to the opposite sex after you hook up with a partner? Here's the reason why:



The more sex you have, the more you will be offered. The sexually active body of both men and women gives off greater quantities of chemicals called pheromones. These subtle sex perfumes drive the opposite sex crazy!

                                                     
                                                   Love,peace and crazy pheromones


                                                                        Eirini

If you are an activist

If you are an activist of some kind,this information might come in handy,as it lists tactics agents of all kinds use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy any movement and keep tabs on activists. 

It is the agent's job to keep the activists under control.Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.

-A./ One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn't get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.

Informers and Infiltrators of all kinds will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established,like the Anonymous,that serves the above mentioned purposes.Their purpose is to prevent any real movement from developing.
The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the agents and saboteurs.

B./In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:

"You're not at all helping the movement,your actions have the opposite effect."
[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.

- C./ Another method: the agent will tell the activist:

"You're a leader!"

This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.

This is "malignant pseudoidentification." It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist's identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts.

The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.

The activist's "felt quality of perfection" [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is "mirroring" them.

The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that "twinship alliances" between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally "lose touch with reality."

Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.

Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist's narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.

The agent's expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.

It can usually be identified by two events, however:

First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being "emotionally hooked," will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.

As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.

-D/Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.

-E./ Saboteurs

Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.

-F./ Provocateurs

1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.

-G./ Informants

1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.

-H./Recruiting

Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.

Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.

-I./Surveillance

At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!

-J./Scare Tactics

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.

If an agent is "exposed," he or she will be transferred or replaced.