It is true that MMA is not the be-all end-all of martial arts,and in fact "two persons of equivalent weight competing willingly on neutral ground" is quite far removed from "actual trouble" (key words: "two", "willingly").

That being said, two things:
1) There have been 'no-hold-barred' fights / underground duels recorded since at least the 1920s, some of them very violent and bone-splitting (famously: Kimura Vs Gracie), and 'soft' aikido-style systems never won anything.

2) More importantly, systema does claim a number of things, including being a martial art in the military sense, and being the product of an elite military force, to which it was reserved (i.e. it was secret). It also claims to have semi-mystical roots dating from the middle ages, and bonker stuff like 'paralyzing soft punch' and 'healing punch' (this is claimed by its actual founder - you can look it up). Of course none of those claims have been substantiated.

So systema is either:
- An elite martial art with Fist-Of-The-North-Star like powers, yet no one heard of it before or beside (not pre-USSR historians, not recognized Russian martial artists, and not actual Russian elite military officers), and was/is super-secret, yet can be somehow taught to anyone.

Or:
- Stuff made up by two guys out of the army.

You decide.

If your goal is "studying" and "bettering yourself", shouldn't that involve something that's honest with its claims?

I agree with Velocity5, it is, indeed, self-deception.

Interesting stuff, made me go watch the films again.

@NetRunner It would be over simplistic for me to say what "the real problem" is, I was pointing out "a" problem I see with certain mindsets. But surely, the people you mention do exist, and to that I mean people who want a certain degree of leeway in those they help. A person who spends a good deal of his time taking care of his body may find it slightly repulsive to pay for the care of someone whom has not taken care of himself, and perhaps rightly so. The shoe exists on the other foot as well, I am not blind to those who very little personal action was taken but very much social/economic/political benefit was reaped. Often have I toyed around with different ways of managing property rights and such to eliminate or make more difficult the position of the freeloading, powerful man.

I don't deny the need of government, nor would I suggest its eradication. My objection was more in line with "how" people are solving the problem of a non-functional government. Forgive me, but having been to several protests now, I find them moronic. It plays out like children jumping on a bed in a stew of anger. Some of Cobert's recent shows on OWS, and before it, the Tea Party stuff made me laugh to tears as I so greatly identified with is complaints. The overall event of a rally is a dogmatic, simplistic, and mostly naive portrayal of the problems, and to rant about even more dogmatic, arbitrary and simplistic solutions. To be forthright, I am an introvert. Large groups of people will, in time, always annoy me, and as such, I admit that perhaps there is something different about a rally that I don't understand. Some kind of comradery in spouting babbling cheers, sitting a public place for no real objective, and making a ruckus. It would seem that most of a rally is about being seen, and I would rather not be. Instead, I would rather be unseen, but actually affecting. It seems more beneficial as a rally only can indirectly change something, where as any other course of direct action has a real effect. For instance, if I were mad about jobs, the last thing I would do is OWS, I would instead seek to create a job fair.

And that was my main point, rallying seems to be the battle cry for those whom want solutions to be created by someone else. Why waste your time and money supporting a rally instead of the cause itself? I used to not have this world view. But, I hold now that spending your energies directly addressing the problem is more beneficial, in large, than trying to bring "awareness" to it. Perhaps I am wrong, though, and some level of awareness is needed just to enact the more hidden, direct changes, hard to say.

The reason I mentioned any of this was because of the position Mr. Moore took up on Obama. He talked about how it was young people that got him elected, that he didn't do the job he was elected to do exactly the way he laid it out, so they became disenfranchised. That was my main concern, and it would seem that those who fall victim to this are the same that think rallying will do anything other than have a rally. As a libertarian minded person, the last thing I am looking to do is give people less of a voice, my aim is almost always entirely the opposite. My objection was that outsourcing your voice to something that is only going to indirectly help you might not be the best course of action. Mad about wall street, fine, but do you still have a 401k? Often times, we are, esoterically, part of the problem and it is that kind of conversation you won't find at a rally. We are always in the right, and we were always wronged by some evil third party...a great children's story, but more often than not, not exactly true.

Sorry for the long rant. More poor command of the egrish usually means I babble on.

What an inane email.

I could make one just as long in Australia... but ALSO pad it out with all the Australian made stuff I use each day as well.

We're global now people, and if you're that damn afraid of work not existing in your country, how about you try to buy more stuff made locally rather than just always the cheapest option?

And, as Dag said, it's not like manufacturing is the only form of work. Hell, the idea is that it's not even the most desirable anyway, that the inventing of items and the discovery of ideas and creation of medicines etc. is all more worthy than just making produciton line stuff

>> ^ponceleon:
I really liked Fry's analogy of the Catholic church's obsession with sex to that of food with anorexic or the morbidly obese.
As for the topic at hand... I really am not that interested in this level of minutiae. Those of you who know me from posting here know that I really don't see much of a difference between Catholics, Protestants, Scientologist, Satanists, and Zoroastrians. It is all just some stuff made up by some guy (usually a guy, except in very rare occasions) to control and tell others what to believe. No religion has any proof that they are right, anyone who claims they do is about as trustworthy as someone who says they are Napoleon.


There are two major problems here.

First, it's not possible to say that all religions are something that "some guy" made up. For a great many religions--Hinduism, Judaism, and Shinto are good examples--there is not one single individual one can trace the religion to. Rather, they seem to have arisen organically, on the basis of the agreement and common practice of communities and tribes. If they arose to control people, it was not the action of a single autocrat, but the same kind norm creation that goes on in any community.

Second, not all religions make onerous demands on belief. Again, Hinduism and Shinto are good examples. While particular schools of Hinduism may demand assent to certain beliefs, one may hold nearly any set of beliefs and be a good Hindu, so long as one meets a baseline set of behavioral norms. There are even atheist schools of thought. (There is even a patron god of atheism, strangely enough. Attributed to it by other schools of thought, of course.) Much the same is true of Shinto, though it is less philosophically sophisticated--atheism may not be as acceptable, but there is room for a great diversity of opinion.

Before Christianity and Islam, in fact, this non-belief-centric approach to religion was the norm everywhere Judea and a few Zoroastrian communities. The notion that religion demands belief is not the norm in human society--only in Christian and Muslim society.

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*quality

Now join my cult...

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
I really liked Fry's analogy of the Catholic church's obsession with sex to that of food with anorexic or the morbidly obese.

As for the topic at hand... I really am not that interested in this level of minutiae. Those of you who know me from posting here know that I really don't see much of a difference between Catholics, Protestants, Scientologist, Satanists, and Zoroastrians. It is all just some stuff made up by some guy (usually a guy, except in very rare occasions) to control and tell others what to believe. No religion has any proof that they are right, anyone who claims they do is about as trustworthy as someone who says they are Napoleon.

*quality

Now join my cult...

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
I really liked Fry's analogy of the Catholic church's obsession with sex to that of food with anorexic or the morbidly obese.

As for the topic at hand... I really am not that interested in this level of minutiae. Those of you who know me from posting here know that I really don't see much of a difference between Catholics, Protestants, Scientologist, Satanists, and Zoroastrians. It is all just some stuff made up by some guy (usually a guy, except in very rare occasions) to control and tell others what to believe. No religion has any proof that they are right, anyone who claims they do is about as trustworthy as someone who says they are Napoleon.

I really liked Fry's analogy of the Catholic church's obsession with sex to that of food with anorexic or the morbidly obese.

As for the topic at hand... I really am not that interested in this level of minutiae. Those of you who know me from posting here know that I really don't see much of a difference between Catholics, Protestants, Scientologist, Satanists, and Zoroastrians. It is all just some stuff made up by some guy (usually a guy, except in very rare occasions) to control and tell others what to believe. No religion has any proof that they are right, anyone who claims they do is about as trustworthy as someone who says they are Napoleon.

I was with you the first time I saw him ponceleon, but this guy's a grower. Great stuff, made perfectly for the internets.

2 years later this made me weep!

In reply to this comment by dag:
I know as a nerd, I should like comic book superheroes, but I've never been able to quite go there.

I think it's because I love science fiction, and the superhero genre breaks a lot of SF rules and destroys any possibility for suspension of disbelief.

The whole shooting webs out of his wrist thing - those glands would have to empty out after a few shots.

Just a lot of bad science. I wish they would take good SF books and put them on the screen instead. I'd like to see some of Vernor Vinge or John Varley's stuff made into a film instead of this unbelievable stuff.

Well, obviously it's not a popular idea, so I want push it. But it does seem clear that you need some way of tapping revenue from most of the user base without driving them off, right? If not ads, and not pay-to-post, then what? I think merchandising is neat, but it won't generate the kind of revenue you need. Not to mention that you have to front the capital to have the stuff made. I think donations are susceptible to the same limitations as charter memberships.

I'm sure you guys have looked into licensing VaroCMS, right? Or is that owned strictly by Rommel? (Pardon me if that's going too far into your business details.)

Maybe you should post this in SiftTalk - might get some more attention and more smart people coming up with ideas.

It must be a very pussy version of the stuff because the one time I drank it with a friend--he had gotten his when he was overseas in the military--that stuff made my throat bleed and made the walls dance with patterns, haha.

I don't know what kind of absinthe that guy in the video is selling..

^I use "Vivi" wood coals from Egypt, even though it takes longer to get it going. Some of my friends use those ready-light incense coals with the gunpower in them so they light fast, but that messes up the ritual for me in terms of the smell of the coals, having someone be the "fire-keeper", etc....plus I like it natural, that's why I hate the artificially flavored crap you get most places here in the states...the stuff made with honey and actual dried fruit is sooooooooooooooo good. Anyway, thanks for your comment...and I love YOUR sift space!

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
yalla ya Sheesha! I smoke Sheesha every other day here in Kuwait. I like apple or grape.

The best is still in the Middle East

Am curious Laura what do you use for coal?

^I use "Vivi" wood coals from Egypt, even though it takes longer to get it going. (I break them up and put them in a wire basket on a burner of my gas stove until they are ashed-over.)
Some of my friends use those ready-light incense coals with the gunpower in them so they light fast, but that messes up the ritual for me in terms of the smell of the coals, having someone be the "fire-keeper", etc....plus I like it natural, that's why I hate the artificially flavored crap you get most places here in the states...the stuff made with honey and actual dried fruit is sooooooooooooooo good. Anyway, thanks for your comment...and I love YOUR sift space!

>> ^NetRunner:
I think when Obama hits the magic number (what that number is between 2025 and 2210 will be decided on the 31st), she'll gracefully step aside, and start helping unify the party.
I don't think there's a consolation prize that could buy her off before that. I think afterwards, she's willing to let the chips fall where they may. She wanted to be President, and she'll likely be too old (69) to run again in 2016, especially since she'd have to defeat Obama's VP for the nomination.


I wish I could agree but I don't think there's any "gracefully step aside" in her. She's jumped on Wright and Ayers like a repub would ignoring her own ties to Wright when he twice visited the White House at their invitation and to Ayers group when her husband released two members of the same group from prison. She has offered to "obliterate" Iran in spite of our own intelligence agencies telling us that if they had a weapons program (and we're not even sure of that) they seem to have ended it. She has been trying since the start to convince voters that both Obama and the party are trying to disenfranchise voters when about 1/3 of the people who actually DID it are to be found in her campaign staff, not his. She more recently shifted to being the "white power" candidate, and last I saw she capped that all off with the very recent suggestion that she'd better stay in because as we all should know RFK was assassinated in California in June.

Now her path to the White House seems to run through another persons grave, and she thinks that's ok to use as an excuse to stay in? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vyFqmp4wzI

I regret any defense I've ever made for either of them, this campaign has put everything through the years in question and hurt them more than they realize. Before we could hope or assume that the bad parts were just blindness on their part and they didn't know better. But in light of new knowledge on how far they'll go if they see an advantage to themselves all of that needs to be reevaluated too. Maybe their critics were more right than we realized all those years. It's either that or too much time swimming in the sewers with that stuff made them forget what was wrong with it, just as an abused kid often becomes an abuser themselves. For whatever reasons though there seems to be little of honor, fairness, clean play or grace left in them.