Train outdoors
Systema outdoors training in the New York CityGood bue
Posted by admin in Apr 26, 2010, under Schedule
Hi, everyone
Storm, huh? Nonsense.
However, our classes at the park have come to an end… My life is taking me to another state, as many of you know…
I would like to thank all the good friends and students for good times we spent together training. I am sure that we`ll cross our paths somewhere …
I wish you all success in training as well as in life in general.
Thank you. Good bue.
Best,
Val
Well…
Posted by admin in Sep 08, 2010, under On health
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/08/21/barbara-loe-fisher-on-flu-vaccine-changes.aspx
Is Modern Medicine Founded On Error?
Posted by admin in Sep 08, 2010, under On health
Is Modern Medicine Founded On Error?
By Gabriel Donohoe
http://foolscrow.wordpress.com
Modern Medicine is inextricably devoted to the Germ Theory of Disease promulgated by Louis Pasteur in the late 1800’s. Pharmaceutical drugs, surgery, antibiotics, and vaccinations are firmly founded upon this theory.
But, in embracing Pasteur’s theory, did medicine turn its back on a more complete theory that might have lessened or avoided more than a century of needless death and disease?
Today, ill health is pandemic, people are getting sicker and sicker, and hospitals are so full that patients are crammed into corridors on trolleys.
Chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes have reached epidemic proportions and are rising steadily despite the best efforts of modern medicine. Even worse, in the U.S.A., properly prescribed drugs actually kill 106,000 patients a year through deadly side effects (Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26th, 2000). And in the U.K. prescription drugs kill 10,000 people a year (BBC News, July 2nd, 2004.)
The Nutrition Institute of America reported in October, 2003, that 2.2 million hospital patients suffer adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to prescribed medicine each year and that the total annual number of iatrogenic deaths (deaths caused by doctors or medicine) is as high as 783,936. In the U.K. the BBC says that 1 in 16 hospital admissions are due to ADRs which costs the National Health Service half a billion pounds Sterling.
The scale of deaths, injuries, and adverse reactions to drugs mentioned above is an horrendous downside of pharmaceutical intervention. We have to ask ourselves if the benefits really justify the dangers. And why are drugs so ineffective in combating degenerative disease?
Since President Nixon declared war on cancer in 1971 billions of dollars have been spent on research yet the true survival rates for this illness has hardly changed in three decades. Some 500,000 Americans die from cancer every year; in 2004, the U.K. death toll was 153,397 (Cancer Research UK). And despite the cancer societies’ pleas for more money and more time to find the elusive “magic bullet” there appears to be no cure in sight.
Can it be that modern medicine’s understanding of disease is flawed?
Allopathic medicine’s entire approach to disease is firmly founded on Louis Pasteur’s germ theory. Pasteur states that germs (bacteria) create illness, that they invade the body from without, that they are monomorphic (have only one form), that there are many species involved, and that each disease is connected with a specific type of bacteria. The only way to regain health is to kill these invading microbes. Destroy them with drugs.
And that’s modern medicine’s strategy in dealing with disease. But it’s not working. Chronic disease is rampant. As we’ve seen, drugs rarely cure, are often lethal, and the side effects can be devastating.
Dare we think the unthinkable? Could Pasteur have been wrong?
If Pasteur was wrong, then, in the infamous words of Lord Denning on the Birmingham Six miscarriage of justice, we would have an “Appalling Vista!” The reputations of countless medics and scientists would be ruined, pharmaceutical companies would go out of business, most hospitals would close, and millions of doctors, nurses, and other health care workers would be out of a job. Unthinkable, utterly unthinkable!
Devotion to dogma and resistance to innovation are not new in medicine. One has only to recall how Doctor Semmelweis was hounded to insanity by his peers for daring to suggest that they should wash their hands between performing autopsies and delivering babies.
But what if Pasteur were indeed wrong?
Antoine Béchamp, a contemporary of Pasteur, was an eminent professor whose observations in microbiology led him to believe that while germs were present in disease they were not the cause of it. He discovered that bacteria evolved from indestructible living colloids which he termed “microzymas”.
Béchamp further observed, in direct contrast to Pasteur, that microzymas are pleomorphic, that is, they change form and can become viruses, bacteria, fungus, yeast, and moulds. Furthermore, germs do not always arrive from outside but are invariably present in the body. Bacteria live in harmony within a healthy body, but when the body becomes unhealthy they morph into more pathogenic forms.
Another scientist, Claude Bernard, agreed with Béchamp and said that it was the internal terrain or milieu intérieur that caused the microbes to change form and become pathogenic. If the body became toxic, microzymas could evolve into harmful bacteria and, if the terrain improved, could devolve back to microzymas again.
However, Pasteur’s theory held sway. The assertive, self-promoting Pasteur convinced the powers of French medicine that his theory was correct and that the pleomorphic theory of the quiet, modest Béchamp was wrong. But on his death-bed Pasteur recanted and said that “Bernard (Béchamp) was right… The microbe is nothing… The terrain is everything.” But his theory had taken such hold that no one took note.
And modern medicine was born.
Nonetheless, Béchamp’s work on pleomorphism has been kept very much alive down through the decades by doctors and scientists like Enderlein, Rife, Reich, Livingston, Naessens, Cantwell, Young, and others. Today, Béchamp’s work is enjoying something of a revival by health care professionals who are not satisfied with the ineffectiveness and toxicity of drug-based medicine.
Adhering to Béchamp’s theory these pioneering practitioners believe that virtually all diseases arise from a toxic terrain, i.e., over-acidity of the blood. They say that the way to fight disease is by reducing the acidity with alkalising foods and minerals. This acidity is the milieu intérieur of Dr. Bernard which causes benign microbes to change into morbid pathogens. The body struggles to keep the pH level of the blood at 7.365 and anything lower (more acidic) promotes ill health and disease.
Microzymas interpret increasing acidity as death of the body and morph into moulds to perform one of their true functions – to break down tissue and bone and return it to dust. And that is why germs are present in disease, not as the cause but as Nature’s cleansers of dead or dying tissue.
The Chinese knew this thousands of years ago when they said, “Worms will not eat living wood where the vital sap is flowing…”
In this new beginning of a new millennium new thinking is essential to halt our alarming descent into sickness and disease. Perhaps the next decade or so will see more widespread interest in Béchamp’s work and promote more research into the New Biology which will steer us toward our true birthright – total vibrant health and vigour.
Becker’s paradox
Posted by admin in May 06, 2010, under Articles, Becker`s paradox
How the world stays trapped in its own bad dream
By J.Kaminski
Beware of what you crave for you will get it. — Euripides, Shakespeare, Emerson
Men cause evil by wanting heroically to triumph over it, because man is a frightened animal who tries to triumph, an animal who will not admit his own insignificance, that he cannot perpetuate himself and his group forever, that no one is invulnerable no matter how much of the blood of others is spilled to try to demonstrate it. — Ernest Becker, Escape from Evil, 1974
It has been my contention, since the mid-1990s, that the human population of planet Earth has trapped itself in a lie of its own device, which will destroy everything we know and love if we don’t admit it and correct it.
The lie, you must know by now, is that we do not die, when in fact we do, most obviously. This knowledge, this thought, is the one single fact that is always on our mind, though we sashay through the day without ever giving it a single notice, because it is buried so deeply in the trappings of our existences, trappings all chosen for the very purpose of totally anesthetizing that thought from our waking consciousness.
The key process is transference. I am constantly surprised at the number of psychological professionals who don’t fully comprehend what transference means. It means, at bottom, that we can’t face reality, because it’s too depressing, so we have to invent scenarios to make us happy, to make us forget what awaits us with no reason and no rebuttal.
Initially, transference is what happens when people pick a religion. The sublime feelings we as babies feel toward our nurturing parents soon give way to static from society — schools and media — and we as teens learn our parents are not the infallible providers we once thought they were. That feeling of sublime safety goes away, and each of us finds a way to replace that feeling with the fail safe substitute parent called God, or whatever pathway to psychological security you choose to take to guarantee your eternal safety.
But the deeper epiphany about transference is that it is our ONLY method of ideation, as Ernest Becker points out in his book “Escape from Evil,” which is a simplified companion to his 1974 Pulitzer winning “The Denial of Death.” Though I am no psychological professional, I know of no other mainstream writer who deals as frankly and clearly with the No. 1 problem of every living human being in the world.
By saying that transference is our ONLY reality, Becker is saying that humans cannot deal with the reality of death without some patina of self-delusion that in some way immunizes them from oblivion and nonexistence. In saying this, Becker is creating a litmus test for all religions, which he later characterizes as “death-denying” religions.
Seen in our current context, all the religions of the world save Taoism are death denying religions; hence, none are psychologically sound, because they all deny the obviousness of death.
Yet throughout history, this is the promise people have needed to hear. At a certain moment in time, when you are certain not many more moments will follow, all the reason in the world does you not one bit of good. This is where the rubber meets the road in the cosmos, and we are nothing more than insensate microscopic stardust in a macrocosmic tableau. You better have your faith in a handy place. Of course, the best way to do that is to always keep it there. The correct words to say at the moment of passing are “thank you” (as if you didn’t know).
So now we have a universal human need being ministered to by businessmen wielding fairytales and providing that very somatic reassurance that all will be well if we just buy their product, if we just root for their team, if we just support their war . . . it has been the operative formula for thousands of years.
Belief is really a two-part question. Yes, we all need to believe in something good that makes us feel our lives are worthwhile. Individual liberty is about the best thing there is, but even that is an illusion.
We have been deceived and misled by the fearful symmetries of Old Testament hatred, borne of an unprocessed fear that our physical lives are limited, and the imaginary lives we attempt to confabulate for ourselves in some other farflung reality are actually poisoning the attempts at life we are making in the here and now. You can read about it in the Book of Revelation, a nightmare preprogramming of mindlocked believers who are being manipulated into manufacturing the violent end of the world.
The imaginary heavens and bardos legend has bequeathed to us are more stories about life than they are about the afterlife. Becker puts it more bleakly: “ . . . it is the disguise of panic that makes men live in ugliness . . .” From this, Becker concludes, it is possible that evil itself can now be analyzed, and just possibly, can be remedied by reason.
And yet here is Becker’s paradox, as stated in “Escape from Evil.”
134: The most noble human motive [will] cause the greatest damage because it would lead men to find their highest use as part of an obedient mass, to give their complete devotion and their lives to their leaders.
136: The paradox is that evil comes from man’s urge to heroic victory over evil.
153: Man is an animal who must fetishize in order to have “normal mental health.” But this shrinkage of vision that permits him to survive also at the same time prevents him from having the overall understanding he needs to plan and control the effects of his shrinkage of experience. A paradox that sends a bitter chill through all reflective men. If Freud’s famous “fateful question for the human species” was not exactly the right one, the paradox is no less fateful. It seems that the experiment of man may well prove to be an evolutionary dead end, an impossible animal — one who, individually, needs for healthy action the very conduct that, on a general level, is destructive to him.
148: Men put on the chains imposed by the powers of dead ancestors, then shamans, priests, divine kings, heads of state. Today we understand the inner dynamics of this long history of self abasement: men need transference in order to be able to stand life. Man immunizes himself against terror by controlling his fascination, by localizing it and developing working responses toward the sources of it. The result is that he becomes a reflex of small terrors and small fascinations in place of overwhelming ones. It is a forced and necessary barter: the exchange of unfreedom for life. From this point of view history is the career of a frightened animal who has to deaden himself against life in order to live. And it is this very deadening that takes such a toll of others’ lives.
156: Today (written in 1974) we are living the grotesque spectacle of the poisoning of the earth by the 19th century hero system of unrestrained material production. This is perhaps the greatest and most pervasive evil to have emerged in all of history, and it may even eventually defeat all of mankind.
Becker then admits to the most glaring paradox of all: “ . . . we seem to be unable to approach the problem of human evil from the side of psychology.”
Whoa. Here is the greatest synthesizer of 20th century psychiatric thought ‘fessing up and admitting science does not — and will not — have the answer to human evil in the world.
157: “All that psychology has really accomplished is to make the inner life the subject matter of science, and in doing this it dissipated the idea of the soul.”
And from this Becker can pronounce: “Transference is the only ideality that man has.”
One must deceive oneself, because the alternative is just too bleak. Yet, by cloaking our fears in the multiform folds of transference, we are admitting we cannot see reality, and refuse to admit that reality even exists. This is the mindlock.
Somewhere back along the trail I heard or read somewhere that a world without God would be an awful place, full of catastrophe and woe without belief to guide people to sensible lives. I ask you in your hearts to look at today’s world and tell me what belief in God has wrought across the planet.
Is it not merely the fearful lie that we do not die manifesting in reality, or will you tell another lie and say that it is not?
By saying that science cannot solve the problem of evil in the world, and inferring that belief is the only rational choice toward peace, the spotlight falls squarely on our existing religions, which have been utterly unable to create a just society for thousands of years. This is all because they have been based upon a lie.
If we continue to try to live this lie, it will kill us all, and every living thing along with it. Tragically, that is what it was meant to do. This is what happens when you believe in things you don’t understand. This is the lesson we need to learn, and quickly.
As Becker himself put it: “Since men must now hold for dear life onto the self-transcending meanings of the society in which they live, onto the immortality symbols which guarantee them indefinite duration of some kind, a new kind of instability and anxiety are created. And this anxiety is precisely what spills over into the affairs of men. In seeking to avoid evil, man is responsible for bringing more evil into the world than organisms could ever do merely by exercising their digestive tracts. It is man’s ingenuity, rather than his animal nature, that has given his fellow creatures such a bitter earthly fate.”
Systema cheat-sheet!
Posted by admin in Apr 26, 2010, under Systema cheat sheet.
“Can you suggest some Systema drills I could incorporate to the martial art I already practice?” This is a question that practitioners of various combat systems ask me every now and then and, honestly, I find it rather frustrating. Never mind the answer (or, if you really want to know, it’s both yes and no) – what I find frustrating is that there’s a large number of people out there who are involved in the martial arts and think that Systema is just a large collection of drills and exercises! Out of this collection, they believe they can pick whatever they find useful, or plain cool, and practice it out of context: for example, I’ve heard of Kenpo people “using Systema concepts” and others who practice “a combination of Systema and Krav Maga” and you know what? This is simply not possible! Even worse is the fact that there are also people who actually practice Systema and think that it’s just a collection of drills, simply because they’re missing the art’s context…
So, to make a long story short, I thought about writing this article in order to clarify that there is a context – a bigger picture, if you like – and explain what this context is, based on my knowledge and training experience. What I’m going to describe is three sets of rules (my personal cheat-sheet) that I’ve come upon while studying various Russian resources on hand-to-hand combat and athletic movement in general. I use them to help me classify the huge number of Systema training drills or devise new ones, according to the attribute or skill which is being exercised (so that I know what I’m training for) and trouble-shoot the training sessions of the Göteborgs Systema – RMA Klubb (so when something does not work, I know what the mistake is). Before I begin, let me clarify one more thing: these sets of rules in no way constitute an “official Systema training guide”, that’s why I’m referring to it as a personal cheat-sheet. Oh, and they’re also not set in stone, right???
Are you sitting comfortably? Good, then I’ll begin!
Rules set #1: N.A. Bernstein’s definition of dexterity
I do quote Bernstein’s work pretty often, I know, but when one’s field of study is human movement and especially athletic movement, it is practically impossible to by-pass this hugely important Russian Jewish neuroscientist of the 20th century. I also have included this definition in one of my first Systema e-mails last year, but a lot of new people have been added to my mailing list since then, so why not repeat the definition? Well, according to Bernstein:
“Dexterity is the ability to find a motor solution for any external situation, that is, to adequately solve any emerging motor problem
correctly (i.e., adequately and accurately),
quickly (with respect to both decision making and achieving a correct result),
rationally (i.e., expediently and economically), and
resourcefully (i.e., quick-wittedly and initiatively)”i.
I believe it is quite obvious that any sort of combat skill, such as striking, evading a strike, throwing an opponent down, escaping from a restraining hold etc., can be treated as a motor problem that needs to be adequately solved, so it is a matter of dexterity. In this respect, the Russian Martial Art training methods place equal emphasis to each one of the four features of dexterity, according to Bernstein, in the following ways:
- In Systema, when training for a specific skill, we just follow a universal set of guidelines (do not hold the breath, keep a sound body structure, do not restrict your own mobility) and focus on the effect one’s movement has on the environment. For example, when we practice throws, instead of giving exhaustingly detailed instructions on how a technique is performed “correctly” (e.g. “put your foot exactly ten centimeters on the outside of the opponents foot” or “the left hand pulls diagonally down, while the right hand pushes straight up”), we just emphasize the universal guidelines and then focus on throwing the opponent to the ground. This way, the body learns how to solve a motor problem by… well, actually solving it! Contemporary sports science has proved that this approach to teaching motor skills is more effective: according to the constrained action hypothesisii proposed by a number of sport scientists in the beginning of this decade, “… when individuals focus on their movements they tend to consciously intervene in control processes that regulate the coordination of their movements. Yet, by attempting to actively control their movements, they inadvertently disrupt automatic processes that have the capacity to control movements effectively and efficiently. In contrast, focusing attention on the movement effect promotes a more automatic type of control”.iii
- It might seem strange, but in Systema we train for quickness in achieving the desirable result by initially training at a slow speed. This way, we first develop the correct movement mechanics (which is in direct relation with the rationality of the movement, the third feature of dexterity) that will inevitably lead to more speed in performing an action – slow becomes smooth, and then smooth becomes fast. Also, by beginning our training at a slow time framing and gradually increasing the speed, we condition the brain to perceive multiple stimuli, thus increasing our reaction speed and at the same time building anticipation skills.
- Regarding the issue of efficiency in movement (i.e. getting the job done with minimum energy expenditure, getting more bang for your buck, if you like), first of all, keep in mind that the human body is a natural energy-efficient system: for example, if it is possible for you to lift an object by using one single motor unit (this means one motor neuron and the muscle fibers corresponding to it), you body would rather do this than use two or three motor units and thus waste energy. The historic roots of Systema as a combat system taught in the elite units of the Soviet military, place special emphasis on movement efficiency. The reason is pretty simple: unlike a professional fighter, who has to face only one opponent at a time and can “give 110%” of his effort in each of his fights – since his next fight is after two months – a soldier must find ways to drastically reduce his fatigue and recover to pre-combat levels of energy, because he must always be ready to fight. One more thing, and please pay extra attention to this, because it is crucial for your training: what you focus upon when you’re training affects the amounts of energy you expend! Gabriele Wulf, PhD, professor of kinesiology at the University of Nevada, claims that “…an external focus has been shown to reduce muscular activity, thereby enhancing movement efficiency. Moreover, an external focus seems to result in more effective coordination between agonist and antagonist muscle groups”iv. So, once again, when training pay attention to the desired effect of your actions on the environment (your opponent that is), not minuscule details of your own movement – these have a tendency to take care of themselves.
- The fourth feature of dexterity, according to Bernstein, is resourcefulness and the heart of it, in my opinion, lies in the ability to correctly find a solution to a motor problem in conditions of an environment that changes unexpectedly. Well, one of the basic doctrinal tenets of Systema is to rely upon spontaneous improvisation to generate uniquely appropriate solutions to unfolding situations and that is why we do not train in pre-arranged techniques.
So, the first part of the context I was talking about in the beginning of this article is that Russian Martial Art does not consist of a number of comprehensive, start-to-finish, martial arts techniques that someone learns in order to “graduate”. It is rather a training method to make one’s body dexterous, “clever” enough to solve the motor problems of hand-to-hand combat – even those one does not expect to face…
On the second part of this article we will discuss the “Three Pillars of Systema” (yeah, I know some people talk about four pillars, but I can explain that).
i Latash Mark L., Turvey Michael T. Dexterity and Its Development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1996, p. 228
iiWulf, G., McNevin, N.H., & Shea, C.H. The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 1143 – 1154 (2001)
iii Wulf, G., Attention and Motor Skill Learning. Human Kinetics, 2007, p. 113
iv Ibid., p. 116