Thursday, July 24, 2014

The perils of dating a gym bunny

Tim Muriello from (a fitness supplement and advice site for bodybuilders) has some rather amusing advice for men who think that the idea of dating a fitness-obsessed woman is a Good Idea:

As if that wasn't amusing/silly enough, there's another video of him talking over some other meathead about fitness chicks whose boyfriends don't lift, at all:

The second video is actually funnier, simply because Tim doesn't seem to know when to STFU. That said, the points that he raises are good ones.

The reality of dating fitness chicks is that they are obsessed with themselves and their bodies. They seek validation from other women, and of course from men. In my experience attending five or six different gyms in three countries, there aren't many of these women around- mostly because the CrossFit fad has fortunately not really reached the bit of the country that I live in, more or less- but that will change over time.

Fitness chicks also tend to embrace very stupid diet fads. From a man's perspective, food is very simple: meat, vegetables, fruit, and a few sensible indulgences in moderation. The end. No need to add all sorts of frilly nonsense about "Zone Diets" and "juice cleanses" and "carb cycling".

Bottom line: if you're going to try to date a gym bunny, just be aware of what you're getting into. And don't EVER date a girl who can lift more than you- you'll look like a complete tool.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

"Why won't they let us LIVE?!"

When I was 14, I read two books that changed my thinking and my life forever.

The first was a novel, based on real events, called Exodus, by one of the 20th Century's greatest writers, Leon Uris. It provided a fictionalised, but largely accurate, account of the birth of Israel through the life and times of two brothers, Yossi and Yakov Rabinsky, as they flee Poland and emigrate to Palestine, then under British rule. There, Yossi Rabinsky becomes Barak Ben Canaan and fathers a son, Ari Ben Canaan, both of whom become integral to the fledgling Jewish state as it wins its independence.

It is one of the finest novels ever written- breathtaking in scale and scope, visceral and unforgettable in its impact.

At the end of the book, upon learning of the death of a young woman much beloved of the Ben Canaan extended family at the hands of Palestinian fedayeen, the reader is stunned to find the stoic, resolute, physically unbreakable Ari Ben Canaan weeping in the small garden of his family home. Turning to look up at the skies, he screams the words of the title there up to the Lord. He begs his Creator to explain to him why an innocent, sweet, beautiful woman had to die so cruelly at the hands of those who sought to destroy everything that he had spent his entire life trying to protect.

That scene has stayed with me ever since I first read it. It comes back to me now every time I read of another Israeli boy or girl killed in the latest episode of violence in an already violent land.

The second book is O Jerusalem! by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre- sadly, out of print for a very long time. A much more detailed and very closely written historical examination of the state of Israel, it provides the perfect non-fiction complement to the writing in Exodus, explaining the historical background behind the events of Exodus in a way that the reader can easily grasp and understand.

What is remarkable about these two books is how closely they agree on the basic facts of Israel's existence. The first, a work of fiction, unambiguously presents the Jews as righteous and decent people who rebuild their historical homeland out of rock and desert, sweating and fighting and dying to give life to the ancient dream of a land of their own. The second, a work of investigative historical journalism, is far more balanced and nuanced, and presents a great deal of material from all sides of the Israeli War of Independence.

Ultimately, though, they both come to the same conclusion: Israel is the Jewish homeland by right, and the Jews have bought it, and their consequent freedom, through blood and steel and sacrifice.

So when the latest round of hostilities started up, yet again, I was reminded, not for the first time and certainly not for the last, just why it is that Israel needs to defend herself through any means necessary.

No matter how much the liblepr idiot rabbits of the Western media try to spin it, Israel is faced with a daily fight for its very survival. Its people are threatened not merely by Arabs who want their own homeland, but by a "religion" that demands their subjugation, their enslavement, and their destruction. They are daily confronted with a creed that values dead Arabs over live ones- and values dead Jews over all else. They have to deal with a people and a race that has shown exactly zero capacity whatsoever for developing and maintaining an advanced civilisation in the last two hundred years, despite the best efforts of the British, the Americans, the Russians, and even the Israelis themselves to push the Palestinians into something resembling a civilised society.

The useful idiots of the Western media and political elite constantly call for Israel to be investigated for "war crimes". They seem to forget that there has never been a military force in all of human history that has held such a crushing advantage in equipment, training, capabilities, and sheer badassitude over its enemies- and yet still goes to enormous lengths to avoid civilian casualties by warning its enemies to evacuate target zones before bombing them.

The fact remains that no army in history has ever obeyed the Laws of War as scrupulously as Israel's has. No nation in history has ever held such a one-sided military advantage over its enemies, and yet refused to use that advantage to conquer and colonise wholesale its defeated enemies.

It is well past time to end this pretence that Israel is somehow an unjustified aggressor in this latest phase of their never-ending war with Islam and its adherents. Israel has an absolute and completely legitimate right to defend itself from external threats; if hundreds of rockets raining down upon its citizens is not such a threat, then nothing is. Israel's incursions into Gaza are not only thoroughly justified, they are absolutely necessary.

Indeed, I will go rather a lot farther than this and argue that Israel has every right to be far more heavy-handed than it has been in the conflict thus far. The Laws of War dictate that enemy combatants must be clearly identifiable as such; they must wear clear markings to distinguish themselves from ordinary civilians; they must not use civilians to hide from invading forces; and they must adhere to honourable and lawful methods of combat.

The Palestinians have singularly failed to do so- indeed, they embrace openly dishonourable and distasteful methods of war by hiding their weapons among civilians, by telling civilians to stay put even when the Israelis go out of their way to warn those same civilians that an attack is coming, and by using civilians as weapons through the use of suicide-bombing tactics.

When an enemy violates the Laws of War like this, there is only one appropriate response: annihilation. No quarter given, no mercy shown.

In other words, the Israelis would be completely justified in not only occupying Gaza, but colonising it as well- subjugating it as a conquered land and forcing its inhabitants to fall in line whether they like it or not. There really is no other choice at this point.

The tranzis and libprogs of this world will undoubtedly scream bloody murder- but then they already see Israel as a neo-imperialist power as it is, so nothing really changes except that, in their eyes, a de facto situation becomes a de jure one.

The Islamists of this world will do the same- because they know that the one thing that destroys their credibility faster than anything else is the presence of a strong, vital, and powerful Jewish state. There is no clearer refutation of their "religion" than the presence of a Jewish homeland.

There is only one way to secure Israel's future, and that is to do what the Romans did to the lands of barbarian invaders at the height of their strength- take the fight to them, occupy and colonise their lands, and bring the invaders down through fire and steel.

And as for America? The best policy is to leave Israel alone to do its thing and survive as best as it can. America has plenty of problems of its own right now, there is no need whatsoever to go abroad meddling in the affairs of other nations. Especially not ones which, like Israel, can handle things just fine on their own.

The answer to the question that Ari Ben Canaan poses in Exodus, in his agony and grief and despair, is very simple: the Palestinian Arabs do not want to let the Jewish people live because to do so would be to admit that everything they have believed in for 14 centuries is a lie. To do so would be to admit that the Jews are capable of building what the Arabs are not, despite the many and manifest protestations of their so-called "holy book" that the Arabs and Muslims are the best of all peoples. To do so would be to admit that for a hundred years, the Arabs have rotted and decayed in squalor and misery of their own making, while the Jews actually built something worth preserving and protecting.

Israel's fight is its own; history can judge whether or not she fought it well. But it is a thoroughly justified and righteous one nonetheless.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Pay for your own stuff, woman

Mocking feminists is like drop-kicking chihuahuas-
not even all that much fun because it's just too easy
So there I was yesterday afternoon, walking down to the riverfront to eat lunch on a beautiful sunny day, minding my own business and generally trying to avoid getting run over by rude cabbies. It was looking to be a very good day indeed- work was keeping me very busy, there were lots of interesting things to do, I'd ordered lunch ahead so that I could skip the stupid annoying line, and I had a delicious juice smoothie in my hand. And later that night, I would be sparring with my fellow lunatics masochists students at the KM school.

Yes, life as I knew it was very pleasant.

Anon all of this was shattered irreparably by the loud, abrasive, obnoxious voice of an American woman behind me talking to her co-worker about his latest date. Unfortunately, I was forced to suffer the misery of listening to her drivel for the five minutes or so that it took me to reach the waterfront, at which point I promptly headed for the nearest seat along the river, out of earshot.

The conversation went something like this:
Woman: So how did your date with that girl go? 
Man: Went OK, I guess. Thing is, we went out for dinner and I actually sort of forgot to pay for both of us, so she ended up paying for herself. [That last part was said rather sheepishly.] 
Woman: OHMIGOD I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU WOULD FORGET TO DO THAT! YOU'RE SUCH A RETARD! I CAN'T BLAME HER IF SHE THREW A DRINK IN YOUR F***ING FACE!!! [Profanity was a big part of the vocabulary of this particular "lady". I have taken the liberty of "editing" the conversation somewhat. Plus I'm getting old- my short-term memory isn't what it used to be.] 
Man: (Cringing slightly) Yeah, I wouldn't either. But she was European, and I guess they're somewhat more independent and cool with that sort of thing... 
Woman: Look, I've been on, like, a TON of internet dates, and I can't think of a SINGLE time where I've EVER had to pay for my share of the bill- the guy has always paid for me. I can't believe you'd be such a jerk! How could you forget to offer to pay for both of you?!? I'm sure she thinks you're a total douche now! 
Man: Yeah- 
Woman: So I've got this one good friend- well, he's not really a friend, he's a few years younger than me, he's about 32, and he's, like, a TOTAL feminist. Like, MILITANTLY so. Every time I talk to him we get into these big arguments about how women and men should always split the cheque, and how we're all equal and stuff, and he always says that women should pay for their own side of the bill, and I'm like, "no, the man should always pay for everything"...
It was at this point that I managed to escape and eat my lunch in peace, although the day's pleasantness had dimmed considerably. And it gave me a chance to think and reflect upon what I had just heard, through the eyes and ears of a man who has learned quite a lot over the past few years about the realities of women.

What we have here is a classic example of an Empowered Modern Woman talking (down) to a Delta male. She checks all of the boxes:
  • Exaggerated and completely unjustified sense of entitlement;
  • Total inability to grasp facts, logic, and reason;
  • Shrill, grating, irritating personality;
  • Unrealistic expectations about her own sex rank in the SMP
That last part is crucial. Note that, by this lady's own admission, she is in her mid-thirties. I did get a chance to look at her before I finally managed to extract myself from having to listen to any more of this drivel- she was not unattractive, but the years had clearly not been kind to what was once a decent figure and a pretty face. She was thickening a bit around the waist, her face had numerous lines and creases, and her hair was clearly artificially coloured. She looked a bit older than mid-thirties, if I'm honest.

As with most modern American women working in high-powered corporate jobs these days (read: public relations, HR, sales, and in some cases actual marketing, which is in fact a real job- provided you do it right), this "lady" has a significantly overblown sense of her own self-importance in the grand scheme of things. She was clearly fairly affluent, judging by the jewelry she was wearing- as she said, she had been on many internet dates and clearly had not yet found "the Right One". (Meaning, an appropriately submissive Beta buttboy to put an overpriced ring on her finger and thereby cater to her every financial whim.) Yet, despite her professional success and clear affluence, at least some of which is surely founded on credit and debt, she still expected- nay, demanded- that all of her dates pay for her share of meals and drinks.

And of course, being a Modern Educated Empowered Woman*, she rather fails to realise that, on the one hand, she expects her dates to pay for everything; on the other hand, she offers them nothing useful in return. In the space of a few unguarded minutes of conversation, she revealed that she was petty, coarse-mouthed, and ignorant of the way a true conversation works- in other words, she had far less to offer than most women ten or fifteen years her junior, yet expected to be treated just like her younger contemporaries.

This is NOT wife material. It's not girlfriend material. It's barely even ONS or FB material.

Gentlemen, this is exactly what you should not do if you seek to get laid. It's about the stupidest way to go about winning a woman's affections in today's world.

This sort of thing used to work back when women were economically dependent upon men- about sixty years ago, roughly speaking. Back then, showing that you could support yourself and her financially was not really a bad move. Today, it's downright idiotic because women like this are already financially secure- according to themselves, anyway- and they do not need you to give them that security. They need you for other things, but in order to get those things- particularly the important ones, like, well, sex- you now have to pass a truly formidable bitch-shield in the process when dealing with deluded high-status types like the prime example above. You're not going to get past that shield by showering a woman with compliments and paying for everything.

Now let us turn to the statements made by the, er, "man" up there. I didn't get a good look at him, mostly because merely being within earshot of him was making my own testosterone levels drop rapidly, but as far as I could tell he was the Typical American Male- somewhat paunchy, slightly stooped over, a bit pasty-faced. In other words, he was your typical cubicle-dwelling finance type. Simply put, he was a solid candidate for some Red Pill 101.

He did, however, say one thing that I think is quite true. He was not necessarily wrong about European girls. A few months back I went out on a... well it's a bit of a stretch to call it a "date", but it was a pleasant evening even so, and I found the exact same phenomenon. When it came time to call it a night, I whipped out my credit card, she took out hers, and that was the end of it. I didn't have to say one word about who was paying for what, it was simply assumed that she would carry her end of the tab.

I have found this with both (Eastern) European and Asian women- but almost never with American women. I'm not sure what it is about American women that makes them so bizarrely entitled, given that in the cold light of day, most American women fail to compete with their Eastern European and East Asian rivals, but whatever it is, it makes for an exceedingly unpleasant, and expensive, experience when going out on dates.

If, that is, you do things the stupid way and insist on taking a woman out for dinner. If instead you keep things simple and cheap, you are likely to do much better, at far lower cost to yourself.

Gentlemen, this is how it is. This is the world we live in. The old rules do not apply any longer- they have not for decades- and if you play by those rules, you will fail. The new rules are simple:
  • Get strong and fit
  • Get a decent wardrobe
  • Create a lifestyle worth having
  • Get your finances in order
  • Go for simple, cheap dates without ever investing too much in any one woman
Obey them, and you will prosper. Ignore them, and you will suffer.

Ladies, I'm going to make this really simple for you. Feminism has won, so pay for your own s***. If you go out on an expensive dinner date, and your date expects you to pay for your half of the bill, take out your credit card and do it. Fair's fair, after all.

And don't blame us for this mess. This is what you wanted, or at least what you were told you wanted- are you happy now? No? Hey, guess what- you voted for the impossible, and now you have the disastrous possible instead. Well done!

To round this off- a Badd Popp classic:

*MEEW? The cat analogy is just too easy. I swear, it wasn't intentional.

Monday, July 21, 2014

The lone soldier

I could hear Col. Dubois in my mind: "Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part... and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live."
-- Juan "Johnnie" Rico, Starship Troopers
When you live your life surrounded by peace and plenty, where your only real concern at any given point in the day is what you're going to eat for lunch or dinner, it is a deeply humbling experience to be confronted by the very real sacrifices that good men make to ensure the freedom and the survival of an their homeland- whether original, or adopted.

One young man made that ultimate sacrifice just two nights ago. His name was Sergeant Sean Carmeli. He held dual US-Israeli citizenship; and on Saturday night, he died fighting to preserve the safety and security of the people of his country, alongside 12 more of his brothers in the Golani Brigade during Israel's entirely justified invasion of Gaza.

Now I do not, for one moment, agree with the concept of dual citizenship. To be a citizen is to adopt the values of your country as your own, to uphold its ideals as your own- and to pledge your life in its defence, if need be. And you can only do this for one country, and no other, by definition.

By these standards, even though Sgt. Carmeli theoretically was a citizen of two countries, he proved beyond any doubt that even though he was born in America, he was, without question, a son of Israel.

The most poignant part of the story of his death is that initially, it was reported that he was a "lone soldier"- a man without any real family in Israel, fighting for an adopted homeland.

When it came time to bury an adopted son, some twenty thousand Israelis attended his funeral in Haifa.

If there is a more poignant and simple way to demonstrate what citizenship- true citizenship- means, I have yet to see it.

He, and other supposedly "lone" soldiers like him, make sacrifices every day to keep the rest of us safe. For that, they should be honoured and celebrated, for they are true citizens in the very deepest sense of the word.


That is the only appropriate adjective that can be used to describe the British Advertising Standards Agency, when they banned the truly awesome new ad for the truly awesome new Jaguar F-type coupe. Which just so happened to star Tom Hiddleston, who is apparently tied with Benedict Cumbersome or whatever his name is for the title of Everyone's Favourite Brit Baddie.

Here's the ad, in full:

It is, indeed, an amazing ad. As for BASA- Boring Adenoidal Squeamish Anoraks? Bitchy Aggro Splenetic Arsewipes?- well they just proved to all the world that, yet again, regulators simply don't know the difference between safety and fun.

The whole damn point of a Jaguar coupe with a supercharged V6 340bhp engine is to drive it fast. How difficult is this concept to understand, if every 8-year-old boy on Earth can figure it out in under five seconds?

Which, apparently, is just a hair's breadth from the new F-type's 0-60 time...

There is only one legitimate response to  these muppets- although admittedly that response does involve a rather odoriferous bodily discharge, so in fact the truly appropriate response is to watch Top Gear instead, just to piss them off.

Three blokes driving the world's fastest cars while blowing things up- it's a man's show, it is!

Saturday, July 19, 2014

The pointless but inevitable Krav Maga vs MMA bitchfight slapfest

If you take up a martial art and practice it for any serious length of time, you'll eventually come across the question of which art is "best". This is a very difficult question to answer properly, and unfortunately most people don't even bother trying.

Over the last couple of weeks I've come across a few message boards while trolling around for kicks that discuss (usually quite badly) the question of why Krav Maga practitioners don't seem to do very well in MMA contests.

The answer to this is that, in short, MMA fighters focus on very different things than KM practitioners do. When you pit one against the other, you are not comparing like for like. By definition, then, the comparison is a facile one.

There is a common mistake that many, many people on those boards keep making about Krav Maga. They see that KM fighters are not very common within the world of MMA and, because they assume that MMA is "true" fighting, they automatically conclude that KM is therefore useless for learning how to really fight.

I categorically disagree- admittedly, I'm biased on the subject. It is important to understand, however, that asking whether KM is "better" than MMA is a lot like asking whether a hammer is "better" than a wrench. It all depends on the job you need to do, and which tool is therefore most appropriate for that job.

My teacher puts it better than anyone else. As he says in that video, the question of which art is "best" can really only be answered when considering the goals of a particular individual.

An individual who wants to compete, to learn how to fight in a ring or a cage, is going to be far better served learning BJJ or judo combined with a striking art like karate or muay thai.

An individual who wants to learn how to defend himself on the street, however, is far better served learning a system like Krav Maga.*

To understand why these things are true, you have to understand the motivations behind MMA versus KM.

MMA for Fitness and Strength

Mixed martial artists train for a competitive environment. It's just that simple. They are training to pit their skills against others in an environment with rules and clearly defined start and end points. They train to fight in intervals and rounds while moving at very high speed and with extreme intensity.

As a result, they are extraordinarily well conditioned, extremely fit, and very, very strong.

You will almost surely become fitter and stronger and faster by training in MMA than you will in anything else- because fighting builds fitness and strength like nothing else can. Even the Iron God cannot grant you gifts of fitness and strength as fast or as thoroughly as learning how to punch someone in the face, kick him in the ribs, and then tackle him to the ground- fighting is exhausting, and in order to fight you have to build endurance to do so.

Fighting is the most elemental form of activity in human existence; in many ways, the human body is designed specifically for fighting, and because of this, men who really know how to fight are some of the fittest and most badass guys you will ever meet.

Moreover, if you want to learn how to be a truly formidable striker or grappler, MMA is the fastest way to achieve this. Hell, most serious martial arts will do this better than KM will.

If you put a muay thai expert up against a Krav Maga specialist in a striking contest, I believe the former would win almost every time- because muay thai trains you to punch and kick to a degree emphasised by almost no other art. Some of the most dangerous strikers that I have ever seen have backgrounds in muay thai- I'm talking about men like Bas Rutten or Anderson Silva.

I spar weekly, with hands and feet. I can pull off some pretty decent wheel kicks and combo kicks (e.g. a straight snap/roundhouse/side kick, all with the same leg, all in one set of motions) and "head-fake" kicks. I train against a heavy bag to perfect my striking at least once a week- not that I'm all that good, mind you. Yet I would absolutely hate to go up against a muay thai fighter- I'd get my ass beaten, severely, within five minutes.

Similarly, a trained judoka or BJJ specialist is almost always going to be better at fighting on the ground than a KM specialist- because that is precisely what those arts train you to do. They emphasise the takedown from day one, whereas in KM you don't get to groundwork until intermediate and advanced stages; indeed, groundwork only became a part of "mainstream" KM teachings relatively recently, once it became very clear from the world of MMA that stand-up striking simply is not sufficient for victory.

Because of all of these things, you will never hear me speak disrespectfully about an MMA fighter- hell, about any fighter in a real art like muay thai or BJJ or judo or traditional karate. I will happily pay not insignificant sums of money to watch and support MMA matches, because I always feel like I could learn from the guys who practice mixed martial arts in any capacity. I greatly respect and admire the men who study these disciplines.

Krav Maga for Street Defense

MMA is useful for a very specific purpose: to learn how to fight, against a single opponent, in a supervised setting, with clear rules.

MMA is not useful for the purpose of learning how to survive in the street.

To be sure, someone who is trained in MMA is going to have few problems defending himself against a single unarmed attacker on the street.

But what if your opponent has a gun that is being held a little out of arm's length from you? Or, worse, what if he's up close with a knife or broken bottle? Worst of all, what if you're up against two or more individuals, all carrying weapons of some sort?

In situations like that, the average MMA fighter- who is still far more skilled and capable of defending himself than the average person- is going to be outmatched, outclassed, and every bit as likely to get killed as anyone else.

In the street, there are no rules, no time limits, and no referees. There is no limit to the number of opponents you might face. There are no limitations concerning the kinds of weapons you might face, whether they be sticks, knives, or guns.

Great MMA fighters like Bas Rutten would argue that anyone trained to fight with rules can also fight without rules, and that is true- but remember that MMA fighters are trained according to a very specific paradigm, and that breaking out of that paradigm is actually extremely difficult. When you have trained in the same patterns and ideas and situations for years or decades, breaking out of the strictures imposed by that training is going to be quite hard to do, because your brain is conditioned to think in certain ways.

In street warfare situations, in fact, certain elements of MMA training will actually end up hurting you.

When you face a knife, for instance, an MMA fighter might well seek to get in close and go for a takedown- which is exactly what you should not do when faced with a knife. One possible technique for dealing with attackers with knives involves controlling the wrist such that the knife points right at your attacker; another involves kicking him outside the range of the knife and then controlling the wrist.

How about defences against half-nelsons and full nelsons? This is a technique whereby you approach a guy from behind, snake your arms around his shoulders, and interlock your fingers behind his head. It looks like this:

full nelson wrestling hold.jpeg
This is every bit as dangerous and painful as it looks
This is an extremely dangerous situation for the defender. Someone who has you in this position has a very dominant position over you and can do tremendous damage to your spine and neck- thereby putting you out of not just the fight, but your life, permanently.

The defence against this involves keeping your elbows down, snaking up to grab a finger from your opponent's hand, forcing it back (preferably until it breaks), wrenching the arm around once the grip is broken, and then either kicking the attacker hard in the groin or taking him down to the ground and striking his groin and ribs and head.

All of which are things that MMA fighters specifically do not do.

Or take defences against bear-hugs. A bear-hug is a very effective weapon- particularly a lifting bear-hug. If you get lifted, or trapped in a bear hug, and you don't know what to do, you've had it- your opponent has free licence to take you straight to the ground and beat the snot out of you. Effective techniques for bear-hugs generally involve striking the groin, the back of the head, and the columella (the point where the bony part of your lower nose attaches to your upper lip).

These are all highly vulnerable targets- it hurts like a mother when you get nailed in the balls with a knee, or when someone digs a bony joint straight into the columella.

They are also targets that MMA fighters are specifically trained to avoid hitting.

If you ever watch an MMA fight where one fighter goes in for a low takedown against another one, you'll never see the other guy bring the point of his elbow or a hammer fist down on the connecting point between the attacker's spine and skull- because that's illegal in MMA. Yet this is exactly how you defend against a low bear hug in KM.

The Right Tools for the Job

Once again, the question comes down to what is the most appropriate tool and system for dealing with a given problem. And when it comes to street warfare, MMA is not going to be that useful. The founder of the art of Krav Maga, Imi Lichtenfeld himself, discovered this the hard way when he rounded up a group of boxers and wrestlers- sports fighters, basically- in Hungary in the late 1930s to defend Jewish neighbourhoods against the predations of pro-Nazi sympathisers. The sports fighters would get their asses beaten, often brutally, by soldiers and street thugs, because they had no idea what to do when confronted with real life-or-death situations.

That is the key difference between MMA and a survival or street-warfare system like Krav Maga. Other similar systems include Systema Spetsnaz, used by the Russians to train their military; MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program), which is even more brutal in some ways than KM and is taught to, well, the Marines; and hisardut, another martial art originating from Israel that is taught by Dr. Denis Hanover and emphasises survival in all situations, not just the street.

The thing is, all of those other systems are either not readily available for civilian instruction or are not applicable for civilians. To study MCMAP, for instance, you need to join the Marine Corps- not an option for most people. Hisardut is really only taught in one part of this country and is not really an art suitable for the average civilian, if you look at it closely.

Moreover, you have to look at the nature of street warfare. Most people who get involved in brawls in the street do not have formal martial arts training. The average civilian will not be able to take ten years to learn how to perfect his kicks and punches. He needs to know how to deal with chokes, bear hugs, and street weapons. He needs to know how to fight in the clothes that he is wearing, with the shoes that he has on his feet, without protective gear like shinguards or groin cups or hand wraps or gloves. He needs to be able to use whatever weapons he can find around him- ashtrays, bar stools, pool cues, beer bottles, whatever.

Striking Above All

Having thus outlined the key differences and distinctions between MMA and KM, let me finish off by pointing out one major feature that both have in common, and one area where I personally think KM needs some improvement.

My teacher constantly tells us that striking, above and beyond everything else, is key. I completely agree with him, and I try to practice my striking whenever I can. I spar weekly because there is no better way to expose the deficiencies in your striking, and your ability to defend against strikes, than sparring. Ultimately, "martial arts" and "self-defence" are just euphemisms for "learning how to severely hurt other people". That's really what self-defence is- the capacity to injure, cripple, or even kill others so that they cannot do the same to you.

In this, there is no conflict whatsoever between MMA and KM. None at all. MMA students learn to practice their strikes from day one- they work hard to perfect their punches and kicks and stances and defence. So too do KM students, and for the exact same reasons.

However, MMA emphasises both striking and grappling. In today's world of MMA, thanks to the Gracie family, you simply cannot be a pure stand-up striker. You'll be wiped out by anyone who takes you down and puts you in a submission hold.

This is one area where KM is perhaps not as strong. KM does not emphasise groundwork- in fact, we are taught that the ground is our most dangerous enemy, so the last thing we want to do is get taken down. We are taught, at the beginning levels, how to fall properly, how to roll properly, and how to get back up properly, so that we can maintain intelligent and effective combat. We are not taught wrestling and guard defences and other basic ideas about ground combat until the "intermediate" levels of the art.

Personally, I view this as a shortcoming; I think there is a lot to be said for introducing ground-based combat to students looking to get to Orange Belt (like me). Timing defences against punches and kicks are great, but they don't really apply when sparring- just you try timing a defence against a straight kick in a sparring match, and tell me what happens. You'll most likely end up eating several punches. They are useful building blocks for other things, but they are in and of themselves not perhaps as useful as learning concepts about guard and mount and ground-and-pound.

If you're wondering whether you should take up a martial art, the answer is always going to be "hell yes". I'd recommend martial arts to anyone as a great way to get fit, strong, and toned. (Learning martial arts is also a great lesson in humility- there is no more effective way to learn how much you suck at something than having a blue belt beat the tar out of you in a sparring session.)

But the question of which martial art to study is really a question of "which tool is most effective for dealing with this specific problem?"

If your problem is "I want to get fit and strong and lean", then pretty much any art will do.

If your problem is "I want to compete against highly trained fighters in an amateur or professional setting", then MMA is the way to go.

If your problem is "I want to learn how to survive in a street brawl", well, there is only one answer- Krav Maga.

*I refer to KM as an "art" purely for brevity and convenience. It really isn't a martial art- it's mostly martial and very little art. There is very little that is really aesthetically artistic about kicking someone hard in the nuts, you know.

No sacrifice, no victory

It occurred to me the other day that many of the men that we admire or respect could, in many ways, be considered bat-s*** insane by "normal" standards.

Take powerlifters, for instance. Are powerlifters crazy? Is there something wrong with us because we want to lift weights at levels that most people would consider insane? Do we put ourselves through brutal, mind-breaking, body-shattering workouts because there is something wrong with us?

In my opinion, yes.

And I wouldn't have it any other way, because putting yourself through that kind of lunacy builds strength and character and willpower like nothing else can.

Men like me love the way it makes us feel to subject ourselves to the fire of that kind of crucible, because the results make all of the pain and suffering worthwhile. And make no mistake- there is pain. There is suffering. The older I get, the harder it is to recover from that pain- but I put myself through it anyway. That kind of masochism could, in theory, be considered a legitimate form of insanity.

Many young men who would otherwise consider becoming acolytes of the Iron God will enter the gym and find themselves confronted by the sight of a big burly bloke lifting absurdly heavy weights, grunting, sweating, walking around with a face that says "get in my way and I will wrap a barbell around your throat until I kill you to death", and generally acting like an enraged gorilla in the middle of a territorial display.

Finding this sort of thing to be overly intimidating, those men then abandon their quest for personal improvement and go to the machines- that was me about ten years ago. Or they stick to using the treadmills, exercise bikes, and rowing machines- also me, not that long ago. In the worst case, they get frightened off and leave the gym entirely, thus ensuring that they will never see gains, never experience serious muscle growth, and never achieve their goals. They do this because they are scared off by what it takes to be truly strong, and yet truly humble.

To those men, I can only present the perspective of a world-class powerlifter named George Leeman.

What George Leeman describes in the video above is the same range of emotions experienced by every man who has ever been bitten by the iron bug. Once you take up powerlifting, doing anything else makes almost no damn sense.

As he points out, every great lifter has some deep sense of dissatisfaction that drives him. There is a hidden source of motivation that defines such men, that makes them stay on a path that most would abandon because it is too hard and too painful. There is an elemental force, a burning rage that defies easy description, a hunger that forces such men to develop an iron will inside of themselves, to match the strength of the iron that they are lifting.

Once you dedicate yourself to the iron- and by this I mean that you show up, every single week, every single time, and give it your all even though you're tired and you're hurt and you want to be anywhere else- you will find a source of strength that you probably never even knew existed.

That is what the iron does to men. The Iron God accepts no excuses and scorns mental weakness. He respects only strength and courage in the face of adversity. He rewards the faithful with gifts of strength and willpower and humility that are the foundations upon which a man can build his life.

As Vox Day pointed out when he comprehensively destroyed John Scalzi's pretensions of superiority over his critics, the iron helps the weak learn to be strong- and it helps the strong learn to be humble.

And make no mistake- humility is very important in the gym. I am one of the strongest men at my gym, overall, but that is not a source of pride for me because I know that I'm not as strong as I could be. No one at my gym squats or deadlifts more than I do, that I know of- but there are several guys there who can bench more than I can*.

I will be the first to admit that my bench press sucks ass compared to my other lifts- I can deadlift more than twice what I can bench. I'm working on it, and it is improving, but I'm fighting against years of accumulated injuries in both shoulders and- let's face it- fear. A man who is not humble enough to recognise problems with his form and technique is condemned to repeat the same mistakes that keep him weak, even though he might seem very strong compared to others around him.

Of course, everything that I have written above applies equally to any other walk of life. Self-improvement has to come from within first, and it has to start with a deep dissatisfaction with some aspect of your life that can only be addressed through pain and sacrifice. There are no shortcuts to self-improvement.

It doesn't matter whether you want to deadlift 405lbs or become a millionaire or bang hard 10s within an hour of meeting them in a nightclub- you have to put in the work. And you have to be humble enough to recognise when you're failing, for whatever reason, to meet your goals; you have to take a step back, check what you're doing wrong, and start over if need be with a new approach and a new attitude. You have to be willing to fail, over and over again if need be, in order to chase success.

In today's world, this is exactly what most men don't want to hear- they want the easy way out. They want a pill or a supplement or a magic shortcut that will get them to where they want to be, without first putting in the work.

To such men, I can only make a series of rude and unfriendly gestures; I know what it is I want, and I am willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get it. So do the men that I admire and respect the most; they put in the hard work and grind through the pain and suffering that they must endure to reach their goals, and they are the best at what they do as a result.

Join me- join us- on that road. Or get the hell out of the way. Your choice.

*By this I mean guys who actually bench with a full range of motion- all the way down to the chest, without bouncing the bar, and back up again. I hate it when I see these bench bros who load a bar with 4 plates, unrack the bar, bend their arms maybe 30 degrees- with a spotter standing over them- and slam the bar back up while pretending that they've accomplished something worthwhile.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Always recharge the batteries

Shamelessly stolen borrowed from Carey's blog

Carey had a post from a while back (that is to say, more than a month ago- an eternity in Internetz time) on the need for introverts to be alone:
But there are days. Ah, yes. There are days. Days where I wish to retract into a shell permanently. Or I long to go back to a time when a man could find some peace and quiet easily and without the noise and bustle of this modern world. I wish for the ability to pick up stakes and move to a country where I may quickly become lost to the world at large and spend my time pondering. Pondering and experimenting. Tinkering with ideas and concepts without having to constantly explain that I am not at the moment grumpy, nor am I intending to be unfriendly, nor rude or shy or anything else that an introvert’s general demeanor can seem to be communicating to the average person. Like any other introverted person, I grow weary of the, “Are you ok?” questions. Most days, I just simply say, “Yes, I am fine.” But there are days. It is certain that no man is an island but an introvert like me could make fine, fine use of his own island. 
As I step back and look closer at this (what with it being “one of those days”) I can see plentiful causal factors. I work in Corporate America, now more akin to ‘Extrovert or Go Home’ territory... [W]hen an introvert has no autonomy—when he doesn’t actually have a place of his own, his own vehicle, etc.—then he feels dependent on others which means more interaction with others which means less energy left at the end of the day in his “people reserves” tank which he must refill often in order to thrive in this world... 
On days like today there remains only one feasible choice for an introvert in an extrovert world: push on through it anyway.
As Carey indicates, the fact is that introverts understand extroverts quite well. We understand that extroverts have a constant, pathological need for validation, companionship, and human contact. Without it, they lose their ability to function in society.

Extroverts, however, do not even remotely understand introverts. This is why dealing with them is such a colossal pain for us. We are forever being asked, "why do you seem so serious today?", or, "Are you OK? You seem tired.". My least favourite one is, "hey, I really need you to look into this- oh, sorry, were you doing something else? Well can you take a look anyway?"

This is tedious and tiresome for those of us who thrive on quiet and solitude. It is distracting, irritating, and ultimately quite uncomfortable; in fact it is normal for a deep introvert to simply "shut down" at the end of the day and become almost completely unresponsive to external stimuli if he is exposed to this for too long. Requiring an introvert to attend back-to-back meetings and conference calls is a surefire way to tire him out to the point where he becomes nearly catatonic for several hours.

As Carey says, this is the world we live in. We cannot change it unless we become self-sufficient and independent to the degree that we never need to work in corporate environments or deal with people on anything other than our own terms. Most deep introverts will not get to that point, for a variety of reasons- we like what is familiar and what is comfortable, after all. That does not mean that an introvert should ever ignore the warning signs.

I have to deal with an extroverted co-worker in my current job. I get along quite well with him. Like me, he is smart, technically gifted, experienced, and talented. Unlike me, he likes to talk about this, that, and the other- conversations that I cannot be bothered with because they are of exactly zero interest to anyone other than him. Because he likes to talk, I find my "social batteries" going flat after just five minutes of interaction. The problem is, I work in a technically challenging job that requires that my mind is sharp and my ideas are sound. I cannot do this if my mind is fatigued from the mere act of socialisation.

Whenever you find this happening to you, take immediate action to get away from the source of stress. Go for a walk. Make a cup of tea- for you Americans I suppose it would be coffee, or whatever hackneyed, paint-thinner substitute that you people call coffee. Step outside and enjoy a few minutes of bright sunshine. Whatever it takes, disengage, politely but firmly, and spend some time by yourself. If you do not do this, your ability to function as a human being will rapidly be destroyed.

This tendency that deep introverts have of being very susceptible to quick depletion of "social stamina", if you will, is probably what holds most of us back in most areas of our lives. Our basic and most profound desire is to be left alone. Therefore, we do very little to break out of our shells, to go to new places and experience new things. This flaw in our genetic programming, if it is indeed a flaw (I am not convinced it is), also tends to prevent us from taking full advantage of the dysfunctional nature of today's dating scene, where confident and independent men are doing better than ever, while weak and uncertain men are doing worse than ever.

None of this can serve as an excuse for inaction. If there is something in your life that is not as good as you think it could be, your only recourse is to put in the time and effort required to improve it. You cannot do this, however, if you ignore your basic nature as a deep introvert- if you do, you will fail.

So if your goals require that you engage more with other people, for whatever reason, then always set aside some time both before and afterwards to recover and regroup. My outlet is the gym and the kitchen, where I can do pretty much whatever I want and no one can bother me.

Find that outlet, and use it to recharge whenever necessary. It is critical to your health and well-being that you do so.

And this is how it's done

NOT the Halfbreed method.
There are several introverted bloggers that I follow and actively read- Vox, Carey from Speakeasy(X), Blackdragon, UncleBob, etc. Halfbreed's blog is more on the PUA/game side of things; while he doesn't post often, he writes well and articulates fundamental concepts about introverted game that are always worth reading in full.

His latest post is, in my opinion, of sufficient quality that every Google search for "introverted game" or any similar subject should come with an automatic redirect to his blog.

I can't quote any text from his blog- not sure what's going on there- but take my word for it, the post is solid. And no, he doesn't pay me any commissions for plugs- we've never met in real life.

Whether you've been in the game for a while or you're just getting started, there is always something to be learned from guys like Halfbreed and Blackdragon. Take a look at what they have to say, your life will be richer as a result.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

The fantasy finally ends

Via Ann Barnhardt and WND, a bit of news that will surely have the eeeeeevil selfish money-loving right-wing loonies (like yours truly) positively choking on schadenfreude:
“When I finally found her address, I knocked on her door and brought her a pair of ruby slippers. When I interviewed Peggy, I was astonished that Peggy explained that she was now anti-Obama. She told me, ‘He was not who we thought or expected him to be.’” 
As Gilbert interviewed Joseph for his documentary, he was surprised to learn her life was quite opposite of the welfare mother image she had given on television. 
He was shocked to learn she was a suburban soccer mom with four children, who earned her living as a hard-working nurse, the daughter of Haitian immigrants. 
Even more surprising, Joseph and her children, just like her Haitian immigrant parents, had no history of ever accepting any form of government assistance or taxpayer-funded handouts. 
“Truth and honesty are important,” Joseph explained to Gilbert in the film. “He lied about everything.” 
Joseph explained that after doing some research and listening more carefully to Obama, she realized he was a fraud, and “just like the Wizard of Oz, Obama has turned out to be nothing more than a man behind a curtain.” 
She explained that her comments to a reporter in 2008 were a result of being caught up in the emotion of an Obama campaign rally, and she didn’t think for herself. 
Gilbert told WND his experience with Joseph was repeated many times over as he filmed his new documentary. 
“In my journey through America in ‘There’s No Place Like Utopia,’ I met a lot of people living in horrible conditions, particularly African Americans, who I was surprised to learn were now staunch conservatives as a result of living in progressive-controlled cities like Detroit, Chicago and Newark,” Gilbert said. 
“After 60 years of progressive politics in their cities, they understood very clearly that they had not been progressing but rather regressing all this time, and they were mad. They felt they had been used and tricked by Obama for their votes and that he never intended to keep any of his promises, just like the Wizard of Oz.”
The "Peggy" being referred to in this article is one Peggy Joseph, the same (then) numbnut who was foolish enough to say this on camera:

Hoo, boy, was she ever wrong. Of course, she wasn't the only one.

Now look, I get it, Obama was cool and different and hip and people were really into him because he was a complete blank slate onto which they could project all of their most absurd and fantastical hopes and dreams. Even I wasn't entirely immune to the fact that the US of A had just elected its first ever (half-)black President in November 2008; I was willing to give him a bit of leeway and some time to prove whether he could actually do the job.

This is what I said about the man in an email to various friends and family on election night, as I watched the man give a victory speech from the bar of a hotel in Vancouver:
The story behind Sen. Obama is certainly compelling- though rather more importantly, as far as I'm concerned, Americans elected the human Democrat, instead of the fembot, which is a huge relief. Count me among the billions who feel delight and justifiable pride in Americans for electing a black man as their President. Such a selection surely vindicates my deep respect for and abiding faith in the decency, generosity, and humanity of the American spirit...
Sen. Obama also deserves great credit for having run an exceptional campaign. He has defeated the two most powerful political machines in the world- the Clinton monolith and the Republican party's attack. His campaign has been focused, fluid, organised, efficient, and highly motivated. This speaks very well indeed for his skill as a manager of people. [Didact: I was clearly ridiculously wrong there. Hey, I was nearly 7 years younger then.] He has motivated the young people of America in a way not seen in a generation or more... [Didact: Young people obviously being models of maturity and good judgement...]
Yet management is only one part of leadership. A great leader needs the "vision thing"- but more importantly, that vision needs to be the right one. Sen. Obama certainly has a vision for America, but I, like most libertarians, am deeply uncomfortable with the direction in which that vision will point America and the rest of the free world. While in university, he actively sought out the views of individuals with socialist and even Marxist ideals- and has yet to acknowledge that those ideals were a huge mistake. America is still the world's great power, still the great guardian of freedom, and still its last, best hope against tyranny and oppression. Whatever America's faults are- and they are numerous- this is a great country. [Didact: I believed it then. I believe it now. I will believe it to my dying day until and unless this country does something so colossally stupid as to betray that belief. Like, say, electing Hillary Clinton as President in 2016...]
Does Sen. Obama's vision of America incorporate this basic reality, this axiomatic truth? Does he, like Sen. McCain, feel this truth in his very bones? I honestly don't know- but I really doubt it. 
His legislative record is paper-thin- it has never once broken with the increasingly left-wing agenda of his party. His policy platform, based on his own statements, would be the most liberal/progressive agenda since FDR's in 1933.  Lest anyone still be under the delusion that FDR's ideas before 1942 were good ones, let us remember that the Depression started out as yet another collapse of a speculative bubble that resulted in a painful but manageable recession. That recession only became a Depression because of the utterly misguided policy applications of a coterie of academics and intellectuals who believed in the power of the government over the freedom of the individual (and because of a Federal Reserve that had no clue what it was doing). 
Worst of all, the Constitution, a document of astounding wisdom, possessing an eagle-eyed understanding of human nature and a foresight bordering on clairvoyance, came under the most sustained attack it has ever experienced since President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
I was highly sceptical of Obarmy's abilities even then, and yet I was willing to cut him a lot of slack simply because George W. Bush had made such a royal hash of so many aspects of his time as President. Even in my worst nightmares, I never thought President Jackass would turn out to be so bad.

In looking at the way that Obarmy manipulated people on the road to victory, twice, and the way that the people of this country insist on voting for the same set of stupid and terrible ideas every time they go to the polls, I am reminded, perhaps inevitably, of the words of Major Reid from (where else?) Starship Troopers:
Both for practical reasons and for mathematically verifiable moral reasons, authority and responsibility must be equal- else a balancing takes place as surely as current flows between points of unequal potential. To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy. The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority... other than through the tragic logic of history... No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted for the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead- and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple.
In 2008, voters were freed of their responsibility to the body politic in a way never seen before in American history. Instead of responsible citizens voting in a reasonably sober and clear-eyed manner in line with their literally unlimited sovereign authority- "the Power of the Rods and the Ax!"- they voted for a man who made them "feel good" about themselves, but who showed exactly zero inclination, ability, or talent for leadership.

You people voted for the impossible in 2008. Today you see the results of the disastrous possible instead. You voted for a man who is literally incompetent to execute his oath of office, and who has done everything he can at every turn to destroy your nation. And still some of you persist in believing the myths with which this idiot surrounds himself; still you persist in thinking that he is some sort of magical talisman that will ward off the harsh economic and political realities of our world; still you believe that liberty and freedom can be secured without toil, without tears, and without sacrifice.

You are fools to believe this, and as fools shall you be judged.

R.I.P. Church of England

I spotted this article earlier today and would have said something about it at the time, but I was at work, and of course Vox Day beat me to the punch. That still doesn't stop this idea of ordaining not just female pastors, but female bishops too, from being the stupidest act of self-immolation that a religious institution could possibly commit:
The Church of England finally voted yesterday to let women become bishops – to the anger of many traditionalists. [Didact: No doubt the Big Fella Upstairs is positively thrilled to bits at the idea that His Word is now being interpreted via representative democracy...] 
The move was passed by a comfortable majority at a tense gathering of its parliament, the General Synod, in York. 
It ended 14 years of hand-wringing and faction-fighting, delighting Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and almost all of his fellow bishops. 
The decision freed the Church from the risk of intervention by politicians. 
MPs had threatened to step in to force the Church to accept women bishops in 2012, after a disastrously botched vote saw traditionalists narrowly block reform
David Cameron described yesterday’s vote as ‘a great day for the Church and for equality’. Ed Miliband said it was ‘wonderful news’, while Nick Clegg called the decision a ‘long overdue step’. 
But some evangelical conservatives and Anglo-Catholics – a branch of the Church which affirms its Catholic heritage – were left divided and angry, having long argued that the Bible and tradition do not permit women to become bishops. One said he had ‘betrayed’ his supporters, while others accused Synod members of being too worried about outside reaction. 
Their comments provoked protests from Church liberals and left the Synod chairman, the Archbishop of York John Sentamu, calling for quiet, telling its members not to behave like rowdy MPs.
Oh but wait,  it gets worse:
Yesterday’s vote came nearly 20 months after the Church’s last attempt to approve a law allowing women bishops. The lost Synod vote in November 2012 left the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, humiliated and apparently with little hope of reviving the cause for several years. 
But a new compromise, which allows scope for traditionalists to challenge the appointment of a female bishop in their parish, was brought to the vote in record time. 
The plan is based on the hope of compromise between opposing liberals and conservatives. 
Archbishop Welby said CofE members must ‘continue to demonstrate love for those who disagree on theological grounds’. 
He added: ‘As delighted as I am for the outcome of this vote I am also mindful of those within the Church for whom the result will be difficult and a cause of sorrow.’ 
During the debate, Guildford traditionalist Adrian Vincent said he would reverse his position from 2012 and vote in favour. 
‘By doing so, I am betraying what I believe, I am betraying those who trusted in me,’ he said.
I am hardly a theologian. To call my knowledge of Scripture "spotty" is to be almost absurdly generous. Yet even I know something about the story about a chap named Judas Iscariot, who betrayed those that loved and trusted him, betrayed everything that was right and good, in the name of that which was simple and expedient.

There is a truly tragic irony involved here. The Church of England was created originally for political reasons, to allow Henry VIII to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon- an act that the Catholic Church in Rome flatly refused even to contemplate, for reasons both theological and markedly political. The reforms introduced by the Tudors resulted in a Church that seemed to be following a doctrine that made more "sense", that was "easier" to deal with, and that was more "flexible" than the rigid and absolutist traditions of the Catholic Church.

Yet, some 600 years later, we see the circle close, as what some would no doubt call a heretical sect that was created for political reasons, now faces imminent collapse due to political reasons.

The CoE has been losing members for decades, precisely because it has adopted the sort of woolly-headed, gentle, feel-good doctrinal nonsense that has afflicted so many "progressive" Protestant denominations for so long. Instead of interpreting the Scripture the way it was originally written- to uplift and enlighten Mankind, to provide hope and succour and faith in a world of darkness and evil, to guide Mankind to a better future in spite of Man's own failings- they interpret the Holy Word in ways that suit their agenda.

And in so doing, they become the very evil that they claim to fight.

The Tradition Established by Christ Himself 
Yet even if we disregard the differences between the sexes, as many advocates of women's ordination do, we have to face the fact that the ordination of men is an unbroken tradition that goes back not only to the Apostles but to Christ Himself. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para. 1577) states: 
"Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

Priesthood Not a Function But an Indelible Spiritual Character 
Still, the argument continues, some traditions are made to be broken. But again, that misunderstands the nature of the priesthood. Ordination does not simply give a man permission to perform the functions of a priest; it imparts to him an indelible (permanent) spiritual character that makes him a priest, and since Christ and His Apostles chose only men to be priests, only men can validly become priests. 
The Impossibility of Women's Ordination

In other words, it's not simply that the Catholic Church does not allow women to be ordained. If a validly ordained bishop were to perform the rite of the Sacrament of Holy Orders exactly, but the person supposedly being ordained were a woman rather than a man, the woman would no more be a priest at the end of the rite than she was before it began. The bishop's action in attempting the ordination of a woman would be both illicit (against the laws and regulations of the Church) and invalid (ineffective, and hence null and void).
It cannot be put more clearly than this. A woman can no more be a priest, or a bishop, than a tail can be called a leg. No matter how fondly the equalitarians might wish it, a female priesthood is nothing less than a fundamental betrayal of the Church and the Scripture of the Lord Christ. And that is precisely why any denomination that persists with this wretched folly will be destroyed- not through the wrath of the Lord, though it is thoroughly deserved at this point, but through its own stupidity and laxity and lack of faith in the very Lord that it claims to serve.

This folly is beyond stupid- it is a desecration.

It is now only a matter of time before the Anglican Church dies a long-overdue and thoroughly-deserved painful death- and despite all of the great good that it has done during its time, I, for one, will certainly not mourn its passing.