Archive for July, 2019

Sunday, July 21st, 2019

                   We’re Missing Something Today

IN a very real sense we long for at least some aspects of the “good old days”.

It seems that our culture and that of others whose roots may be said to be in the tradition of Western Civilization, have become genuinely wimpified. America, for instance, used to have a War Department. Now it is the “Department of Defense”. Cold blooded murderers, once convicted in a court of law, were once executed. Now, with rare exceptions, they are given the sentence(?) of three life sentences, for instance ––– to be served concurrently, of course. This weak attempt to placate fools by appearing to punich human demons severely ––– but not punishing them adequately, at all ––– passes for “justice” today.

And this bullshit can be felt in the field of self-defense, too.

A hue and cry can always be heard whenever a law enforcement officer justifiably shoots a violent felon. The Officer shouldn’t have killed him! But when a felon shoots a police officer, the killer’s apologists come out from under their rocks and snivel in protest against condemning and severely prosecuting the bastard. We all should wring our hands and “understand” that this murdering scumbag was “deprived” or for some other specious “reason” he was driven to his act of desperation.

Violent felons get all the guns and knives they want ––– and they are using them as freely as they wish in virtually every once-civilized city in Western society ––– and they are not shot down immediately as they should be (by cops and citizens, alike), but instead continue their unconscionable careers until finally someone (thank God!) brings their activities ––– and them ––– to an end. Decent citizens are often either prevented by law from carrying and using guns in legitimate (and desperately necessary) self-protection, or so persecuted by the system when and if they do use lawfully owned and carried firearms, that they, the decent citizens, feel inhibited and reluctant to defend themselves justifiably.

Self-defense without weapons (unarmed combat) is the most desperate and primitive form of self-defense. The private citizen who finds himself confronting one or more sewer beasts with only the weapons given him by nature to rely upon for defense, is in deep trouble ––– even if an expert in combatives. First, because his attackers almost certainly will be armed, and second, because he might face civil if not criminal persecution if he handles the predicament well. (Our sick, backward, brainless, gender-confused, pussified, dopey populace bristles whenever a bad guy gets his worthless head beaten in, or is otherwise maimed or even killed by his intended victim. The damn morons feel more “pure” and “righteous” when they hold a candlelight vigil for an innocent victim of murder!

Crazy, crazy, crazy.

Our societal focus is wrong. Sensible individuals know this, and they prepare and decide to do what is necessary regardless of the prevailing idiotic sentiments, but there are fewer and fewer sensible individuals in our culture with every year that passes. And it is wrong that their fear of trouble from “the system” is added to their concern about protecting against human violation.

Car thievery is a virtual sport in many places. Why? Because our idiotic system turns its back on the long since proven solution to the theft of a person’s means of transportation. That solution was formulated and carried out in the Old West. Horse thieves were hanged! No, this didn’t eliminate horse thievery completely. However, it came very close. It discouraged all but the most antisocial and crazy from daring to steal a man’s means of transportation (which in many instances was, as it is now, his means of survival and earning a living). It also eliminated the problem of recidivism. Horse thieves, murderers, bank robbers, and assorted other egregious felons had their careers ended when they were caught the first time. The scum swung from a rope . . . and his last violent crime was HIS LAST! (In Seattle one must be convicted of seven automobile thefts before doing a day in jail!!!!!!!! Maybe that first theft could not have been prevented. But the subsequent six certainly could have been. Rope is real cheap. No electric bill. No gas bill. No bill for pharmaceuticals. Those cowboys knew something!)

Our belief is that every decent human being has a perfect right to self-defense. And our System, American Combato (Jen•Do•Tao) is designed and intended to teach him how to exercise that right.

Whie some regard a harsh approach to dealing with unprovoked criminal violence as “cruel”, “antiquated”, or “unjustified”, we believe that only those with rocks in their heads could possibly believe this, and we enjoin all of those with anything above a room temperature IQ to think this matter through, and come to the realization that violent offenders have no right to exist among us, and there can be no reaction to attempted murderer’s approach that is “too severe”. Children should be encouraged to despise and to physically defend themselves against bullies in school, and adults should acquire the backbone and intestinal fortitude of our grandfathers and great grandfathers! Every man and every woman, to whatever extent is possible, should acquire the means of mental and physical preparedness for self-defense and for the protection of those whom they love.

Correct muddled thinking. It is the victim who deserves compassion, sympathy, help, and support. The violent offender deserves to walk into a buzzsaw, fiiguratively speaking, whenever he dares to endanger an innocent individual. From the schoolyard bully to the well-trained international terrorist, the answer is one that, as a culture and declining society, we have been avoiding to an increasing degree for decades now: DO NOT TOLERATE VIOLATION OR THREATS, BUT BUILD CONFIDENCE AND SKILL, AND LEARN TO REWARD ANYONE WHO WOULD INJURE YOU WITH FIFTY TIMES THE HORROR AND DESTRUCTION THAT HE WOULD BRING TO YOU.

You have a right to life, and you have a corollary right to defend that life; and we would add, to do so in whatever effective manner you can apply, and that you choose to employ.

What we are missing today is the conviction that the person who violates our rights has no damn right to any concern for his rights. He relinquished his rights when he chose to violate another’s. The onus of responsibility for whatever damages any violent felon suffers  ––– whether at the hands of a private citizen, or at the hands of a police officer ––– lies with the felon.

This attitude is foundational for all who wish to be solidly prepared to defend themselves. If you don’t have it, make it your business to rethink your philosophy and acquire it.


Friday, July 19th, 2019

   Mindless Aphorisms That Are Blindly Accepted As “Truths”

IN the world of armed and unarmed martial arts we often hear statements that have been elevated to the level of “truths” simply because some celebrity in the field has mouthed or written them. We thought it would be fun to list and debunk some of this bullshit (and doubtless piss off a good number of morons who are true believers in the asininity!).

In The Unarmed Combat Sector

“The most important thing is, don’t get hit.” 

This is an approximation of something that was written years ago by a man who was certainly a legitimate and formidable karate exponent: the late Joe Lewis. Mr. Lewis was a powerful, fast, marvelously skilled karate man . . . but when he commented about not getting hit he said something very foolish, in our opinion.

The most important thing is WIN. Defeat the enemy/opponent, and prevail!

Once a person shifts his focus and tactical conduct on “not getting hit” he becomes defensive and preoccupied with preventing the enemy from hurting him. In combat it is virtually inevitable that the defender will get hit (or worse!). What is most important is that, when the encounter is over, the defender walks away in one piece, and the attacker cannot.

“Karate begins and ends with blocking.”

While this is certainly is true statement, speaking of the classical/traditional karate styles, it enjoins the karateka to adopt the exact opposite attitude and tactical response capacity that actual close combat has proven he really needs in order to stand the greatest chance of defeating his enemy: i.e. attacking relentlessly, and if possible launching his own attack ––– the “preemptive strike” ––– and following up relentlessly with offensive combat actions until his assailant is helpless.

“In karate never make the first move.”

A noble thought, perhaps, but tactical suicide. The truth is that a defender, upon realizing that he is is in imminent danger should make the first move, and follow that up with a vicious barrage until he has thoroughly vanquished his enemy.

In instances when he is taken off-guard, by surprise, he must strive mightily to turn the situation around so that he is carrying the offensive against his enemy.

“It is important to measure the degree of force you use in self-defense, and escalate to more serious actions only when the lesser techniques fail.”

Hogwash! There is no possible way to read the mind and assess the capabilities of a violent offender. Your reaction to an unprovoked (let’s face it, potentially deadly) attack must be ferocious, explosive, maximally destructive violence. Never give a violent offender a break! Waste no time trying to “measure” what you do when someone or some group of someones decides to beat your head in! Go get ‘em! Turn the tables and attack your attacker! Use techniques that speedily and reliably injure. “Pain compliance”, control, and “lesser measures” may be suitable for police officers who are sometimes obliged to restrain a non-dangerous, apparently non-violent misdemeaner suspect. For self-defense this approach is bullshit! 

“Size and strength are unimportant if you are sufficiently skilled.”

Not so. Strength and size are always significant ––– although it is true that they are not always or necessarily the decisive factors ina combative engagement. However, all other things being equal, the stronger and larger man will win every time. Intelligent training enjoins students to build themselves up in strength to their genetic potential, and back up the skills that they employ with as powerful a body as they are able to develop.

“All fights inevitably go to the ground.”

True of judo contests and of wrestling matches (and of the kind of sporting contests introduced as being some kind of “ultimate” event. The absolute myth that ground fighting is “inevitable” (let alone, desirable!) in real close combat is bullshit that a gullible martial arts public swallowed hook, line, and sinker! It was introduced by very clever people whose expertise in contest judo ––– emphasizing ne-waza ––– was outstanding. But for combat and self-defense one stays on one’s feet,and, should the exceptional happen and one ends up on the ground, one does not grapple as one might in a judo or wrestling contest. One uses other actions, and one gets to one’s feet.

“Classical, ancient weapons are every bit as formidable in 2019 as they were hundreds or thousands of years ago.”

The truth is that firearms, and modern edged and bludgeoning weapons are what the modern student of self-defense needs.      If you believe the myth about swords, nunchucks, sai, tonfa, throwing stars, and a few dozen other “ancient weapons” being suitable for today’s personal and home defense, you’re hopeless. 

In The Armed Combat Sector

“It is wise to insure that you have a ‘court-proof’ gun.”

What matters in any situation when a firearm is utilized in self-defense is two-fold: 1. Was the shooter in lawful possession of the firearm that was employed? and 2. Was the weapon employed justifiably, according to the law?

The only people who truly advocate and believe in the nonsense of a “court-proof gun” are the adult children who read that comic book fare known as “gun magazines”.

“The ‘new technique’ permits a man to use a handgun like it was a rifle.”

Oh, really? Then how come in that L.A. shootout where those two freaks in body armor attempted to escape after robbing a bank, the police (whose actions were nothing short of heroic) couldn’t achieve anything with their handguns? They had all been trained in the “new technique”. It was only after they acquired AR-15s from a local sporting goods store that they were finally able to drop the heavily armored bank robbers.

This bullshit about using a pistol “like it was a rifle” comes from the competition circuit. Sure . . . when you are shooting cardboard cutouts a hit with a .45ACP round at 25 meters is the equialent of a hit with a .308 NATO round. Both bullets hit and penetrate the cardboard target. But body armor is a factor, and range is, too. Handgun rounds will travel a great deal farther than they will reliably drop a man who is hit with them. This is a fact! So forget the idiot myth.

“Revolvers are becoming obsolete.”

In law enforcement circles, there is an element of truth to this statement. However . . . many law enforcement officers elect to carry a second gun, and that is most often a small .38 Special snubby! And, as far as the private sector is concerned, the revolver is alive, well, and going very strong. Quality revolvers are powerful, reliable, simple weapons that will likely continue to serve for many generations to come. They will perhaps be obsolete when the autopistol becomes obsolete, and rayguns replace cartridge-firing weaponry.

“A large magazine capacity is good if you plan to miss a lot.”

Oh, gee . . . what a clever (and stupid) comment!

A large magazine capacity provides an advantage that some individuals feel they need ––– or simply want. It’s not that they plan to “miss a lot” (ha, ha . . . very funny), it’s that they want to have more rounds available before needing to reload. With very little imagination we can see how law enforcement officers and military people most notably might want this.

Personally, we’re fine with the standard Colt .45 and seven round magazines. But that is us, not the enitre world of shooters. And we respect the judgment of those who wish to carry higher capacity arms. In fact, you might, yourself.

“Speed’s fine but accuracy’s final.”

If in fact those who emphasized great speed (like Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate, and others who have been and done more times than most “avid shooters” have gone to the range) were unconcerned about hitting the enemy, but only cared about speed, this pointless statement would then make sense. But they don’t, and it doesn’t.

Speed is crucial in reacting to lethal danger with one’s sidearm, or other firearm. This doesn’t mean, and it is a strawman objection to imply that it does mean, that accuracy is insignificant.

This bullshit seems to have become a popular bromide amongst the deluded who believe that a handgun’s sights must always be employed, and that point shooting (which is deadly accurate and much faster) pays no attention to accurate shot placement.

Here’s a final thought (for those who think): In the real world (as opposed to match shooting events) it is important to get rounds firing in the enemy’s direction ASAP. In the military this has long been advocated, and is known as “fire superiority”. Now it is certainly true that cardboard cutouts are not disoriented or shaken by being shot at; but humans are. And a video appearing on You Tube shows a marvelous example of how this works. A little Asian woman literally routs a collection of living sh–t who ––– also armed with guns ––– have broken into her home. Most of the rounds she fired missed , , , but nonetheless caused to scum to flee. Happily she did hit one or two of the garbage heaps! 

And ––– back to the L.A. shootout. It was the barrage of handgun fire that kept the bank robbers from escaping. The .223 rounds from the AR-15 dropped them . . . but they would have escaped if the rapid fire auperiority of the officers had not held them in check.

“Unless a man is a good recreational shooter he will not become a good combat marksman.”

Horsesh–t. And this was proven to be horsesh–t in Shanghai, when Fairbairn trained the officers in point shooting, and later on, in WWII, when Fairbairn, Applegate, Sykes, and O’Neill trained soldiers, marines, FBI agents, and secret operatives of the SOE and OSS in point shooting. Few of these people were “recreational shooters”. Many (especially in SOE and OSS) didn’t care much personally for guns, at all. Yet all who were trained in point shooting retained their skills and were combat-competent, as their documented experiences proved. 

“Combat shooting is a perishable skill.”

No . . . the “modern” or “new” technique of the pistol is a perishable skill! As noted, those trained in point shooting (i.e. real combat shooting) retained their skill with no retraining required. 

“The pressure and stress of competition shooting can be greater than the pressure and stress of actual combat.”

Perhaps . . . for a deluded, improperly trained fool who equates shooting for fun with shooting for keeps.

Mental conditioning for combat bears no relation to mental preparation for competition. There is no correlation between shooting at a range and shooting at a man who is also armed, and whose intention is to kill you. Period.

“Point shooting has been surpassed by the ‘new technique’ of match shooting.” (Note: Alternatively: “Point shooting is a fraud.”)

Absolute, utter, complete, fabricated, arrant BULLSHIT.

Anyone who believes this should make a serious study of the use of firearms in self-defense.

Point shooting literally grew out of nothing but actual combat experience with firearms. Ot was validated 100% by reality.

The so-called “new technique” grew out of nothing but competition/recreational/sport shooing experience. When and where put to the test in the real world, it proved not to be a desirable shooting method!

“Knife fighting training demands knife vs. knife fight training.”

The hell it does!

Knifework is not dueling. Certainly having a mock “knife fight” with rubber knives can be fun, but it does not correlate with using a knife in combat. Knifework is a military skill. It is useful for self-defense, but it is not cultivated by one-on-one bouts with fellow knife-wielders!

If we have a knife we will attack an enemy and kill him. We will not wait and enjoin him to draw his knofe so that we can knife fight. And, we understand that no knife-wielding enemy is going to wait for us to draw our knife so that an equal contest can be had.

One of our teachers, the late Rex Applegate, once told us in a telephone conversation that in all of WWII he is not aware of a single knife vs. knife encounter!

“The ultimate stick form of self-defense is escrima or kali.”

No it isn’t.

First of all, these individuals train in competitive bouts. Nonsense and unrealistic, as is knife dueling. Second, they use rattan sticks ––– greatly inferior to the hardwoods we have in the West (i.e. hickory, cocobolo, ash, ironwood). Third, these arts use double stick methods. Who the hell is going to have two sticks in his hand to employ in self-defense? 

A walking stick (private citizen) or a hardwood baton (police officer) is the way to go. Practice the Filipino arts if you enjoy them, but do not look to them for practical stick methods.

Another flaw in the Filipino arts is complexity and formality ––– bugaboos that dilute karate, ju-jutsu, “kung fu”, hapkido, and so on.

The private citizen should also become familiar with the yawara hand stick ––– used to strike, not to apply pressure to pressure-points.

Doubtless we have irritated a number of individuals, although it has not been our intention to do so. We simply wish to present the facts ––– in this case case by exploding some popularly held myths, that unfortuately have become unquestioned mantras for an awful lot of people.

Here’s the truth. Take it or leave it.