Just off a live interview on the Jeremy Vines show over here in the UK, and thought you might like to hear it.
There’s about a minute of show introductions, then a solid 7 minutes of discussion… with a Rabbi, no less!
Adding to the list of those seeking to cover this event are the Financial Times, Independant Sunday, Forbes, and BBC Radio 5.
What about you? We’ve added more training space but it’s nearly gone.
(And I’m assuming the Rabbi now joins the mayor of Slough and the chief of police in not attending.)
-Tim (checking in from London)
Excellent interview. Can't be much clearer than that. Hope it goes well over there.
Comment by David Wagner — September 25, 2009 @ 12:49 am
It is interesting that one of the critiques concerned the "wrong" sorts of people coming to the class to learn. Both those who would use the information for "evil" and those who aren't smart enough to know when it is appropriate fall into this group. But what about the other 95+% of people?
Their answer was "r-u-n, run". Throw your wallet one way and run the other because the person attempting to kill you either a) has the mentality of a terrier and will chase small, moving objects, or b) would rather just use the address you gave them to go to your home and kill you there.
They would also like you to be pro-active; don't go down dark alleys or go places that are dodgy. That's good advice from a tactical level, but not such a good thing from a strategic one. What they are saying is give up these types of areas, they belong to the "bad guys." If you go there, you are no different than a woman who wears a short skirt, you deserve what you get. The problem is, pretty soon you are going to run out of places to go. Because of this appeasement, you've surrendered your society.
This is happening where I live right now. A park where families used to go and play with their children just one year ago is now gang territory and people are being told to stay away because it is dangerous. The police can't do anything because they are too few, they can't be everywhere all the time, and they have other more "pressing" matters to attend to. So now that is one more place in my city that is off-limits. Pretty soon, those will out number the places I can go.
Comment by Gene — September 25, 2009 @ 1:40 am
I truly enjoyed the interview discussion. Well done!
Thanks Tim
Comment by Bill — September 25, 2009 @ 2:15 am
I truly enjoyed the interview. Well done!
Comment by Bill — September 25, 2009 @ 2:16 am
Great interveiw. Hope you get to northern Ca.Thank you for being real.
Leon From rancho cordova Ca.
Comment by leon — September 25, 2009 @ 2:49 am
Mr. Larkin, Your patience with these idiots was remarkable.
Comment by Daniel — September 25, 2009 @ 6:51 am
Tim, I think the weakest point in your opponent's argumentation was the assumption that learning how to injure another person makes you more inclined to pick fights with other people. That seems to be a common belief among people who haven't done any martial arts.
My experience is the exact opposite – the more I learn about fighting, the less I actually want to get involved in fighting. The less afraid of being attacked I get, the less inclined I am to act aggressively.
Comment by Jaaguar — September 25, 2009 @ 7:04 am
Given the massive media coverage there is going to be nationally (here in Britain) and internationally (because the Sunday Times, Financial Times etc have world readerships) of this London seminar, I think TFT had better get ready for a massive run on your DVDs and books, starting from when the Sunday papers come out this weekend.
I hope your distribution people back in the US are all stocked up and ready to work around the clock for some time to come, Tim!
Comment by Terry — September 25, 2009 @ 7:35 am
I thought it was very good advice from the rabbi. Run, use your brain not to get into trouble in the first place, look "aware" when you're in a public place. Also that it's OK to use violence to defend yourself.
Tim: The most important lesson I got from your book was the difference between asocial and anti-social violence. Whilst you mentioned it a few times in the interview, I think this concept wouldn't have come across clearly to people who hadn't heard these terms before.
The difference between asocial, anti-social and social violence is the key which justifies what you're teaching.
Sadly, Britain in particular seems rife with asocial violence which is why there is a need for anyone who cares about self-defence to learn what it's really all about.
Comment by Simon — September 25, 2009 @ 7:51 am
Great answers to some obvious questions from the doubters Tim. I would say to the good Rabbi and others like him " why the hell should I give the scum bag my hard earned cash " show the good people of slough how to deal with them Tim, only the decent will turn up to learn. good luck with the seminar and the media.
H.
England
Comment by Anonymous — September 25, 2009 @ 8:49 am
Tim, I hope you don't get the impression that all British people are as pathetic as Jeremy Vine and that Rabbi. There are a great many people over here who are well aware of the realities and the need for good self-defense training. The problem in Britain is that the 'authorities' (police, politicians etc), and the media, believe [and demand] that victims should simply cower meekly and take their beating like a really nice, soft, gentle person. Don't worry, after you're dead the police will bring those poor disadvantaged attackers to 'justice' and at least you'll get a nice obituary in the local rag – stating how 'nice' you were as you lay on the tarmac getting you're head kicked 'as though it were a football'. Well I, for one, don't accept that for either myself or my loved ones…
Neville.
Comment by Neville H. — September 25, 2009 @ 10:39 am
I heard this interview on the radio yesterday, and it put me onto your website which is very interesting.
However, I do think the title of Tim Vs the Rabbi is a bit missleading. The rabbi seemed to more or less agree that self defence was important and there are situations where violence is called for to protect ones self, however, there was some divergence on how much force is called for.
Regardless, it was a fascinating peice and im enjoying reading around your website.
bd
Comment by Ben — September 25, 2009 @ 11:34 am
What a gift of publicity your detractors are giving you! Nothing like having your critics drive people to your business.
Comment by Phyllis Mar — September 25, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
Hi Tim!
It amazes me how people fail to consider the totality of an issue and give their 'all' in trying to understand it before rendering their final judgement. The 'issue' in this case being the nature of your training. You couldn't possibly make it any clearer … on your website, in your printed material, instructional videos and even in your live training … that YOU DO NOT ADVOCATE THE WANTON USE OF VIOLENCE, that VIOLENCE IS NOT ALWAYS THE ANSWER, but that when it is, IT'S THE ONLY ANSWER.
You go out of your way to emphasize, again and again, that you don't try to tell people specifically what to do in any given situation but rather try to educate them on the realities of, and the differences between, anti-social versus asocial violence in order to give them a choice.
When you brought up the story of the barrister who was killed after 'doing what he was supposed to do' by giving up his wallet, etc., you were then asked if you suggested people should apply your training at the first sign of a knife. Your answer was right on … "I'm not suggesting people do anything. The choice is theirs". Now, my personal choice in such a scenario would be NOT to wait to find out if the attacker is weilding the knife as an anti-social violence type of posturing … I choose to act on the assumption he intends to use it and I will wreck him before he does. But YOU didn't train that choice into me … that is MY choice. What your training did was to give me tools to use to better execute my choice.
Someone else, in that same scenario, might choose to first do the 'run one way, throw the wallet another' thing. And if the attacker continues pursuit rather than go after the wallet, only then apply your training methods. Again, it's a matter of choice.
I think most of the people who are in opposition to you and your TFT Training methods … if they aren't truly just idiots … simply do not understand what your training is. Therefore they also do not understand violence at all. It's easy to take the high moral ground without a sociopath's gun or knife pointing at you, or never having experienced that kind of terror.
I love what you're trying to do to educate people … good luck in Britain!
John Leo
Comment by John Leo — September 25, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
HEY TIM,
SOUNDS LIKE THE RABBI WAS JUST ONE MORE 'ELITIST' WHO DOESN'T THINK THE LOWLY 'HOI POLOI' ARE CAPABLE OF MAKING PROPER DECISIONS REGARDING THEIR OWN SAFETY AND WELL BEING. HE WOULD BE WISE TO REVISIT THE JEWISH "TALMUD" WHICH STATES:
(I paraphrase)"WHEN YOU LEARN THAT YOUR ENEMY IS COMING TO KILL YOU, RISE UP QUICKLY AND KILL HIM FIRST"
WONDER HOW A RABBI WORTH HIS SALT COULD MISS THAT…DON'T YA THINK ?..AND AS GENE SAID ..YOU WOULD BE GIVING THEM YOUR ADDRESS, PHONE # AND POSSIBLY THE ADDRESSES AND PHONE #'S OF FRIENDS AND FAMILY..YEAH, THAT'LL WORK…WHEN I GAVE CLASSES ON 'STREET' SAFETY I ADVISED PEOPLE TO CARRY A 'FLASH ROLL' OF ABOUT 15 SINGLES WITH A $5 OR $10BILL ON TOP CLIPPED TOGETHER AND A CHEAP PIECE OF JEWELRY TO TOSS AWAY AS YOU RUN. THERE IS A CHANCE THE SLUG WILL SLOW DOWN AT LEAST TO PICK IT UP AND GIVE YOU MORE OF A LEAD AND MAY JUST BE ENOUGH MONEY FOR HIS NARCO "FIX" AND HE MAY JUST TAKE IT AND LEAVE YOU ALONE…BUT IF THAT DOESN'T WORK AND YOU'RE UNARMED…THEN TFT IS GOING TO BE THE ONLY ANSWER !!! TAKE CARE, ALL THE BEST IN YOUR TRAVELS…RAY
Comment by Ray — September 25, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
Tim,
Excellent interview. I am a firm believer that violence is never the answer until it is the only answer and then it is not time to play nice — it is time to hurt or be hurt and if necessary to kill. People need to wake up to all the terrorists and how they think and the everyday thug. These individuals use fear to "FREEZE" the victim and they are the first ones to run and cry when someone stands up to them a lesson. The rabbi should know that it is better to give than receive — the same goes for violence when it is the only answer.
Tim E
Dayton, OH
Comment by Tim E — September 25, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Once again, Tim rises above mere argument and speaks the truth about the use of violence as a tool. Well done.
Comment by tomolo — September 25, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
I always pose this question to people who oppose self-defense:
-If you walk into the livinign room and see your neighbor raping your young daughter, and she is screaming in pain to you to help her, would you TALK to her rapist or would you STOP him from injuring her?
I am secure in my decision remove his capacity to continue to harm her.
And I am grateful to Tim Larkin for teaching the methods to do that efficiently.
Comment by Rick Carter — September 25, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Good interview. It is difficult to convince people who have never encountered criminal violence. I rather like Chris' question: "if they came to murder your mother…?" Substitute mother, for sister, brother, wife, son, daughter, friend, and of course, you–it would be the same answer. "Yes!"
Ray: excellent Talmud quote!
Comment by Anonymous — September 26, 2009 @ 12:04 am
While you were there in England trying to justify self defense, our President and his staff are in New York working to strip all Americans of their right to bear arms for self defense. Our citizens are every day becoming more like the British.
Comment by Anonymous — September 26, 2009 @ 12:26 am
What other reaction would you expect from a country that disarms its populace and opens it's doors to terrorists. THe whole country had bent over and grabbed it's ankles. Now it is time for the people to start taking back control one person at a time. Hooray for Tim for going over there to give them a taste of what personal freedom and responsibility for one's life is about. One cannot be a free person if you are afraid to walk down your streets. Run and throw your wallet – jeeze, what an idiot.
Comment by Lisa — September 26, 2009 @ 1:04 am
Media always want to capitalize on dramatic things that will scare people. Conflicts that involve an "unbeatable" bad guy seems to be their all time favourite.
I have encountered this kind of debate many times before, and it is difficult to not become frustrated with people who do not want to get it!
For example, I have been told by many women (feminists or not) how completely helpless they are in the hands of a violent rapist. After all, they are so much smaller and weaker than him so how could they possibly defend themselves, is the most common reasoning.
When I then try to explain and show that no one – no matter how big or evil – is immune to violence I most often get the one response: "But you're not allowed to do that!"
(sigh!)
People of Britain and everywhere else – this isn't in any way difficult to understand!
If you can run away or avoid violence in the first place, YES – do that! It should also be a given that you, as a respected member of society, don't prowl the streets looking for a fight.
But when someone is trying to murder you, by all means DO whatever you can in order to survive. And Tim Larkin can show you that such action is not complicated or difficult to understand either.
Takeaway for those who still don't get it: I have always known that I can hit someone over the head with a heavy stone if I want to, and that this will severely hurt them. Without any formal training I have known this since I was a little child. Yet, that knowledge has in no way turned me into a danger to society in general.
I bet that goes for most of these British reporters as well.
Comment by Mike Hawkins — September 26, 2009 @ 8:54 am
Hi Tim
Glad to see that everyone is coming to your support here.
None of "opposition" mention the situation that maybe due to age, ill health or an injury (prior or already inflicted by the assailant) you can't run. What do they want you to do ? Resign to a kicking ( so common these days) or worse? From my experience with learning TFT I can only endorse the words of Jaaguar
Jaaguar said…
Tim, I think the weakest point in your opponent's argumentation was the assumption that learning how to injure another person makes you more inclined to pick fights with other people. That seems to be a common belief among people who haven't done any martial arts.
My experience is the exact opposite – the more I learn about fighting, the less I actually want to get involved in fighting. The less afraid of being attacked I get, the less inclined I am to act aggressively.
However if the proverbial hits the fan you give yourself a good chance of being able to save your life and possibly that of family and/or friends and not letting our community to be steadily taken over by a minority that do not respect the rules of that community.
Congratulations on the grace with which you handled yourself.
Hope the class goes great tomorrow and the attendees get as much out of it as I did last yeat. Look forward to seeing you in Sydney this December.
Ian W
Comment by Anonymous — September 26, 2009 @ 8:58 am
Excellent interview with Jeremy Vine. You could not have made it any clearer that you and your organisation do not advocate or encourage violence. However when the chips are down and it becomes a situation of your life, either being crippled for life or your death, violence from you may be the only option. To paraphrase the other writers, what world are these do-gooders living in, they have to wake up and smell the roses sometime, or the bad guys really will win in the end. Too many sections of our towns and cities are already no-go areas for fear of these feral crimminals.
Keep up the good work Tim and I will try to make your next training session in the UK.
regards J
Comment by Anonymous — September 26, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
I agree with Daniel … Tim's patience was amazing. My wife who heard the interview with me said Tim should not even bother sharing his knowledge with those ungrateful people. Let them become prey and weak. It seems to my wife that Tim is doing social work because he's still willing to teach despite all the negativity and rejection; Tim should charge double/triple to those Brits.
Comment by Alex — September 26, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
Great work Tim. You responded to the interview very well. TFT is the only real training anyone really needs to give themselves an advantage in a lethal, asocial encounter. Please continue to teach and train the honorable!
JRMD
Comment by holmesmd — September 26, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
Hello Tim and Team,
There is a considerable parrellel between the UK interview and a portion of an interview that I saw yesterday between Charlie Rose and Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding peace and what perspectives the PM considered to be necessary to maintain the peace.
Thanks for the training,
Take Care
Comment by Anonymous — September 26, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
Also that it's OK to use violence to defend yourself.
I don't think one can say it is okay to use violence and then reject actual training, like TFT's, on how to use it. That's very dangerous. The people who are most likely to get into such unavoidable situations are the people who don't know anything about how the human body dies. So they have a bar fight outside on the concrete, a punch is thrown, the other guy loses his balance, falls over, hits the concrete with his egg and his head cracks open like an egg.
Oops.
The rabbi seemed to more or less agree that self defence was important and there are situations where violence is called for to protect ones self, however, there was some divergence on how much force is called for.
Given the Rabbi's thoughts on Tim Larkin's training, the Rabbi would also be against something like the 2nd Amendment. There's your 'right to self-defense' there, abridged according to the whims of the elite, the safe and the powerful. That's not a really good solution for those at the bottom with no one to back them up, no one except Tim Larkin there.
As always, good work Mr. Larkin and the TFT group.
The only person that will be interested in saving your life will be you and your immediate loved ones in the general vicinity. The politicians won't care. The reporters won't know. The police won't care, and may not care even if they knew about it. The politicians certainly wouldn't care if they knew you were in trouble.
So what's left. Who are you going to go for help? Self-sufficiency says to rely upon yourself, to teach people how to take care of themselves, in order to break the shackles of slavery, dependence, and fear.
So, you'll throw away your wallet. It's not worth your life, right? So what is worth your life. Half your income? Certainly not, the British government takes that much in NHS taxes and other 'services'. What about 75% of your income, is that worth your life? Well, if 50% wasn't worth your life, what's 25% more? In the end, I hope you see where this logic goes. You'll be owned, like a slave, by those more powerful than you. Your life, they will preserve, and that should make you happy, yes.
It wouldn't make me happy, however. Not even close.
The American history of pioneers, military volunteers, and the Code Duello always prided itself on self-sufficiency and independence. You take care of your own, and your right to your property and your life extends only so far as you can protect it with your arms. That's reality. Not the promises of security from the British government, any government, or even the police department.
Teaching people with the most interest in saving themselves is the right way to do it. Relying upon the government, the police, or even the mercy of the criminal, is not a winning solution. But it wasn't designed to be. It was designed to be 'sensitive', multiculturally correct. If you and your family must be sacrificed for the Greater Good of British sensitivty and political correctness, then I suppose sacrifices must be made, yes.
Comment by Ymarsakar — September 28, 2009 @ 2:07 am
No matter how many times I hear it, I'm always amazed that people need to have their 'minds changed' to permit them to inflict violence. Seems unnatural.
When I'm engaged with someone trying to do me harm, my natural instinct it to want to hurt them. To destroy them. I've always assumed this was natural and instinctual. Programmed into us eons ago. Fight or flight. It's not rocket science.
Then I hear people like these gentlemen and I say to myself, what planet did you come from? What species are you?
Tim, thank you for distilling the information and packaging it in a way that's easy to digest. You and yours are a righteous group.
Comment by RC — September 28, 2009 @ 5:49 pm