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.

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.

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

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

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.