On Mr. Jake Mace — Kung Fu and Tai Chi Master, and Idiot

Anybody out there ever hear of a Mr. Jake Mace, of Phoenix Longevity Arts?

I recently ran across his YouTube channel, and as a practitioner of martial arts I found myself enjoying his take on techniques I know (usually by a different name) and learning a few new things, too.

Unfortunately, he has an "opinion about guns", too.

No, he's not strictly "anti-gun", per se. He's... well...

I'll just let him say it:


My attempt at a transcript (bold emphasis in original)*:

Hey, everybody, it's Jake Mace, with JakeMace.com.

During meditation, my unconscious mind and the universe send me thoughts sometimes, and I wanted to share with you guys one of these thoughts today.

I live in the U.S.A. and a lot of people around me — friends, and family members — they own guns, and they use guns. A lot of them have guns, but they don't use guns; they just feel safe having a gun in the house protecting them — "protecting them".

And the way that I've always thought about guns, comes from the path of a martial artist, Chinese kung fu and tai chi guy, who thinks about guns like he thinks about any other weapon in the martial arts.

And so when I have brand new students join my program, they first learn empty-hand skills, of some grappling and some striking, some fitness, conditioning, breathing, meditation, and stance work.

And then once they have that down they go on to the bo staff. The bo staff is the first weapon that they learn how to use, and you guys have been getting our bo staff DVD and bo staff from JakeMace.com.

Once they learn the bo staff they go on to many other weapons in a proper order: nunchucks, short stick, then they go on to the broad sword, sometimes they go on to daggers, chain whip, and the highest state of weapon is the straight sword, called the jian. The Chinese martial artist values the straight sword as the elite of the elite in terms of weapons.

And in my opinion the reason why this is is because back in ancient China, of all the modern-day weapons that were available to the ancient warrior, the straight sword was the most advanced form of weaponry of the time.

I've been to the Bing Ma Yong, the Terracotta Warriors in Xi'an, China, and you can see that China was the first ones to bronze and chrome out their weapons, so that when they would go against an opposing army it was no contest! The chromed out steel weapon or bronze weapon is infinitely stronger and more modern, and therefore better at killing, than a futile weapon of the other countries at that time.

But China has a tumultuous past, and many of those ancient warriors died out through the ages, through the millennia. And so in today's world, guns and bombs are the most advanced form of human weaponry.

And so it blows my mind when a lot of human beings, especially in my social circle in America here, have guns, because guns should be valued as a weapon that is more advanced than even straight sword. And so I feel that if you're going to own a gun, and use a gun in life, you should have to earn your keep by learning bo staff, nunchucks, stick, dagger, broad sword, chain whip, sai, etc., etc., on up the chain, and prove your worth to get to the gun level.

And the reason why this is important is because when you are able to buy the most elite weapon just because you give somebody money, and you now own a killing tool right in front of you, you don't have any of the discipline, and the focus, and the training, that goes behind the responsibility of owning a killing tool of that magnitude.

So I'm curious right now, what do you guys think? In the comments down below, tell me your thoughts. Do you think that anybody should be able to get a gun, the "most modern form of killing" in today's age? Or should a gun owner have to prove themselves with horse stance, empty-hand fighting, grappling, stick fighting, bo staff fighting, chain whip, dagger, and on up the chain, and then, when they're a 5th Black Master of whatever style that they're studying, they have a ceremony, bow to the teacher, and the teacher presents them a certificate of mastery, with a gun on top. Because now you have the focus, training, determination, and responsibility that goes behind owning the gun.

Because if you guys are like me, the more skillful the martial artist that you meet, the better the fighter that you meet, the martial artist with more deadliness in their hands and more training in their experience, is usually the most responsible with that training possible.

I can't tell you how many gun owners are so proud of their guns, they want to show them off to all their friends all the time. Well, I'll tell you what: a martial arts master doesn't go into their friend's situation, into a social situation, and show of all their punches and kicks and throws and grappling, OK? They're humble about it, and they keep their killing abilities safe and humble on the inside. I think gun owners should do the same thing.

So tell me in the comments down below what you guys think. I really want to know what you guys think. Hit 'Like', subscribe to my channel, and get yourself the training, because as martial artists, we have to prove ourselves on up the chain, from empty-hand, weapon, to ultimate killing tool, because if we don't train, we won't have the responsibility and the focus needed to handle a weapon of that magnitude.

Thanks for watching guys. I can't wait to see you back here for our next video, and also on any of my social media, like Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.

In short, he's OK with you having a gun for self-defense, but only after you've also trained for a couple decades in empty-handed defense and a plethora of traditional martial arts weapons (bo staff, nunchaku, three-section staff, butterfly sword, broadsword, chain whip, straight sword) to develop your focus, discipline, and humility** the exact same way he has. Then, and only then, would he "allow" you to own a gun.

Needless to say, anyone older or more frail, or who doesn't have time or money to devote several hours of every day — for several years — to training (read: anyone with school, a job, life, or family), need not even apply. The Carol Bownes of the world, who need a means of self-defense right now, are equally on their own.

In his mind, the prerequisites of gun ownership — focus, discipline, and humility — can only be learned via martial arts. So if you instead chose to spend your child- and young-adulthood in school and college and earned an advanced degree in a STEM discipline, learning skills like logic, advanced mathematics, critical thinking, analytics, etc., you still don't have the focus or discipline to own a gun. Nope, you don't know kung fu, so even though your life's work keeps his lights on, keeps his car running, and — oh, yeah — keeps the spectacle of the Internet alive so that he can continue posting videos ... you aren't worthy of owning a tool to defend your life.

There's a word for this mindset: elitist.

It's a basic "might makes right" mentality. If you don't already have the might, you never will.

What's interesting to me is not only how devoted he is to elitism and "might makes right", but also how far off he is from the very principles of kung fu he professes to teach. Taking kung fu as a tangible skill, it is very much like a gun: a smaller, less-physically-strong defender can prevail over a larger attacker, or even several attackers. Often, just the difference in carriage — the confidence and posture with which the intended victim moves — is enough to deter an attack even before it starts. The defender doesn't even need to be a "master"; in many cases, mere proficiency is good enough.

I did leave a comment or two on that video (hey, he asked for it, didn't he?). However, YouTube's comment filter being what it is — a giant ball of mystery fail to anyone outside YouTube Corporate HQ — you cannot view my comments unless you are logged into YouTube or Google as me. Therefore, here are the screenshots for posterity (click to embiggen):

If you feel like leaving your own, maybe you'll have better luck getting through YouTube's insanely stupid filter.

Or, you can not feed the troll. That's OK, too. :)

Stay safe, and don't give your money to charlatans pretending to be experts.
------------
* - Wow. Writing out that transcript and putting [strong] tags on his emphasized points makes him sound even more off-base than I originally thought, and that's saying something.
** - We won't even get into how "humble" a person could be, when they make their living showing off on YouTube.

Why Are Anti-Gunners...

... so damned violent?

I'll just leave these two headlines — referencing the same story — here for your perusal.

Anti-Gun Filmmaker Attacks, Hospitalizes Pro-Gun Cameraman

Anti-Gun Oregon Filmmaker Arrested After Attacking Gun Rights Supporter

Money quote, from the first article:

[T]his brutal attack is just a sample of what we in the pro-gun movement has [sic] said all along. Gun owners seem to show more responsibility and restraint, while the anti-gun movement has repeatedly shown a violent streak.

Runner-up money quote, from the commenter "Jeff S. Howard" at the second article:

If Pro Gunners were as violent as Anti Gunners say we are...there would not be any Anti Gunners left!

Word.

And the best part is, the first people the attacker tweeted afterwards were two of the most rabidly anti-gun politicians in the Oregon Legislature — Earl Blumenauer and Ginny Burdick — and a political planner, Jake Weigler. Greater minds than mine can play "What's the Connection?" if they wish.

Stay safe.

(Hat tip: David Codrea)

Videos: This Math Stuff is Hard!!!

If you're travelling at 80 mph, how long will it take you to go 80 miles?

Tough question?

Yea, not really. But you couldn't tell that to some people:

10 minutes? No. 80 minutes? No. 8 minutes? No.

America's education standards, broadcast for the world to see. But at least she gets it in the end.

Unlike others asked the same question:

Note that the video cuts off before they come to the correct answer.

Sometimes, I fear for the future of America's youth. Other times, I'm positively terrified for it.

But then, I find another example that give me hope:

"1 hour." No hesitation, no uncertainty. Amen, brother.

Stay safe.

More Thoughts on Ebola, Civilization, and Government Incompetence

Ebola virus (source: Legal Insurrection)

Following up on Charlie Foxtrot's piece on Ebola and civilization, I have a few more thoughts to add.

I'll start off by being blunt: I have little-to-no faith in the various responses we're hearing or the powers-that-be from whom we're hearing them.

(This became a bit of a rant, so I'm hiding the rest below the fold. You have been warned.)

More Running the "Euphemism Treadmill"

You remember the "euphemism treadmill", right?

We're seeing it in action, right before our eyes.

Remember when "Ebola" was classified as a "hemorrhagic fever", being that it's a severe fever that breaks down the mucous membranes, causing hemorrhaging?

Well, the CDC (under pressure from the Obama Administration, I'm sure) apparently thought that description was too scary, and so has re-branded the virus as "Ebola Virus Disease".

(source)

[sarcasm] Oh, thank God! Ebola's not a hemorrhagic fever anymore! Now we don't have to worry about it! [/sarcasm]

We're seeing more of the same with Enterovirus D68 — you know, the one causing seemingly-random polio-like numbness, weakness, partial paralysis, and death in "children aged 0–18 years" (i.e.: all children), and sometimes adults. It's now being called "Non-Polio Enterovirus".

I can just hear the low-information-voter-types collectively sighing in relief, thinking it's no big deal — nevermind that the most recent child fatality showed none of the usual symptoms — thanks to the Fed.gov and the CDC.

Ebola and Enterovirus D68: just a "virus disease" and a "non-polio" affliction. No biggie. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Do any of you feel safer?

(Slightly off-topic, but is anyone else feeling the urge to check the Book of Revelation to see what comes after Pestilence? Just me? Hello?)

Quote of the Day — Van Jones (October 5, 2014)

Van Jones in 2009
(source: Wikipedia)

In an appearance on ABC's This Week w/ George Stephanopoulos, former Obama official Van Jones is quoted as saying:

This Ebola thing is the best argument you can make for the kind of government that we believe in.

In a cross-fire discussion over how Democrats can win in the upcoming elections, Van Jones is actually advocating "weaponizing" Ebola — that is, making a political weapon out of the Ebola crisis.

As Jeffrey Meyer of Newsbusters points out, the Democrats must be getting desperate if they're willing to try using a lethal pandemic to score more votes.

Sadly, though, I can't say as this surprises me. "Progressives" have long been off the rails, and their moral compass isn't exactly calibrated to the same standards as mine. Or, I suspect, yours, dear readers.

And make no mistake, the kind of government "Progressives" believe in is the kind under which you aren't allowed to choose what you eat or drink, whether you can keep your doctor or health plan, what you write or say in public or whether that camera actually belongs to you (unless you're an "Authorized Journalist"), where or when (or whether) you can carry your gun in public, where your children are educated or by whom, or a million other things we take for granted, every day. Under this kind of government, those choices will be made for you, for your own good.

(source: Legal Insurrection)

Found via this post over at Legal Insurrection, where some of the comments are also excellent. As a bonus QOTD, I'll include this one from commenter "Anchovy":

Ebola kills people.
Dead people vote overwhelmingly for democrats.
Ebola can bring you the kind of government democrats believe in.

Zing!

Poetry, Surrealism, and the Anti-Gun Mindset

Our good buddy "Baldr Odinson" (a.k.a. Jason Kilgore) recently posted up a poem and collage, and a preamble to both, by CeaseFire Oregon member Cynthia Jacobi. The works, collectively entitled, "Let's Explain How This Happened In Your School", were created in response to the tragic events at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. They are not dated -- at least, not on the blog -- so it's unknown to me when they were created.



Salvador Dalí, The Persistence of Memory (1931)
A depiction of the relativity, malleability, and
impermanence of memory. (source: Wikipedia)

Now, understand, I'm no expert on poetry and/or literature, so someone with a eye/ear for art might appreciate it more. That said, in my mind it evokes comparisons to surrealist* expressions of anger, frustration, and helplessness.

I won't recreate the full work here, but there are a few bits here and there that stand out (in truth, as it's a short piece, I may end up re-posting more than I originally intended, to keep the context intact).

Starting with the Preamble:

After Newtown, people asked what could you say to those parents who lost children?   

I ask what could we say to the children who we failed to
Protect?  What could we possibly give as explanation?

I'd start with the truth. The tragedy at Sandy Hook was exactly that: a tragedy. It's been covered to death (macabre pun not intended), speculated on, and explained endlessly over the past 20 months. The nation came together as one people and mourned together. E pluribus Unum. From many, one.

To the parents, I'd say: Our thoughts and prayers are with you -- we are with you.

To the children: We love and miss you. Say "hi" to God and Jesus, have fun playing with the angels, and we'll see you when we get there (adjust for religious preference). [Note: I really, truly don't mean to sound callous, but they were 6- and 7-year olds -- far too young to understand all the political-social issues surrounding the events leading up to the tragedy -- so let's try not to overthink what we'd say if we could communicate beyond the veil.]

And now, the poem:

[It happened] because the mother didn’t lock the safe or hide the key 

Which is pure speculation. We don't know -- and won't ever know -- if the mom locked the safe or whether the boy had ready access to it, overtly (i.e. with knowledge and permission) or covertly (knowledge and permission, not so much).

because America sells mega-magazines everywhere
     and Hollywood sells violence

Assuming that "mega-magazines" refers to the firearm accessory of standard capacity, this is the first instance of "blame the 'gun industry'", plus a "blame movies/video-games/music/media" -- neither of which were responsible for the boy's actions.

It happened because of Gun Luv
because we are the land of the brave and the free
     and cowboys and Bonnie and Clyde

This is the first major miss; up until now, it's variations of normal anti-gun talking points (including this invocation of a variation of Markley's Law). But when you start bring up American history and conflating the "land of the brave and the free" and rural farmers and ranchers ("cowboys") with spree criminals.

I might add that I believe Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow would have been a minor footnote in history if their actions weren't both heinous and widely reported by the press, making them outlaws with a celebrity status that still persists today, long after their deaths. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?


Max Ernst, The Elephant Celebes (1921)
The surrealist elephant in the room?
(source: Wikipedia)

Because the boy didn’t need to reload much
It happened because the NRA
     loudspeakers spread dollars and fear
because there was no good guy with a gun
    to shoot the bad guy with a gun

Again with blaming the magazines and the NRA. Recall that investigators found partially-filled magazines all over; he didn't need to reload much, but he did anyway. How would a limit on magazine capacity affect that?

HOWEVER, here she makes a critical mistake: she acknowledges the NRA's point of view as valid. Remember how up-in-arms the anti-gun folks got when Wayne LaPierre acknowledged the proverbial elephant in the room by saying, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"? She's repeating that sentiment, right there!

because hunters of quail and rabbit are silent

I'm not clear on this one.  Did you think that quail and rabbit hunters -- who traditionally use shotguns for that purpose, BTW, not ARs -- would stand up and say, "Totally our fault. Sorry 'bout that!"? Or is just this a dig at "Fudds" for not supporting additional "gun control" -- for not being "Fudds"?

Because reasonable people find no reason to be so

And THAT's a line I can agree with. I may even steal that! Otherwise reasonable people went into full histrionic blame-everything-but-the-person mode, dancing in the blood of innocent victims. Why? Because it served their purpose; they had no reason to be reasonable, and plenty of reasons not to.

And there we'll end our journey into the surreal.  There is some fact and wisdom in there, but it's buried deep within -- and juxtaposed against -- an opposing philosophy. As always, discussion is welcome in the comments, unlike on Baldr's site, where the "No Comments" policy surrealistically juxtaposes with that "national conversation on guns" we're supposed to be having.

------------
* - Surrealist as in, Salvador Dalí and Max Ernst -- a grain of truth or profound thought, illogically and unnervingly set against and amidst its opposite.

Schooling "Baldr Odinson"

Baldr Odinson, a.k.a. Jason Kilgore (source)

So our Oregon resident anti-gun personality, "Baldr Odinson" (a.k.a. Jason Kilgore), recently put up a post on his "New Trajectory" blog entitled, "The NRA Now Wants To Make It Mandatory To Arm Children In School!" (link provided for posterity; don't feel obligated to click it) that's just BEGGING for a good, old-fashioned fisking.

I intend to keep an eye on his rantings so that civilized folks don't have to. It's just another service we offer.

We'll get started below the fold. I'm just going over the highlights, not the whole thing (which is fairly lengthy). Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is in the original and all links are included.

Wholly Carp - A Shall Not Be Questioned Blog Mention!

Oh... wow.

This fledgling blob gets a mention in the uberblog "Shall Not Be Questioned".

I've been reading Sebastian and Bitter for years. They are simply two of the best. They write with unparallelled vision, clarity, conciseness, and at least in Bitter's case, a healthy does of snark. They're also one of the most enjoyable reads on the Wild, Wild, Wild Web and important commentators on the Right To Keep and Bear Arms. 

To be mentioned in their blog, well... I'm Not Worthy!

To "Shall Not Be Questioned" readers: Welcome!