Most jurisdictions outlaw pocket knives of three inches or longer, and will not permit any knives over six inches or more. No where will any jurisdiction give a permit to carry a knife for self-protection. They'd rather you had a gun. If you are on your way to work as a chef with your knife roll, or a fisherman with tackle, you might be let go, but there is far more fear of knives than guns by law enforcement and anyone sane.
This video explains how cops need to keep their distance, or be ready for hand to hand. Well, be better be ready for hand to hand. Practice like a knife is involved (another aikido advantage, the moves come from sword and knife fighting), expect to get cut at least, and get in close as fast as possible.
Here is a famous knife assault, and watch how the secret service respond when the First Lady of the Philippines is attacked.
That's right, keep your distance! Get him from behind. (The fellow was gunned after he was downed by fellows hitting him from behind.)
I was watching a video of a 7th dan giving a seminar and showing some techniques, and the crowd went wild after each technique. I can see why people find aikido incredible, in the etymological sense of "not credible."
While the shihan is showing a twist of the wrist, any casual observer is noting the other 95% of the threat, which is idly standing by while a painful twist is applied. Not real world.
Since aikido demonstration is limited to this, shihan are limited in experience to ignoring 95% of threat potential from a human. Having been smacked good and silly while sparring with followers of other arts, I've taken to practicing with full-spectrum encounter. Yes, the throw gets down to that twist of the wrist while an opponent's momentum is sailing past, but the threat potential any human can offer before and after must be addressed in tactic, movement and attitude.
When you step within the range of the ma ai of a mal-actor the attitude ought to be "I came here here to pacify you, why are you here?" as you take in the entire threat potential.
To give 5% attention to a human in a demonstration because the throw only takes 5% of the total encounter is to denigrate what aikido can be. The fact is one has no idea at any given time in the continuum of an encounter which 5% will be drawn on.
To demonstrate a throw in the context of not knowing what you will show, or having to do three or four other throws to get to a situation where you can do what you hoped to show, is better for aikido, the instructor and the students. In the real world, you never know. Better to teach in that milieu.
In the Fall of 1968, the American War was raging in Vietnam, Martin Luther King had been murdered a few months before, RFKennedy had been murdered as well. It was interesting times, so much good in art, food, architecture, fashion, music, cultural interaction going on, and yet such terrible things happening too. Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.
Whereas the hegemon deals with resistance through murder, people like Martin Luther King declare nonviolence as the proper means to right wrongs. MLKing, according to a court of law, was murdered in a conspiracy involving active duty USA military personnel, exactly one year to the day MLKing condemned American violence in Vietnam and the world. This led to riots across America in what we now call "the ghetto" and a general repudiation of nonviolence. This was the intended effect of the hegemon, for the hegemon ever gains more strength when it draws violent reaction, and the hegemon ever diminishes in the face of nonviolence. Nonviolence in the face of the hegemon seems ridiculous.
Jesus expressly disagreed, so Christians are obliged to be nonviolent. Pro-war Christians are a contradiction in terms, the hypocrites so condemned by Jesus Himself.
Tommie Smith was the Usain Bolt of 1968, the fastest man in the world. An Australian, Peter Norman took the silver, and a another American, John Carlos took the bronze. Smith and Carlos, during the awards ceremony, raised their fists in protest of USA cultural patterns and practices. This act ended their athletic careers, and their act was deemed "violent" and they were whisked out of the Olympics and back to USA to face death threats.
Usain Bolt earns $20 million per year, and Tommy Smith would have earned a similar amount in his time, had he simply not raised his fist. He knew what raising his fist would cost him. But he simply could not allow the false narrative that is imposed upon winning athletes at the Olympics: USA is the land of opportunity. Well, it may be for some, but not for Americans of African ancestry, or native Americans, etc. For Smith and Carlos, no amount of money was worth advancing that lie. (Both went on to careers as High School PE teachers. Lucky kids who had them as coaches.
Nonviolent resistance may seem pointless but can be very effective on a diffuse basis. Everyone in USA at the time was well aware of this event. Back then the Olympics were covered by ABC all day with Highlights at prime time, in an era when there were only three TV channels. The Olympics today are a difficult hash to watch, better viewed on Youtube after the fact. But in 1968, Smith and Carlos electrified USA.
I recall watching it, and in my adolescents forming an understanding of the reality the hegemon could be resisted, needed to be resisted. Nonviolence and its effects, along with the widely argued American war Vietnam war (no useful discussion of USA wars are any longer allowed), led me to consider all wars, and arrive at my conscientious objector position. Among other influences, if Smith and Carlos could give up all, should one not consider joining them. Peter Norman continued at the games after Smith and Carlos were ejected, but wearing sympathetic articles on his uniform for the rest of his time in Mexico. Although an Australian he suffered terrible consequences for this, including being denied the opportunity to continue to compete against the best. Within a year or two, I was writing a letter to the hegemon's representative for drafting people for war, and explained how I could not join their efforts.
They agreed, and categorized me 1-O (women and children first, they fight before I do. I am very proud of that.) Now, I harbor no delusions that the hegemon makes just exceptions, for the history of conscientious objectors in USA is historically they are usually beaten or starved to death after being thrown in prison. There was no chance of this when I was drafted, so I did not fac that. The American War in Vietnam was never an existential war, it was entirely a fun-time money-maker for the hegemon's minions. Why the hegemon granted exemptions, and does to this day, is they simply do not want the idea of just cause and just war ever to be considered by soldiers. To daft me would put me in the barracks of soldiers who had never thought of conscientious objection.
They think about it eventually, usually too late. Who can ponder veteran suicide rates without considering a lack of orientation to just cause and just war before joining the military.
So Smith and Carlos missed out on millions, are now long forgotten, but had their effect, quite diffuse but long term. Who knows how many they inspired, and unlike Dr. King, their legacy is too simple and clear to romanticize or hijack by the hegemon to advance the hegemon (no one will name streets after Smith or Carlos, or make a holiday that never mentions war resistance by MLK).
To this day, USA athletes are forbidden to protest war, and quite the contrary, USA athletics are probably the #1 venue for promoting war and sustaining the pattern and practices of oppression in the USA. A current wikipedia article on Bill Walton simply does not mention his career anti-war resistance, and even contemporary newspaper articles of his actions were buried in newspapers of the time.
Smith and Carlos are the definition of hero, people who do what is right knowing they will get nothing for it, in fact lose everything they worked for, and go ahead because it is the right thing to do.
Here is a sincerely perplexed fellow criticizing aikido as it is often presented:
Rogan's question is a good one, where is a video of effective aikido? The vids of O Sensei waving his arms and people falling down are not credible. Rogan notes a NCAA D1 wrestler would wipe that old man out. No doubt. But O Sensei did not build his reputation as an 80 year old man. He rarely taught after say fifty years old, meaning 1935, more the occasional coaching, and demonstration of principles.
Rogan credits a judo tenth dan (in a video shown in a simultaneous window) showing credible counters to judoka in their prime. But any of those guys could have also taken the 80 year old judo tenth dan, as could any NCAA D1 wrestler, and O Sensei could have as well at 80 years shown the judo counters as well as the spry 80- year old judo man. The judo man is showing judo principles, the aikido man showing aikido principles. (Aikido is an original mixed martial art, blending kendo, judo, jiu jitsu, etc. O sensei had mastered judo before forming his own art.)
Rogan is stating the obvious: martial arts is not some magic thing, where an 80 year old master must be effective against a NCAA D1 wrestler. And then when some deluded fellow believes that, Rogan denigrates the art. How about simply cautioning the deluded fellow? Such delusions can end badly.
You'll note the fellow here has a dojo of deluded students. Yes, O Sensei waves his arms and people fall down. O Sensei was making the point that if you are not fighting, you can win. The idiot above actually tried to fight an MMA guy. How is not fighting and fighting the same thing? It is not. If students are self-deluding, that is not the master's problem. If a "master" is self-deluded, that is also not a problem, for an MMA man, although you will note, initially, even the MMA bought the delusion, briefly. And by the way, if O Sensei could take on a D1 NCAA wrestler, he would have, and taped it. He was not delusional. The test of a system depending on how it deals with a D1 NCAA wrestler is a false test anyway. What weight class? Within D1 NCAA the weights are divided since since a contest between bantam and middle is inherently unfair. Next, to train enough to get to compete in NCAA takes discipline and dedication. Many wash out. In too many years of playing at martial arts, I am yet to see an accomplished fighter of any stripe initiating aggression. The people I see initiating may be big and strong and fast, even crazy, but never disciplined. Any discipline can be the deciding advantage in a contest. The test is against the no-holds-barred, open-class attack. Even MMA forbids that. Muhammed Ali was not delusional when he fought Foremen in 1974. Ali developed a tactic to keep from losing, let alone killed. He did not fight, but let Foreman fight the ring ropes. After Foreman tired out, Ali went in for the knock out.
Pacquiao fought Mayweather, and Pacquiao was defeated, although controversially. In any event, it is fair to say Mayweather won by not fighting, or in the measure Mayweather refrained from fighting Pacquiao, Mayweather got the edge. (Incidentally, Pacquiao also used rope-a-dope in a fight once to win against a superior boxer.)
Aikido is unique in martial arts for making this paradoxical point, as Tohei called it, positive non-fighting (negative non-fighting is to run away). NCAA D1 wrestlers experience what many judo competitors note, that beautiful throw took no force on the part of the winner, the opponent's force brought him down when met with the timing and body positioning of the winner. A throw forever in the highlight reels. Aikido as a martial art studies exactly that. No more, no less. Every art esteems it, Aikido specializes in it. In every martial art there is someone working on this concept. O Sensei when he was a young badass, decided to concentrate on this. Where is the video of effective aikido?
Here is O Sensei at 52 years old, in 1935. This is the kind of aikido I learned, and although it looks suspiciously compliant, the uke are defending their limbs from nasty pain should they counter or resist. O Sensei is not moving to win, he is moving to de-escalate. Having the wind knocked out of you, or hitting the ground hard can dampen ardor. What is not shown is aikido against a NCAA D 1 wrestler, O sensei would move very differently. And a 52 year old v a 22 year old would be messy. (Also, in Japan Japanese students tend to "all fall down" as a sign of respect when not thrown... I've seen the same kinds of things outside of Japan where one or two get knocked down, and the others do not fall for formality sake. They make a master earn his throw.)
Like Pacquiao and Ali, O Sensei would adjust his tactic. He would neither box a boxer nor wrestle a wrestler. Three things, 1. both arts require both sides fight or the non-fighting side gets points off to the degree of losing the match. 2. All non-aikido systems have rules, while aikido does not. No one trains to defend against what is not allowed. Expect an aikidoist to make moves the other practitioner has never practiced against. 3. Both arts have clearly defined moves, expect the aikidoist to study the counters employed in the other sport. When a NCAA D1 wrestler goes for another's legs, rarely does it work out, for the counter. What makes one think an aikidoist will not employ the same counter?
Let's look at a 50% weight advantage vs aikido's chief instructor, circa 1955 (The aikidoka is Tohei Sensei, aikido chief instructor, with whom I have trained, and the instructor of my first three teachers):
The earnestness is demonstrated by the fact the challenger has torn Tohei Sensei's clothes, and apparently Tohei Sensei reckoned he might get taken if he did not choke his opponent out, which he does. I see various points at which Tohei might have thrown the opponent with an tomoe-nage, but if you don't know how to hard fall out of that, you might get seriously injured if not killed.
I have practiced all over the world and sparred with people trained in plenty of other styles. That just happens in 45 plus years of practicing assiduously. I've sparred with an air force judo man who was a training partner in Colorado for the USA Olympic judo team. I trained with a secret serviceman and surprised him. Tae kwon do, and so on. Never was anyone out to win, but to learn.
As a student of the legendary Bernie Lau I was taught to make arrests, and have effected about a dozen of them over the years, and plenty of face-offs that did not lead to me arresting the other party. Here is another point often missed in these discussions. Never once have I encountered anyone in a conflict that had any martial arts training. I don't think there is a single club that will train someone essentially criminal, no instructor will tolerate such presence. While most resisted, none were effective, because they simply had no idea what was happening or what to do about it. Their resistance just brought them more pain, and clearly, I had not even begun to fight. At the same time, if I ever tried to arrest a true psychopath, who could care less what was happening to him, and intent on killing me, well, then, my number came up, and I die. It's the life I chose.
The reason we have NCAA vs NCAA because there it does get down to the man. There is a closed system for competing within which there is another system for comparing and scoring. Aikido Vs whatever does not tell us much of anything.
But aren't there a lot of aikidoists who believe (like Rogan's guest) that the master could wave his arms and people fall down? Sure. Delusion sells. I've been in those dojo's. I am not welcome. But I have practiced all over the world and you can find enough people everywhere that study aikido as a martial art.
Senator and Judo champion Ben Nighthorse credits judo with keeping him out of trouble, but then training for the Olympics does tend to mop up all of one's time. His only regret is judo can sure beat up the body, leaving one with lifelong injuries, acute with old age. It is no coincidence that most of the old aikidoists come over from judo, where they gave up the combat and injury to work on that rare exquisite perfect throw.
Aikido has more than its share of delusionals, but so what? If you want an effective non-fighting martial art, there is aikido. Mr. Rogan needs to nuance his criticism a bit more.
Aikido, practiced as a martial art, by a conscientious objector, looks like the above. I will come at you with a view to pacifying you, you will not get up after I deal with you. I won't kill you, and I'll work not to injure you, but if you do get up, I am coming at you again. I can say truthfully there is nothing I enjoy more than dealing with violence. Never am I happier or more alive.
The top aikido people all came out of judo, so sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference.
Note when he says "with a forceful movement".
Well, often your opponent is giving you the force in judo, and so you do not have to supply your own. Many judo people know this, and switch to aikido, giving up the competition side, and just work on the shibui of the perfect throw.
If someone is behaving rather badly, but not initiating force, then aikido is pretty useless, to be effective, it needs the opponent's force. If someone is just being boorish, insulting and picking a fight, you can simply use spoken aikido, embrace and extend, redirect: agree with the insult (your are right to criticize the way I am dressed, I never had any sense of style, tell me, how might I improve my look?) Give them three chances to lighten up, and then say "Now I think you go to far with that statement. By then there is usually enough people on your side to inhibit the boor from escalating. If not, aikido game on. A great scene in literature is exactly this in Brothers Karamazov when the odious father is abusing the old holy priest in front of his sons. Check it out. Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.
Bernie Lau was leaving a mutually esteemed Chinese restaurant last night as I was coming in with a Congolese priest stationed in Seattle and a daughter in from Paris. The restaurant allows double parking in their lot by patrons so you can sit and order and then the staff will come get you if a properly parked patron desires to leave by the path you have blocked by double parking. Sometimes they have a runner who facilitates all of this for tips, a situation that is responsive and sensible, with rules made up on the fly. Anarchy in action. As Bernie, my daughter and the priest chatted amiably in French, I moved the car to best position. Bernie looks good, and is still travelling far and wide. As he was just leaving, we said our good-byes, and inside the restaurant the priest was intrigued by the fellow he had just met, so I apprised the priest of Bernie's background. For the purposes of this blog, I'll add this about Lau Sensei:
When I started aikido in 1971, there were about 30 regulars at a club that had a 4th degree and a 3rd degree as instructors, the late Hirata Yoshihiko Sensei and Lau Sensei. Both had been direct students of Tohei sensei, the 10th degree chief instructor of aikido. I was able to practice as uke when Tohei sensei visited a couple of times, and since Seattle was a regular stop-over for USA-Japan flights, we had a steady progression of top aikidoists visiting, Imaizumi one of the most memorable. Pound for pound, I don’t think you could find more aikido instruction talent per student outside of Tokyo. And then, circa 1974, Tohei sensei sent Kashiwaya Koichi, an aggressive and fresh san dan, to teach in Seattle too.
Bernie Lau as a police officer began his transformation from one of the original students of aikido 1954 in Hawaii under Tohei sensei. Lau Sensei gained his first two black belts from O sensei, and his 3rd and 4th from the Ni Dai Dosshu. Lau Sensei’s style was crisp, efficient, and matched his size and build. He taught a half dozen of us high school students Tuesdays and Thursdays after school in the early 1970s, before he went to work on the police night shift.
As he did more and more police work, he began to change his style. How come he changed his style? As he puts it, aikido does not work.
Very, very true. Depending on the context.
In his work as a policeman, he found aikido doesn’t work if you use it to initiate violence against someone who is no threat to you. But police officers must initiate violence against people who are no threat to them. Police must make arrests upon people who are not fighting, but are not cooperating. People who refuse to turn around and put their hands behind their back. In these instances police must use aggressive force. All the more so for people who resist being forced around.
But aikido has no techniques that employ aggressive force. Aikido is unique as a martial art, it is nonviolent, it has no techniques for initiating aggression. In aikido we use the aggressive force of the attacker, like in judo. But as opposed to judo, we initiate no aggressive moves.
Aikido does not work if you wish to use your power to defeat someone else.
Aikido does not work if your opponent is merely resisting, if your opponent is not combative, not aggressive.
Aikido does not work if your opponent is merely noncooperative.
Aikido only works when someone is initiating a forceful attack upon you. Since aikido is focussed on dealing only with forceful attacks, it is pretty useless if you plan to initiate force and defeat an opponent. Aikido is not for police work.
On the other hand, since the aikido is limited to dealing with any any all attacks in any and all forms, in the measure the opponent offers force, aikido is superior to all other martial arts as a defensive martial art.
If someone is not initiating violence, why fight, let alone use aikido? Otherwise you’d be using aikido to attack, and aikido is pretty useless as a means for that.
On the other hand, aikido, since it uses the opponent’s force, is pitch perfect condign response to an attacked initiated by an aggressor. This is necessary to be a martial art, it is sufficient to be a martial art. I leave it to other martial artists to include in their contexts the problem of defeating someone who is not initiating violence, and includes using one's own power or force.
As a conscientious objector I can neither initiate force nor bring my own power into defeating anyone. At the same time, I have effected about a dozen arrests in the last four decades (most recently a hit and run absconder who tried to escape on foot.) In this instance, his attempt to use force to get past me earned him pin up against the wall, with his feet back and spread (as I said, one of my first instructors was Bernie Lau, a cop.) He was uncooperative, but not violent, so we both stopped there. When he stops using force, I stop acting. As he relaxes his body, I relax the tension of the pin. As he tests the pin under relaxation, I ramped up the pin so experiences force feedback. (Aikido is fairly unique in the pins hurt only if the bad guy tries to get away; also the pins are actually beneficial, they promote a healthy stretch, as opposed to arm bars which break bones and joints.)
If I ever had to exchange blows with someone, I am pretty sure I’d get hurt. On the other hand to answer a bum’s rush with tomoe nage takes little extra energy from me to execute, but can be quite devastating when the attackers face hits the sidewalk, body upside down, at the velocity the attacker brought, for lack of training on how to roll out of a throw. Ouch.
To legally effect an arrest (in most jurisdictions), you must place your hand on the person you are arresting while stating they are under arrest (largely so the prisoner cannot later claim he did not know you were referring to him.) In aikido, you always get close enough to place a hand on someone, which allows you to deflect a close-quarters attack if they violently disagree with being arrested. Only about 1/2 the times have I had to get physical when making an arrest, and oddly, the more serious the crimes, the less likely the resistance. (the rapist, kidnapper and burglars all gave up without resistance. (Not sure if that holds true in general, and if so, how come?)
In Bernie's Change of Heart story, as he tells it, aikido did not work when he in plainclothes he tried to use it to initiate violence against someone who was not resisting, let alone offering violence. When the drunk lumber jack in Bernie's story failed to respond to aikido applied as an offensive tactic, Bernie switched to his considerable training in shotokan karate, a style he had studied assiduously, and began attacking the lumberjack with those striking techniques. No effect there either. The lumberjack simply proceeded to his car to drive off, whereupon Bernie in desperation tore off the antenna, which pissed of the lumberjack, and brought him back out to deal with Bernie. By this time dozens of police officers arrived to answer the officer assistance call, and proceeded to beat down the lumberjack with good old fashioned police work, the night stick shampoo.
Another aspect of the case is Bernie had felt so bad about the turn of events that he quietly disposed of the evidence of the lumberjack drinking, and the lumberjack won $65000 lawsuit against the city for police brutality.
So the whole truth is, no martial art worked on this lunberjack, and certainly not aikido as an offensive art. Aikido never was intended for the purpose of violence against someone who was not resisting let alone offering violence If your context includes initiating violence, or attacking nonviolent offenders, then truly aikido sucks. But as the original mixed martial art (kendo, judo, jiu jitsu, ki-ai breathing) and stripped of offensive techniques, it is a superior self defense system.
Here is a fun video of the Master teaching his style of aikido pre-war. This was 35 years before I started aikido. I've now been practicing 45 years. More changed the last 45 years than the previous 35.
The Catholic Church in USA maintains a Military Ordinariate, which means it has an archdiocese made up in support of the USA military. I wonder what Jesus would say? He did say, obey them, but do not be like them. A priest in a uniform is most assuredly "being like them."
And here is one of the most important ironic points of this article: What the Japanese Imperial government could not do in 250 years of persecution (i.e., to destroy Japanese Christianity) American Christians did in mere seconds.
This fall the AMS will hold an all-expenses-paid discernment gathering for ordained priests who may sense a further call to military chaplaincy.
And...
During the four-day gathering, AMS clergy, staff, and chaplains will join Archbishop Broglio in giving the priests a realistic picture of what it is like to be a military chaplain and how to become one. The priests will stay at the Washington Retreat House on Harewood Road in Northeast Washington, and from there, go on field trips to Andrews Air Force Base, Fort Belvoir, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the Pentagon. In these real-life settings, they will meet and talk with military officers, enlisted personnel, and other chaplains. The highlight of the gathering will come in the Pentagon Memorial Chapel at the 9/11 crash site, where the priests will concelebrate Mass.
What does any of that have to do with Jesus Christ? This is an indoctrination junket, not a discernment event. And as with Catholic Media, which is all-war-all-the-time, you have to ask, who is paying this piper?
Camo vestments? Where did the Catholic Church get the money to produce this video? If the money the Church spent on this one video were put into catechizing 15 year olds properly, there might be some sanity in USA foreign policy. Some Christian restraint.
What I find interesting is how the very many faithful Catholic pro-peace, anti-war entities are out there, how reticent they are about joining forces.
One challenge is that one arm of the Catholic anti-war left is decidedly pro-abortion, making true conscientious objectors unable to meet-up. But otherwise, there are countless seamless-garment Catholics out there, still reticent about associating.
True, the hatred and horrors the state will visit on those who not only fail to participate, but also on those who fail to agree, makes effectiveness a scary proposition. Yes, even if there is no civil disobedience contemplated (like the Camden 28 below), but merely working on trimming one's sails to follow the Christian narrow path, the state will visit its horrors on you. Try declining baking that cake.
One small contribution would be the demand that no Catholic enters the military without first a military-prep (like marriage-prep) program. If any Catholic joins without the program, they are not allowed to receive the sacraments until they complete the program.
Is that harsh? Take God seriously. Read Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Look at what happens to a people that equate God and Country, who depend on their own power to defend, and engage in entangling alliances and adopt alien culture. A pair of strict rules: Do not multiply wives and horses. the military does both, with (as put gently by Melville in Billy Budd) sailors etc are exempt from rules of fornication (and generals bang groupies with no consequence) and when do we not thrill at the latest military weaponry (whether it works or not)?
I've been a military man all my life, there has been a John Spiers who fought in every American war, and both sides in civil wars. But being a Christian means you must decline to engage in moral crimes, and Catholicism teaches us to conscientiously object to unjust cause and unjust means of war. I participated in the American War in Vietnam, as a conscientious objector. When I see private property parking slots "reserved for veterans", why, that means me! (The only reason I do not designate myself as a veteran in hegemon venues is for fear of being qualified for set-asides).
Back to what program associated Catholic conscientious objectors could advance: No Catholic gets into the USA military without military prep, taught by conscientious objectors. There are enough of us out there to do the work, and the money from just that one video would probably cover the cost.
Sure, the full fury and horror of the hegemon would be visited on us, just as the Soviets worked over Solzhenitsyn, even attempted murder by chemo-radioactive poisoning. Far from tempting God, we'd be trusting Him to protect us, like a faithful Israel.
Be not afraid.
Deuteronomy 17:16But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.But he shall not multiply horses to himself,.... That he might not put his trust and confidence in outward things, as some are apt to trust in horses and chariots; and that he might not tyrannise over and distress his subjects by keeping a number of horses and chariots as a standing army, and chiefly for a reason that follows; he was to have no more than for his own chariot, so Jarchi, and so the Misnah (g) and Maimonides (h); the Targum of Jonathan restrains it to two:
nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses; which was a country that abounded with them, and therefore he was not to encourage, and much less oblige his subjects to travel thither or trade with that people for the sake of increasing his stock of horses, Isaiah 31:1.
forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, ye shall henceforth return no more that way; not that going into Egypt on any account whatsoever was forbidden, as for trade and merchandise in other things, or for shelter and safety, for which some good men fled thither; but for outward help and assistance against enemies, and for horses on that account, and particularly in order to dwell there, from which the Jews in the times of Jeremiah were dissuaded by him, and threatened by the Lord with destruction, in case they should, Jeremiah 42:15. When the Lord said this is not certain; it may be when they proposed to make a captain, and return unto Egypt; or he said this in his providence, this was the language of it ever since they came out of it, or however this he now said; see Deuteronomy 28:68.
(g) Sanhedrin, c. 2. sect. 4. (h) Hilchot Melachim, c. 3. sect. 3. Deuteronomy 17:17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away,.... From attending to the duty of his office, the care and government of his people, and from serious religion; and particularly from the worship of the true God, as the heart of Solomon was turned away from it by his numerous idolatrous wives, 1 Kings 11:3, it is a common notion of the Jews that a king might have eighteen wives, and no more (k): neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold; he might increase his wealth, but not greatly, lest his heart should be lifted up with pride by it, and lest his subjects should be oppressed and burdened with taxes for that purpose; or he, being possessed of so much, should make use of it to enslave them, and especially should be so elated with it as to deny God, and despise his providence, and disobey his laws; see Proverbs 30:9. The Jews generally say (l), that he ought not to multiply more than what will pay the stipends or wages of his servants, and only for the treasury of the house of the Lord, and for the necessity of the congregation (or commonwealth), and for their wars; but not for himself, and his own treasury.
(k) Maimon. Issure Biah, c. 1. sect. 2. Misn. ut supra. (Sanhedrin, c. 10. sect. 4.). T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 21. 1. Targum Jon. & Jarchi in loc. (l) Maimon. ib. sect. 4. Misn. ut supra.
On the other hand, the Church of "Romans 13" did overcome the pagan Roman Empire.
We have no priests, lawyers, labor, academics against the wars far worse and less just today than the Vietnam war then... I just turned 18 when this trial ended, a trial of a raid on a draft board by anti-war (pro-peace) activists. It is sad there people trying to end the wars then, but not now. Back then, the government was constrained by hard money economics. The war tax mentioned on the poster in the early scene was on telephone bills. That is how hard up government was for money. But then, Nixon got rid of the gold standard (lite) and they could come up with seemingly endless credit, enough to buy off all labor, academia, religion, law, medicine... you name it. It all went corrupt.
What cost the government the trial was too much participation in making the "crime" happen. No FBI agent lost his job over that. Today, are there any terrorist cases in which the government has not stage-managed the "crime?"
Well, when USA was fighting communists in Vietnam, I was trading with the Chinese Communists who were making the USA defeat possible. I was trading because the anti-communist Nixon had opened trade relations with China in a political effort to save Mao's bacon so Mao could save Nixon's.
Yes, rather crazy that. Of course I was never in that war or any war, my participation was limited to objecting conscientiously.
So what did I do during the (Vietnam) war? I traded with the Communists. Like he Bush family, that traded with the Nazis during WWII.
Five of the Bush family companies were seized by Congress in this manner. Congressinvoked the Trading with the Enemy Act and seized the Bush-Harriman-managed Thyssen entityHamburg-American Line, under Vesting Order No. 126. Thereafter, under Order No.248, and then Vesting Order No. 259, and ultimately Vesting Order No. 261 various otherbusinesses were seized. None of this is secret, it is all in public records. There isevidence there were more going on, which were not caught.
Yea, my family has been here longer than the Bushes, and did a lot more wicked things too. People are starting to talk about "white privilege". That's not the problem, it is entitlement, that you can do what you want. That is the real problem.
The Bible prohibits standing standing armies and advanced weapons systems, as we see in Deuteronomy 17:16.
But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
The horse was not anciently used in the East for purposes of agriculture or traveling, but ordinarily for war only. He appears constantly in Scripture as the symbol and embodiment of fleshly strength and the might of the creature (compare Psalm 20:7; Psalm 33:16-17; Psalm 147:10; Job 39:19 ff), and is sometimes significantly spoken of simply as "the strong one" (compare Jeremiah 8:16). The spirit of the prohibition therefore is that the king of Israel must not, like other earthly potentates, put his trust in costly and formidable preparations for war (compare Hosea 1:7).
Outside of these principles, no party can rightfully exercise dominion over another, without violation of the original created order. On a small scale, we call those who do so anyway, “busybodies”. When the same behaviour grows in scale and in numbers, the word becomes “government”. Being a busybody, or “meddler in other people’s affairs” as one translation puts it, is ranked in the Bible alongside the offences of murder and theft, because such violations go hand in hand. It may not often be heard from church pulpits, but it is clearly written in 1 Peter 4:15: “…let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters“
"Just following orders" was a legitimate defense after WWII and is today in both USA and Israel, not matter what the crime. It is nonsense, but it is the law. It is why Eichmann was so hard for he jews to prosecute, only until the found an order to a war crime he personally issued where they able to convict him. Here is an accountant tallying the take on 300,000 deaths:
“The conviction of Oskar Gröning for his actions sends an unequivocal message that, although he may not have led or directly participated in the atrocities at Auschwitz, he was clearly an accessory to the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis,” the group’s president Karen Pollock wrote in a statement Wednesday. “By being the ‘bookkeeper’ of Auschwitz, he assisted in and facilitated the murder of 300,000 Jewish men, women and children and it is right that he has now been held legally accountable for this.”
So are we now in the USA who pay for the 50 million deaths by abortion now guilty too?
"If we had not fought the American Revolution, we'd still be under British rule. " This is a logical fallacy, ahistorical thinking. We did fight a revolution, and we are no longer under British rule. Those two parts are historical.
There is no basis to claim "we'd still be under British rule" since that is not what happened to USA.
But there is history of countries under British rule who gained independence without fighting a revolution. For example, Canada. And dozens of others.
So a historically valid statement would be, "We would have gained independence without fighting a revolution." Nothing in that statement conflicts with history.
Now you try: "If we did not fight the Civil War, USA would still have slavery." This too is ahistorical.
We did fight a civil war, and we did end private property slavery.
In the era we fought a civil war, 19 other countries ended slavery peacefully. So a historically valid statement would be "USA could have eliminated slavery without a civil war." Nothing in that statement conflicts with history.
It is important to speak accurately if you want what you say to matter.
Wars and revolutions for change only make matters worse. The USA had a good thing going until the bankers hijacked the peaceful independence movement by means of a constitutional convention. The enemy of peace in the USA, Alexander Hamilton, led the successful effort to create a corporation with banking at its core and a standing military, and call it the federal government.
Alexander Hamilton, then building up the army, suggested sending it into Virginia, on some "obvious pretext". Measures would be taken, Hamilton hinted to an ally in Congress, "to act upon the laws and put Virginia to the Test of resistance".[14]
We would be much better off if we had no wars and revolutions. That is a historically valid statement. Any claims to the contrary cannot be substantiated by history. I cannot celebrate war and oppression, but when the bankers control the textbooks, just about everyone else does.
In December 2013 he was deployed to Camp Hovey in South Korea, 10 miles from the border with North Korea. He was attached as a medic to the 4-7 Cavalry. He began to hear disturbing stories about the wars in the Middle East, not the glorified stories spun out by recruiters, the media or the entertainment industry, but stories about whole families being blown up or gunned down by U.S. troops in the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan. He lived among soldiers who were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Many were drinking heavily. He listened to them talk about being prescribed anti-depressants by Army doctors and then being redeployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. He may have been a medic, but he was required to carry a weapon and to use it in combat. He knew that for him, to do so would be impossible.
I was told by a naval officer who exited the military when he realized standing military was not tenable he told his superior office he wanted out, and in turn as told to keep it a secret and he could get out, but if he told anyone outside the process he would be held in and made an example of.
The USA military truly feat conscientious objectors.
The fact is that there is no such thing as a government of law and not people. The law is an amalgam of contradictory rules and counter-rules expressed in inherently vague language that can yield a legitimate legal argument for any desired conclusion. For this reason, as long as the law remains a state monopoly, it will always reflect the political ideology of those invested with decisionmaking power. Like it or not, we are faced with only two choices. We can continue the ideological power struggle for control of the law in which the group that gains dominance is empowered to impose its will on the rest of society, or we can end the monopoly.
I was told sports trainers use ice baths for athletes, I wonder how and to what end?
Misogi-swimming has side effects. Going to sleep earlier, and getting up earlier seems ot be a side effect. Plus, lakes have all sorts of bugs in them, so it must also make for a robust immune system. I imagine sports-training water is well-filtered.
When I see how wonderful life and the universe that is around us, I cannot deny there is a God. When I see the abject evil, the depths of depravity, I cannot deny there is free will. We were made to live forever as creatures in a perfect world. We creatures destroyed that perfect world, by our free will, but we did not lose immortality. We live in an imperfect world, designed for immortality, so we are not made for this imperfect world, but for a prefect world. We are made for eternity after death, where we will experience perfection. If we live as though we belong in a perfect world, in spite of living in the imperfect world, then we can expect and eternity of perfection.
According to U.S. Marshal Dee Harkey, the reality of the old West was order without law, society without state. It was anarchy in action.Dee Harkey was ninety-two years-old in 1958. At his home in New Mexico, the former lawman gave an interview to Monk Lofton just two weeks before he passed away. Harkey set the record straight about the old West. He also expressed the unease he felt for his own role in transferring the responsibility of law from the individual to the state.
I've made about a half-dozen arrests, citizen arrests, because I am a pacifist and a anarchist. I don't think there should be police officers. One these that always surprises me, is how people generally accept being arrested. It is like kids who push things until they are stopped. I've had to get physical, but certainly I'd be no match for the PCP-laced berzerker, but that is why God put the invincibly ignorant among us who would simply kill the mad dog. And then honestly say killing is wrong. "Was that killing you just did wrong?" "Yes, but he is dead." Or something like that.
There is necessary and sufficient violence among us without the state to deal with the bad guys.
Now, of course, this would all be simplified if the state had executed the innocent man, so now it is an embarrassment. Like all those videos showing cops murdering people now. Martin Stroud is the prosecutor who railroaded the innocent man.
Marty Stroud admitted in a letter published in a Louisiana newspaper last month that he was to blame for putting Glenn Ford behind bars in 1983
OK... so... (Glenn Ford is the victim.)
In the letter, Stroud admitted that he was to blame for mistakenly putting Ford behind bars for the fatal shooting of a jeweler, despite no murder weapon or witnesses placing him at the scene.
'In 1984, I was 33 years old,' he wrote. 'I was arrogant, judgmental, narcissistic and very full of myself. I was not as interested in justice as I was in winning.'
Mistakenly? Is that what we call it? This is an otherwise unheard of event? OK.. so what to do?
'Glenn Ford should be completely compensated to every extent possible because of the flaws of a system that effectively destroyed his life,' Stroud wrote.
'The audacity of the state's effort to deny Mr. Ford any compensation for the horrors he suffered in the name of Louisiana justice is appalling.'
Ah, it is the systems' fault, not the individual whose actions are immune from prosecution. Martin Stroud had nothing to do with this right? Maybe, just maybe, if prosecutors were answerable for fun-time career-enhancing false prosecutions, there would be fewer executions and incarcerations of innocent poor and minority. Just maybe. Martin Stroud did nothing wrong, it is the system!
If Martin Stroud III actually had the slightest concern about what he had done to the man, he would take everything he gained in the last 33 years and give it to the man he personally railroaded up the river, and not condemn the taxpayers for not kicking in to cover up Strouds' malfeasance and personal aggrandizement.
But that ain't gonna happen. This is America.
We need truth commissions, not government prosecutors.
The government has identified almost 3,000 cases in which FBI agents may have given testimony involving the now-discredited technique. So far only about 500 of those cases have been been reviewed. Some 268 of those involved FBI examiners providing expert evidence in court that pointed to the guilt of the defendant – of which 257, or 96%, included false testimony. Most shockingly, at least 35 defendants received the death penalty, 33 of which were the subject of false FBI testimony. Nine of the prisoners were executed and five died from other causes on death row.
Something like 90% of cases involve plea bargain with no trial, so figure about ten times as many people falsely convicted, but no chance of review since they admitted guilt to avoid a life sentence.
I’m a Christian, but I don’t go to church. Americans have made modern Christianity almost synonymous with war and the US military. I’m not alone in avoiding churches for exactly this reason. I can’t stand sitting through sermons on the myth of American exceptionalism. American Christianity has lost all moral authority and now suffers the intellectual backlash for its pro-war rhetoric. What thinking person wants to belong to a church that places greater moral weight on petty vices than the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Ben Affleck persuaded the producers of Finding Your Roots to edit out details of how his ancestors were slave owners even though it was a breach of PBS editorial rules.The new Batman star, who supports a number of liberal causes, objected to the ancestry TV show airing how his distant relations were racist, leaked Sony emails reveal.
So what?! If you are long term American, your family probably owned slaves, if you were the right people. Here is a bill of sale for some slaves my ancestors auctioned off. On Christmas Eve.
Hell, the Spiers were so tied up in slaves court cases got involved:
1808
Spiers v. Willison, 4 Cranch 398, 8 U.S. 398, 2 L.Ed. 659(U.S.Ky.,1808)(Rebecca Willison, claimed title to the slaves under her grandmother, and at the trial offered parol proof that the grandmother, while Kentucky was a part of Virginia, had given them to her by a deed, which was lost. By the Virginia act of assembly, no gift of a slave was valid unless in writing and recorded. Court Held: parol evidence may be given of the existence of a deed of gift to show the nature of possession which accompanied the deed.)
Ramsay v. Lee, 4Cranch 401 (Mem), 8 U.S. 401, 2 L.Ed. 660 (U.S.Dist.Col.,1808) In Virginia, in 1784, no gift of a slave was valid unless in writing and recorded, although possession accompanied the gift.
Back to that bill of sale... the Spiers were rich and connected. A man's sins unto the third and fourth generation...." We were wiped out four generations after that.
I teach my kids two lessons:
1. Don't worry what crimes your ancestors committed that were "OK" at the time, what crimes are YOU committing now that are "OK" at the time?
2. Don't fool yourself, all you gain will be lost if it is crime-based.
Affleck said he hopes that, if anything, the PBS controversy would keep the issue of slavery in the national spotlight. “We deserve neither credit nor blame for our ancestors,” he wrote, “and the degree of interest in this story suggests that we are, as a nation, still grappling with the terrible legacy of slavery.”
Nice diversion, Ben. The question is not slavery in your case, it is integrity. The controversy is that you were given the censorship you requested. And now the brand is shot, knowing that the raison d'etre of the show is contrived.
Again, Ben, what crimes do you engage in today that are "OK" today, but will be appalling in the light of cold history? Think ben, think!
14Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And what about us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.”
But then - see the difference?
King James Bible
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And soldiers were asking him and they were saying, “What shall we do also?” He said to them, “Do harm to no man, do no injustice and let your wages be sufficient for you.”
American King James Version
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said to them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And the soldiers also asked him, saying: And what shall we do? And he said to them: Do violence to no man; neither calumniate any man; and be content with your pay.
English Revised Version
And soldiers also asked him, saying, And we, what must we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither exact anything wrongfully; and be content with your wages.
Young's Literal Translation
And questioning him also were those warring, saying, 'And we, what shall we do?' and he said unto them, 'Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.'
If you read the Commentary on the passage, it seems to say how to behave outside of actual war, since most soldiers in history are rarely in actual battle. In essence, these conditions cannot be met, therefore...
Further, as people cannot pay for the wars we advance, we are visited with violence to collect the money. Extortion may have been a common problem, but I think it is contrary to the whole culture of violence of a standing military.
http://biblehub.com/luke/3-14.htm And not to put too fine a point on it, eventually soldiers arrested and executed John the Baptist.
This was a real job, done by boys, who would run up and down the ladders to fetch powder from the deep holds to charge the cannons on a ship. Check out the sabres on the rack behind him. A fighting ship. Had to be tough little goats. How tough, that is social conditioning.
The powers that be lie to discredit their real competitors, the anarchists...
Anarchists attack police with petrol bombs after Athens demo ATHENS, Greece (AP) — Rioting youths have clashed with Greek police in central Athens, damaging vehicles and property, following a demonstration by hundreds of anarchists seeking the abolition of a maximum security prison.
If they throw molotov cocktails, they don't want change, they only want to be in charge. Real anarchists would never resort to violence, since it only empowers the bad guys in charge.
A retired police detective I know, upon hearing of a police officer fired or prosecuted for some crime, simply says "I wonder who he pissed off." For it does not happen that wrongdoing has consequences in law enforcement, at any level. if someone gets the boot, it is because he has displeased some higher up.
So now comes rather strong evidence bitcoin has been a government gig all along, as I have said all along. How else to explain why a Secret Service Agent and a DEA agent have been arrested for stealing millions form bitcoin while framing the Silk Road participant for drug dealing?
The obvious reason is Bitcoin belongs to the hegemon.
Bridges allegedly diverted to his personal account over $800,000 in digital currency that he gained control of during the Silk Road investigation. The complaint alleges that Bridges placed the assets into an account at Mt. Gox, the now-defunct digital currency exchange in Japan. He then allegedly wired funds into one of his personal investment accounts in the United States mere days before he sought a $2.1 million seizure warrant for Mt. Gox’s accounts. .. The charges contained in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty... The case was investigated by the FBI’s San Francisco Division, the IRS-CI’s San Francisco Division, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General in Washington D.C. The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also provided assistance with the investigation of this case. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kathryn Haun and William Frentzen of the Northern District of California and Trial Attorney Richard B. Evans of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section.
haahahahahaha... "Public Integrity Division" that is hilarious... excuse me while I wipe away a tear. If you read on you can see how he used subpoenas to effect his theft. Subpoenas must be signed by a judge, to "keep the government honest." Judges have clerks rubber stamp these things.
Look at all of the people it took to investigate this event. Has it ever occurred in government to supervise these people? Would it not take less effort to do that than investigate? The real purpose for all those names is to impress on the rogues they are not to steal from Bitcoin. Expect slaps on the wrist all around.
Solution:
1. We cannot prosecute the endemic criminality in law enforcement. The only chance for reform is to set up truth commissions and exile anyone caught lying to the investigators. Let people keep what the stole, grant immunity for everything, even capital crimes, but get at the truth. it will set us free.
2. Track all warrants and subpoenas in a central database. Cops judge-shop, and we should know what the cops know, which judges rubber stamp warrants, etc. Rate judges on their probity given the outcome of their warrants and subpoenas.
3. Law enforcement and intelligence seek contradictory ends. Law enforcement is supposed to curb crime, intelligence embraces and extends crime to gather knowledge. There is no balance of the two, they are mutually exclusive, and the ends can never justify the means. One has to go... Get rid of "intelligence" and deal with crimes as crimes, not opportunities.
