Thou Shalt Not Poomse: Dr. Russell Tardo on The Evil of Martial Arts

Is it ok if I call bullshit on this one? Cuz that's a whole lotta bullshit, right there...

 

Martial arts "came out of yoga"?

That's news to me ...

 

0:30-0:33 "I was in that for nearly 30 years..... extensive work in the Martial Art that I can speak as an expert..."

0:38 "five times national champion..."

0:41 "instructor in two different universities"

1:31-1:41 "... that basically goes back to the history of Yoga. That's where the Martial Art came out of..." -

errrrrrr, boxing? Greco-Roman wrestling? All Samurai arts? Muay Boran? Savate? Sambo? Ooops, Vitto didn't specify Karate or Kung-Fu. He said Martial Arts. I guess the European Christian Knights also did Yoga ay? Let alone the origin of Chinese KungFu and Okinawan Karate may have been influenced by Indian art, but to call it Yoga is somewhat.....

2.43-2:52 "... we talked about the energy that is called universal power source... we talked about energy that gives that person that power. I asked a Martial Artist... where do they get their power from? And they said, well it's from this energy out in space..."

Last time I check, I develop my power from hip rotation, plyometric, structural training, muscle expansion and contraction, core muscle and bone conditioning (no, not bone conditioning really, bone conditioning simply "allows" you to apply the power without fear of breaking your limbs)

3:22-3:23 "my 50 years of knowledge of Martial Arts...."

Wait WHAT?? fifty years? I taught Vitto said thirty years in the beginning. Oh... Vitto....

"There are six things that the Lord strongly dislikes, seven that are abomination to HIM: haughty eyes (eg: I can speak as an expert), a lying tongue (eg: is it 30 or 50 years...?, Martial Art came from Yoga)....." Proverb 6:16-19.

 

At the very beginning when he says "30 ..." I wasn't sure if the clip was edited or not, because there was a blip in the audio.

He might very well have said "30 weeks" ...

"A man's best defense against a stick attack is Downward Facing Dog"
~ Swami Sundar Poondalini

 

yea I dont even know where to begin with this, Martial arts are a great way to build relationships, create unity within a system within a community and teach respect, restraint,control patience. When looking at it from a Christian perspective this is exactly the type of traits you want to embrace. Yes some systems have a more spiritual side where there would be a conflict of interest but to blanket everything under the same guise is just not beneficial to your credibility

 

Terrific, I am going to hell. At least I'll know how to fight when I get there.

 

Great... I am going to hell. Never thought it would be for martial arts. The bright side, at least I'll know how to fight when I get there.

 

Less we all forget, You learn martial arts to be able to walk away from conflict, not starting it! I don't teach or preach religion when practising martial arts, as that is left up to the students but, I do teach self-awareness. I don't believe in pushing my religious beliefs on anyone. Now if only we could get the different religions to do the same! Master Fahy

 

OK, so by this logic... if you make any movement like you would in martial arts - you are practicing Hinduism... be says.
... and I will shorten the logic here...
So, by saying the word Hinduism... he must be practicing Hinduism...
BURN THE WITCH!

 

Different religious denominations constantly fight and argue with each other about who's beliefs are correct and who's is not! I therefore don't partake in their conflicts with each other! Master Fahy

 

This guy, Russell Tardo (wonder if his middle name is Edward? Then he would be R.E.Tardo) and Fred Phelps - leader of the Westboro Baptist Church - probably get together for a BBQ every Sunday.

 

Although I agree with the spirit of your reply, I cannot say I agree totally with the real-world application of it. It would be much easier to take classes in sprinting and long-distance running if that were the true intent of the martial arts.

Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the martial arts were created to kill, not to run away. Running away, although it is taught as the first action to take in almost every martial arts class, is NOT part of the martial arts. It's an add-on, a nod to the wussification of modern society. It's the kind of action your school teacher and your lawyer would advise.

In times of war, do the leaders tell the soldiers to run away when they see the enemy?

Yes, there ARE times when it is strategically sound, but NOT as a response to EVERY situation. This is why bullying became the hot topic beginning a few years ago: our society has trained us to run away, avoid conflict at any cost, give up our material possessions in the hopes of our attackers having mercy on us ... but it doesn't quite work out that way. The cops LOVE seeing you run away - less paperwork for them to fill out. The lawyers love it - you won't be accused of using excessive force in your self-defense. The unicorn-and-Skittle folk love it because, well, it's all about peace and love and understanding.

But that's isn't how the world is made. Telling a student to ALWAYS try running away first sets them up for failure - they no longer have that fighting instinct in them. It's been bred out. We should fight as if there's nowhere to run TO, that every fight is our last, because it's always easier to turn the thermostat DOWN than turn it UP.

 

That's funny SifuPhil, I thought that I said walk not running away! We live in a society that teaches this,don't we?

 

We seem to ...

And as a cop, please tell me the truth - WHY do you advise people to run away? Is it because:

1. It's policy
2. You're concerned for the safety of the citizen
3. Citizens expect you to say it
4. You resent not being the instrument of justice
5. Citizens are not equipped to handle the bad guys
6. A mixture of all or some of the above

???

This is where we differ in our beliefs ... I believe that EVERYONE has that fighting instinct when they are born, but that it is bred-out by schools, parents and society as a whole.

You seek to instill something that is not there; I want to uncover what has been hidden.

Oooo ... you got me!

 

agreed, it becomes the "society" norm to comply and then everything just works in harmony works well doesnt it

 

As a cop, predominently 2, 5 and 6. I've encountered too many people in my career who overestimated their abilities and ended up hospitalised for the sake of a pittance of cash, bank cards which could be cancelled and phones which were insured anyway.

I think that instinct you refer to is the 'fight or flight' response. Both responses are equally natural but not always equally likely due to conditioning. Those who are constantly told to run may be more likely to take 'flight', just as with my martial arts training I may be more likely to fight. Wisdom and experience allow us to choose the most expedient option but only if both options are equally viable. For those who are not trained to fight, flight remains the only option.
The 'fight' instinct is more about the instinctive urge to stay alive than some genetically encoded knowledge of how to land a strike.

 

Excellent points - my respects to you.

I guess what I'm specifically referring to is what I call a "sense of righteous rage" - the ability to control and channel the adrenaline dump, use it for your own purposes, get into that warrior mindset of not caring whether or not you'll be injured or die - just going totally animal - controlled, focused animal - on your assailant.

I agree that "fight or flight" is instilled in all of us and will vary according to social exposures. I was really just commenting on the possible differences in how we approach training the students - additive or subtractive methods.

 

I guess I approach training students from a 'hedge your bets' perspective: if you can get away do, if not, here's how to do some damage.

That's largely due to the demographic though: there are 15 to 50 juniors in any given class but only 2 or three seniors.

 

Never there will Be no Iaido,itsudemo...itsumademo!













































baido,Itsumadewmo!

 

#6 is my answer! As a law enforcement officer we are instructed to inform the public that it is not for them to take matters into their own hands! Have you been listening to the news lately? This past week,
Armed Robber’s Widow Suing Store Clerk Who Shot and Killed Her Husband During Robbery Attempt

Posted by The Eye is Watching on May 30, 2013​

Posted in: Positive US Gun Stories, Ramblings. Tagged: 2nd amendment, Gun Ban, gun control, positive gun stories, second amendment, Self Defense, sheeple, sheeple trance, socialism. 1 comment
From GunsSavesLives:
Cases like this are exactly why if your state does not have a self defense immunity law, you need to be pushing for one. Many states have laws stating that if a shooting is ruled justifiable you cannot be sued in civil court over the incident.
On to the story. In New Mexico a widow is suing a store clerk who shot and killed her husband when he tried to rob the clerk’s store in 2010.
The widow’s case alleges that the shop clerk bears more of the blame for her husband’s death than her husband does because he had time to call the police instead of shooting her armed husband.
Yes, that’s right, she thinks the clerk is more at fault.
According to KRQE,

Sedillo’s attorney, Amavalise Jaramillo, the attorney for Sedillo’s widow, said it all comes down to who had more fault in the case.​

While Jaramillo acknowledges the suspect’s role in what happened, he said Beasley shares more blame.​

“He does bear some fault, but it’s like a pie. You divide out the fault accordingly, and Mr. Beasley could have done something different,” Jaramillo said.​

Seriously? This isn’t a car accident where two people both did something stupid resulting in a car accident. This suspect chose to rob this store. He chose to bring a gun. He chose to point that gun at the clerk. The only choice the clerk made was refusing to be a victim.
The attorney went on,

“He had no basis to believe that his life was in danger,” Jaramillo said. “Most robberies end with an attempt to get money. They really don’t kill the clerks.”​

Really? So the clerk was just supposed to put the trust for his life in the hands of a man who was pointing a gun at him? I’m sure his intentions were nothing but good.
The lawsuit is also going after the owner of the shop as well as the local police department, because you can never sue enough people, right?
CRIMINALS HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN AVERAGE CITIZENS I believe that if you can avoid the fight, do so! If you can't TAKE THEM OUT! I'd rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6! Most situations can be handled when its one on one however, more than one and its time to get out of the A/O! Master Fahy