The Election

While the purpose of this blog is as a ministry to Christian Martialists and not primarily political, a lot of what I post has political ramifications. This is because I try to interpret life from a Biblical perspective, and God's Law/Word has political ramifications. Therefore, I will depart from my usual format and make an overtly political statement in this post.

There seems to be a dissatisfaction this year among American Christian conservatives with their choices for president. On the one hand, you have a statist liberal Democrat who makes sweeping promises to use civil power to solve all our problems. On the other hand, you have a statist "conservative" Republican who also claims to have the answers -- which he, like his opponent, defines in terms of state power.

The 1980 election of Ronald Reagan first saw evangelical Christians getting involved in politics in a big way. Before that year, the Christian Right was not seen as voting bloc. From that year until this, evangelicals have, as a bloc, voted Republican. To borrow a phrase from Dr. Phil, "How's that workin' out for you?"

In each election, the presumably most principled segment of voters has elevated electability above principle. The evangelical mantra against minority party candidates has been,"A vote for [someone who really stands with us] is a vote for the humanist liberals." Then they pray for God to bless their expediency.

In the year 2000, George W. Bush courted the evangelical vote, and Christian conservatives accepted him as one of their own. Not as well known is the fact that he also courted the support of the Log Cabin group (a sodomite lobbying group within the Republican party), and he received their support, as well. He made promises to both groups.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. While President Bush opposed stem cell research to placate evangelicals, he also appointed more openly declared homosexuals to federal posts than any president before him. When the question of same-sex marriage arose, he came out against it (sop to evangelicals) but said he did not oppose same-sex civil unions (sop to sodomites).

In 2004, the sodomites had enough character to withdraw their support of George W. Bush. Evangelicals did not.

Almost 2000 years ago, a Canaanite woman said she would see it as a blessing to get even the crumbs from the Lord's table. In our lifetime, we have seen Christians hoping and praying for the crumbs from the table of statist politicians. Again, "How's that been workin' for you?"

Perhaps it's time for Christian conservatives to change their strategy. Using politics to fight statism is like using gasoline to fight fire (i.e., it just makes things worse.)

Christ's plan for changing societies did not involve voting in a new government with Christian programs. He told us to disciple the nations, teaching them to observe His commandments. If the Church fulfills its mission and brings individuals and families under the rule of Christ the King, then society WILL change, and the civil government will follow.

Reference my essay: What Will It Take for the Church to Fulfill the Great Commission?

Sheepdog Strategies, 8

Continued from "Sheepdog Strategies, 7"

The Master Warrior is seated on a rock, eating a bowl of oatmeal. I wait as patiently as I can. The oats are not mushy, but chewy, and he eats them the traditional Scottish way, with salt rather than sugar.

"Y' know, Clodhopper, that the English used to look down on the Scots for eating oats. They thought of oats as fodder for horses. That's why the English produced such strong horses, and the Scots produced such strong people. Now, what brings you out so early?"

"I have a question, O Master Warrior. I've been wondering . . . how would one get his womenfolk interested in learning self defense?" Without a word, the kilted Scot deftly locked my wrist and easily took me to the ground. He stood over me.

"Why are ye lying down, lad?"

"Because . . . you forced me?"

"How much force did I use?"

"Almost none."

"Then how did I force you to do anything? Think."

"Well, the pain was so great that I fell down."

"You chose to fall?"

"I guess I did."

"Then I didn't make you fall, but I made you want to. If you can learn to make someone want to without the pain, Clodhopper, ye'll have the answer to your question."


There is a fine line between persuasion and manipulation. As a Christian Martialist, you do not want to violate the trust of your womenfolk by crossing that line, even for their own good.

Successful politicians learn early to operate by a code that voters never seem to catch on to: "Be sincere whether you mean it or not." That is a manipulative attitude far-removed from the Apostle Paul's exhortation "that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ." (Phil. 1:10)

That word exhortation is an interesting one. It means to urge. In fact, Paul lists exhortation as one of the gifts of the Spirit (Romans 12:6,8). I believe that effectual exhortation implies the ability to motivate others to do what they ought to do.

What motivates people in general, and women in particular? Advertisers will tell you that the 3 big motivators in marketing are sex, greed, pride and fear. Successful marketing campaigns will appeal to one or more of these "primal motivators".

Never let such manipulative techniques play a part in how you deal with the people in your life.

Human Motivation

I see four primary factors in motivation: emotion, reason, ethics and destiny. Fear and joy are emotional motivators, and not necessarily bad ones. For example, the promise of future joy was a motivational factor in Jesus' self-sacrifice.

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross . . . . (Hebrews 12:2)

But joy was not the only -- nor even the primary -- motivator. Christ went to the cross out of obedience to the Father, an example of duty. (Luke 22:42) He also went because it was His destiny to do so (John 18:37).

Also, don't forget His great love for those whom He redeemed. It's not one of the four factors I listed because it is so rare as a pure motivator in human life. We find it in stories of uncommon sacrifice, as when a mother lays down her life for her child or a soldier gives his life for his buddies.

Sometimes, people think they are using love as a motivator when they actually are not. "If you really loved me, you'd do this." That's not motivating through love; it's a shoddy attempt to motivate through the emotion of guilt and a sense of failed duty.

When dealing with your womenfolk, it's better just to assume the love. Women are extraordinarily protective of their children, for example, because they love the little tykes (even if the tyke is 50). But this fact is neither a pry bar nor a hammer.

You can't say, "If you love little Algernon, you'll want to train to protect him." It sounds reasonable to you, and you see a logical connection. She would see it as a blatant attempt at using guilt for leverage.

In fact, the whole attempt to motivate should come at the end rather than at the beginning of your persuasive endeavors.

The Art of Salesmanship

If you want the lady/ladies in your life to take an interest in self-defense, you are selling something. Your product is an intangible, an idea.

Ordinary salesmen know that the first step in selling anything is to create a need. They give demonstrations of what the "little marvel" will do as they paint word pictures of how wonderful your life would be if you only owned one. They bolster their demonstration with facts, statistics and stories of changed lives.

Before you know it the prospect(s) want one. They have a felt need for the product. From there, it's just a matter of a few good closing techniques, and you walk away with a "little marvel" as the salesman walks away with your money. That's how sales are ordinarily made.

Rob Jolles has written a book for the extraordinary sales person. It's called Customer Centered Selling (check your local, public library). His method does not begin with a contrived attempt to "create" a need in the customer's mind. Instead, he listens to the customer explain his needs.

But that will be the subject of another post.

"O Master Warrior, I thank you for helping me with my problem."

"Indeed, Clodhopper, meeting your needs is one reason I'm here, isn't it?"

Continued in "Sheepdog Strategies, 9"

Knife Defense Followup

After watching Jim Grover's knife defense video clip, Stephen poses an excellent question.

Question: If your life or the lives of your loved ones was at stake, would you risk spending time in jail for anticipating the attack and defending against it? I know I would.

I am not a lawyer, nor should anyone take the following as legal advice. If you need legal counsel on this matter, speak to an attorney.

What will happen in front of a judge is anyone's guess. Does he like the way you look, do you come across as arrogant, etc.? Also, are there witnesses? (Could work for you or against you.)

Nevertheless, the training I've received in more than one state has claimed that the legal system works on the reasonable individual principle. In other words, how would a reasonable individual react in the same circumstance?

"Your honor, he wouldn't show me his hands, and he kept advancing toward me, even though I told him to stop -- twice! I didn't want to hit him, but any reasonable individual in my shoes would conclude he and his (wife, daughter mother, sister, etc.) were in danger."

Under cross-examination, you might expect to be asked if you train in martial arts of any kind. At this point, I think it may help if you can truthfully say that a large part of your training focuses on methods to avoid and/or evade violence.

So, you should train with your partner in pre-fight tactics. Practice your posture and your words for when you believe an attack is imminent. If necessary, re-read Defeat Your Assailant's Will.

I have read that a woman using good pre-violence tactics in the face of imminent attack can reduce her chances of assault by 50%. Go thou and do likewise.

Knife Defense Video

In "Poetry and Other Deadly Pursuits" I made the point that a fight is a fight is a fight is a fight. In the video clip below, Jim Grover (a.k.a. Kelly McCann) demonstrates that principle. The introduction of the knife also introduces some tactical considerations, but his technical response looks a lot like any other self defense situation.

Things to look for:

• The legal question of assault vs battery (when does attack begin?)
• Where should you look in ANY potentially violent confrontation?
• Look for what Tony Blauer calls the SPEAR, and I refer to as the combat wedge (see my "Startle Response" series of posts)
  

For Your Amusement

Thanks to Stephen for drawing my attention to the oneplusyou.com site. The folks over there think they have discovered a means of rating blogs (G, PG, PG-13, R) by an analysis of the words they contain.

They rate WARSKYL:

"R" Restricted -- Under 17 requires accompanying parent or guardian.
This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:

• punch (9x)
• knife (7x)
• dangerous (3x)
• gun (1x)

By those standards, a Louis L'Amour novel would be XXX rated.

I always thought my content was more PG-13. ;-)

Avoid, Evade, Escape

The Christian Martialist sheepdog prepares himself to protect his flock, whether his church, his family, his neighbors, etc. That protective mindset is a little different from the self-defense mindset.

In terms of personal security, your mindset goals should be: 1) Avoid; 2) Evade; 3) Escape.

Avoid -- You avoid violence by not going where it happens or is likely to happen.

Evade -- You evade violence by removing yourself from potentially violent situations.

Escape -- When violence seeks you out and you cannot avoid or evade, you must neutralize the threat long enough to escape the situation. At this point, your physical self defense techniques come into play.

Note that most self-defense instruction prepares you for the last-chance point in the process. It emphasizes the life raft rather than how to keep the ship safe and intact.

The mindset goals I have outlined, by way of contrast, are the self-defense application of Paul's exhortation, "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." (Romans 12:18)

When you undertake the responsibility for protecting others, the goals do not essentially change. But the emphasis and practical outworking do.

Let's examine that in another post.

Knockout Punches

Today, I'm giving you another article by Keith Pascal. He makes the point that knockout punches are only for fights in which your life is on the line. Let me add that if your life is not on the line, it's a 90% probability that you don't need to be fighting. Fighting for your life is valid; fighting for your ego is not.

In addition, what he says about punching also applies to open hand strikes. Enjoy


Knockout Punch Danger - The Simple Punch Knockout Punch Danger - The Simple Punch

By Keith Pascal

Have you ever typed "how to knock someone out with one punch" or "knockout punches" into a search engine, like Google? Were you searching for a free article on these power punches?

Recently, I read an esoteric article about developing a single, knock-out punch.

The author was OK, when he talked about "brain rattling." It's that jarring motion that often cause a total knock out in boxing. (I think I would have been happier, if he had explained the dangers of knocking someone unconscious by rattling the brain against the skull.

Knockout Punch Dangers Missed By Author

Where the esoteric author stepped over the line was when he started discussing hitting the temple. Sure, the advice read as though it was lifted from one of my ebooks or ecourses on devastating punching, minus all of the warnings.

This author talked about Dim Mak (The Death Touch) as though it were just another intellectual discussion for his web site.

Is he so naive that he doesn't understand that a sharp blow to the temple can kill someone?

Hasn't he read about the fatal accidents that have happened to actors when they fire blanks or rubber bullets at their temple?

Punching to the temple is very dangerous.

The Responsibility of Knowing How to Knock Someone Out with a Single Punch

This may sound as corny as a Spiderman movie, but with the knowledge of being able to knock someone out every time comes the awesome responsibility to ... avoid knocking someone out!

My philosophy is "Those that can, don't. Those that can't ... claim that they can."

How to Develop a Single Knockout Punch

Look, you don't need to learn a punch to the temple, in order to knock someone out. Don't risk it. Don't risk the life of another in an attempt to "knock someone unconscious."

It just doesn't make sense.

If you need to incapacitate someone in a fight, you have a lot of options. A light tap to the groin for example, may or may not cause someone to pass out. Either way, you will probably successfully defend yourself.

I could give other examples, too. Just think vulnerable areas.

I agree that devastating punches are very useful ... but you need to know how to use them. Most fights don't warrant such a risk.

Your life would have to be in dangerous before you'd consider such a drastic move as a "knockout punch."

For an article on solo training in the martial arts, read
Martial Arts Solo Training.

Here's a site about really punching harder and faster... Free Punch ebook.

Keith Pascal is a martial-arts writer and has taught martial arts for 25 years.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Keith_Pascal
http://EzineArticles.com/?Knockout-Punch-Danger---The-Simple-Punch&id=1147566