To preserve what remains of our free society, videotaping those in power when they operate in public (or in our homes) must be legal. It is the most effective way to help prevent abuses of power that would otherwise go unseen and unpunished. The danger presented to law-enforcement officers’ safety, or to their efficacy as agents of our government, is negligible, in my opinion. The loss to every one of us should we give up the right to record police does far greater damage to society and to the individuals it comprises.

Read the full column here at WorldNetDaily.

In a free society, public service announcements encourage that society’s citizens to act for the common good by appealing to their better natures. …These heavy-handed recycling mandates are part of a greater problem. They are a few hundred of the thousands of cuts that will eventually bleed us all dry.

Read the full column here at WorldNetDaily.

When liberals attempt to silence political dissent on talk radio through re-enacting the euphemistically termed “Fairness Doctrine,” I think I see the coiled and merciless mechanical hound of Bradbury’s story, waiting to inject its poison into dissidents.

Read the full column here at WorldNetDaily.

Speak out against anyone or anything online and it is only a matter of time before someone at least threatens to sue you. As expensive as legal action can become, this is no idle threat, even if it comes from someone who has no real case. You can be bludgeoned into silence by our legal system simply because our technologically saturated society, overall, tolerates falsity. Even as it confronts us with our words from years ago, casting our opinions and our contradictions in stark relief, it shields us from the rightful consequences thereof by allowing us to bully any who might attempt to use that information.

Read the full column here at WorldNetDaily.

Mr. Sellner, however, went farther than even I thought he would have dared.  After he tried to have the video pulled from YouTube, he sent me this e-mail:

from: jack savage < jacksavagecsra@yahoo.com >
to: Phil Elmore
date: Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:28 PM
subject: Hikuta Lie Video
mailed-by: philelmore.com
signed-by: yahoo.com

hide details 10:28 PM (25 minutes ago)

I responded to your Hikuta Lie video but you had my response deleted and my account blocked from responses to your video channel. It was then I had it removed as it was apparent you not only had no problem stealing others intellectual property but would also do your best to stop any free flow of ideas and comments on the HIKUTA QUESTION. I will allow you to repost “the Hikuta Lie ” ONLY IF you allow ALL RESPONSES to be unedited and undeleted.

JACK SAVAGE

That’s right: 

Jack Sellner tried to extort me.

He tried to grant me permission to repost the original video in exchange for the freedom to say whatever he wanted on the comments page for that video.  This means that, far from representing any sort of infringement or harm to Mr. Sellner’s business, the few seconds of fair-use video we included of Sellner is apparently just fine with him… as long as he can post whatever he likes to insult it and me. This is in contravention of both YouTube’s terms of service and any sort of legality or morality that could come into play.

And just what was the “free exchange of ideas” I supposedly denied Mr. Sellner in removing his comment and blocking him?  Was it an attempt by him to stand up for the efficacy of Hikuta, or to complain about the supposed copyright infringement?

No.  It was calling me fat.

This is the type of comment Jack Sellner wanted free reign to post on my channel.  Well, nobody tells me what to write, frankly, and Jack “Savage” Sellner doesn’t get to “allow” The Martialist to do anything.  Here is the original, unedited martialmentary, “The Hikuta Lie,” for your consideration:

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

A few years ago, you see, The Martialist had an ongoing debate with the surprisingly persistent devotees of the obscure martial art called “Hikuta.”  Purported to be a system descending from the bodyguards of the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs, Hikuta produced two exponents and at least one would-be journalist who made their presence known to varying degrees on Internet discussion boards in the first decade of the 21^st century.  In arguing with them, I learned over time just how persistent can be those who are mentally and emotionally invested in a shared delusion.

In 1993, a man named Lee Crull, calling himself “DOK” Lee — D O K stands for Defender of Kings -- published, with Tim Dimoff, a book called Hikuta: The Art of Controlled Violence. Published by the Hanford Press, a division of Suarez Corporation, the book can still be found on occasion in conjunction with the VHS videotape that Lee produced to go with it.

In the book, DOK Lee alleges, in his brief write-up on the origin of Hikuta, that an art called “Kuta” was developed “by the bodyguards of the pharaohs as the most efficient and effective way to defend their king.”  Passed on from ancient Egypt to other royal bodyguards in Asian countries, the secretive art of Kuta finally made its way to “a very elite group of professional soldiers” in the early 1900s.  Modifying the body movements of Kuta to a continuous system of body motion (which became, in turn, Hikuta), these “elite, commando soldiers became the most superior soldiers in the history of mankind.”

In fact, in one paragraph on page xiii of the book, DOK Lee uses the word “elite” three times (four if you count “superelite”).  “These elite commandos were hired by a number of governments around the world to solve ‘impossible’ problems,” Lee writes.  “They were so superior they could even purposely get captured by enemy soldiers and be taken into their camps.  Once in the camp, using Hikuta, a handful of these superelite, professional soldiers would destroy the entire camp…  This elite, professional soldier group was kept top secret and eventually disbanded in the late 1940s.”

Supposedly, one of the last surviving members of this secret, elite, superior, superelite commando group, one “Pappy Joe,” taught DOK Lee the martial art of  Hikuta.  In the book, Lee states that he has studied Hikuta for 43 years.  One presumes that at the time of his death he had spent roughly five decades as a practitioner of this (elite and superior) art.

As described in the book and video package, Hikuta makes use of the “startle motion” — that speed that comes from reacting quickly and instinctively.  The startle motion is the method through which Hikuta practitioners are said to achieve the total body involvement that Lee believed was important.  That total body involvement is applied to continuous motion (fluidity — a positive and worthwhile concept).

Students of Hikuta purportedly learn to distribute their weight forward first.  The hand or leg movements come after the body is placed forward first.  The body then supports the techniques and strikes.  This is, of course, the exact opposite of one of primary biomechanical methods of generating power. As students of Hikuta have no body structure to support rooted strikes (a Hikuta hand strike is usually a loose, flailing strike thrown without any sort of body rooting or alignment of the body’s gates), the only hope to develop power with Hikuta would be in a falling step or drop step to make use of body weight.  Obviously, if the body moves first and then the strike comes, this is impossible.

The foundation of Hikuta is the “Hikuta Hand.”  The thumb is on top of the hand as pictured.  The fingers are deliberately held loosely on the theory that this relaxed hand absorbs the shock of impact in order to better impart force to the target.  The hand is snapped out loosely and very quickly from whatever position it happens to be in, with no telegraphing or chambering or tensing of muscles.

This much is true:  snapping out a blow without telegraphing, with loose muscles to maximize speed, is a viable and advisable technique.  Using the Hikuta Hand to make the strike, however, is not something I can advocate.  In my opinion only, I can see no way a hand held in this manner would not result in broken fingers, relatively weak punches, and possibly a jammed thumb and/or fingers.  The stated purpose of the Hikuta Hand is to prevent damage to the hand itself, but if this is the desired goal, why would one not make use of the hand’s natural strikes?  Both the palm heel and the edge-of-hand blow are recommended combative tools that minimize the possibility of injury.

There is also a primary kicking technique in Hikuta.  The basic Hikuta kick is simply a “forward or side-of-foot kick to the shin area.”  The Hikuta practitioner apparently jerks “both or one of [his or her] open hands down towards the striking leg’s thigh area…”  This is supposed to generate both speed and power.  Interestingly, the book seems to contradict itself here.  Bringing the arms up to the chest while executing the Hikuta kick is first described as a “simple exercise” for practice.  But the text then states, “When executing a Hikuta kick, the key element is to bring your hand(s) toward your chest as illustrated.  Remember — the faster your hands touch your chest area, the greater force you will generate in your Hikuta kick.”  Either way it is done, the Hikuta kickers depicted are shown leaning backward as they execute the kicks.

A few other Hikuta techniques include a double-hand push to the chest, a low-line kick across the front of the attacker’s knees or shins, a simple variation on a common bear-hug defense, and a reinforced elbow strike.

Hikuta’s complete lack of blocking techniques, coupled with its mechanically awkward and relatively weak punching and kicking methodology, make it the perfect storm of self-destructive recklessness.  This is a system guaranteed to get you injured, a system whose only justification for its inadvisable methods is its contrived, made-up, obviously fake history.

From the unbelievable, unlikely, and impossible tales of the super-elite Kuta commandos, to the obvious ploy of a long-dead teacher whose existence cannot be verified in the form of Pappy Joe, it is obvious that the history of Hikuta cannot be literally true.  The system was most likely made up by Lee Crull in or before 1993.  It began with him, and no other explanation for Hikuta’s existence is credible or likely.

DOK Lee was not a man in good health.  His deep voice at times verges on a croak, and it is immediately apparent that he’s either about to pass out or reading awkwardly from cue cards.  He died only a few years after making the 1993 Hikuta video package, and more than once in that video, he appears to be having trouble catching his breath.  The way he leans on tables and other objects around him would seem to indicate he’s using the furniture for support.

When he Lee Crull died, the system that began with him didn’t end with him.  He has at least two students who have actively propagated Hikuta on the Internet and in some cases in person.

The first is Al Abidin, who at last count was running his own Hikuta school.  I’ve never interacted much with Al, but he’s always struck me as a reasonably polite, professional individual. To the best of my knowledge he still runs his Hikuta business, which from all outward appearances at least doesn’t embarass Lee Crull’s surviving family members or tarnish whatever one might make of the man’s legacy.

On his blog a couple of years ago, Abidin did have this to much to say:

I encourage you to do your homework before jumping on the “everyone is raving about what a joke Hikuta is” bandwagon.

Originally, it wasn’t ‘everyone’.

It was a dispute between one of my past students, Jack Savage and Phil Elmore.

Elmore likes to review martial arts on the internet and decided to get all his friends to join in his campaign to shut down and shut up Jack.

From there, many others have jumped on the bandwagon without even realizing what started it.

Elmore had asked Jack for a free video so that he could ‘evaluate’ Hikuta.

Jack said no.

Then Elmore asked me for a free video and I said no.

I must commend Elmore. He did get his point across and many have joined him in trying to discredit something they have no knowledge about.

I respect your service to our country, and I know many others who have served in Iraq.

I’m glad the battle is over there instead of here.

Thank you for your service.

In regards to Hikuta, do your homework before jumping on the Phil Elmore bandwagon.

Now, that’s not accurate at all, but this is the perspective supporters of Hikuta have to take in order to be able to look themselves in the mirror every morning.  They can’t admit that what they do is a joke, nor do they like to think about the fact that anyone with any real sense considers it a joke… so they blame me.

Oh, and for the record, while I did extend to Jack Sellner the opportunity I extend to everyone I criticize (meaning I told him I would give him an objective review if he chose to submit his materials), the idea that I lied awake at night formulating an anti-Hikuta conspiracy because Sellner wouldn’t submit his poorly-made videotapes is pretty ridiculous.  I eventually got my hands on various Hikuta materials for review through other channels, and the reviews I did are fair and objective (as they would have been in any case).  You simply cannot expect me not to ridicule the ridiculous; I don’t play games with the truth.

This brings us back to Jack Sellner, the person with whom I spent at least a couple of years arguing about the ridiculous, made-up mess that is Hikuta.

Calling himself Jack “Savage,” Sellner  released his own video material and still has a website, although in the last couple of years, he seemed to have disappeared from the Internet for all intents and purposes.  At least, that’s what I thought… until he resurfaced on YouTube and tried to have the original “The Hikuta Lie” documentary pulled from the site

We reposted the audio as “The Hikuta Problem” just before he sent the e-mail trying to extort The Martialist by saying he would “allow” us to repost “The Hikuta Lie” if we let him comment however he wished.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2BuI0LmuHA

It is this type of behavior that, sadly, characterizes those who have something to hide.  Specifically, practitioners of Hikuta don’t want you to know that what they do is absurd, unworkable, and ultimately a waste of time, effort, and money.  But in the continued activities of these students, the made-up, dangerously unsound martial art of Hikuta has achieved a kind of self-legitimacy.   A style that never really existed has become a second-generation fighting system which, if its practitioners continue to certify succeeding instructors, will have come into being from nothing… all because one wheezing old man apparently thought it would be fun to say so.

Like other styles that attempt to assert a connection with long-dead ancient civilizations to which they cannot possibly be linked even tenuously, Hikuta exists only in the minds of those who share the delusion that they are training in the methods of the Egyptian pharaoh’s bodyguards.  If you have heard of Hikuta, it is very likely that you heard of it through The Martialist… and if so, at least you’ll know better the next time someone tries to recommend it to you.  You’re smarter than that, and everyone, even if they’re not as smart as you, deserves better than a fake self-defense system practiced by well-meaning but deluded dupes.  As for those dupes who are less than well-meaning, who’ll stoop so low as to attempt to blackmail us using legal fictions… well, they’re never going to silence us.

Ever.

If this is true, it stands to reason that when a technology is not necessarily dangerous or worrisome to you, we should inform you of this. It was my conclusion, in the July 22, 2010, installment of Technocracy, that the fears commonly cited regarding fluoride are baseless. They are unfounded conspiracy theories whose propagation serves no one. I did not say this for any other reason than because it is true. To assess the purpose and place of technology in your life requires reasoned, rational thought. It requires judgment. It requires a dedication to what is true, regardless of wishful thinking and regardless of political affiliation.

Read the full column here at WorldNetDaily, and watch me read excerpts from the hate mail on the original fluoride column on my YouTube channel:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbkcFdZYYkU

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEuCQRDPhmE

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbkcFdZYYkU

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEuCQRDPhmE

After reading an article entitled Is flouride part of globalist plot? by freelance author and technical writer Phil Elmore posted on the WorldNetDaily website, I was motivated to correct Mr. Elmore’s misconceptions. In order to do this, I have decided to present evidence concerning the health dangers of fluoride.

The irony is that of all the very important topics I have covered in Technocracy, involving very real threats to your freedom as a citizen of the United States, the subject that has gotten the most attention to date is… fucking fluoride.

Obviously, just tucking your RFID-equipped cards into such a wallet or sleeve doesn’t solve all your problems. You’ve still got to be aware of the risks. You’ve got to conduct yourself responsibly as an informed, reasonably – dare I say it – paranoid consumer, at least in regard to your personal data.

Read the full column here at WorldNetDaily.

During the segment of his show in which his new Best Friend Forever (BFF) Frank Dux answers listeners’ calls and e-mails, Carson oh-so-subtly segued into a discussion of the Internet and discussion about [mixed] martial arts on the Web.  If you ask me, it sounds like (and this is speculation only on my part) that Carson and Dux discussed how best to work the topic into Dux’s segment, because it doesn’t seem to flow naturally from the conversation that comes before it.

(Tangentially, I note with interest that Carson claims he stopped visiting online MMA forums “three years ago.” This is the same man who, in his arrogant e-mail to me, told me, “Go on any MMA forum and ask people who they think is the best interviewer of all time — it’s me, sir.”  This begs the question of just how Mr. Carson would know such a thing, and relate it with such conviction, if it has been years since (in his own words) since he last checked such forums.)

Now, put yourself in Bob’s position. If you wanted to take a shot at me and The Martialist, but you didn’t want people who don’t already know about the site to to visit it out of curiosity, thus giving me free publicity, what would you do?

Carson lobs Dux a softball about Internet discussion, and Dux runs with it, invoking the tag line for this site.  Our motto has been, since The Martialist‘s inception, “For Those Who Fight Unfairly.”  This is an important concept because it acknowledges that there is no such thing as a “fair fight” in self-defense.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP7okqpFd0A

Anyone who knows about The Martialist will make this connection. Anyone who has visited us before who heard Dux’s comments knew exactly to whom he was referring (especially given our recent interview with him).  Here’s a transcript of the discussion, which starts about ten seconds short of 23 minutes into Carson’s 21 July 2010 podcast:

Carson: Mmm-hmm.  Mmm-hmm.

Dux: You know?

Carson: Absolutely.  There is, and, uh, it gets worse when, when you go on forums, Internet forums, where everybody’s an Internet Tough Guy and everybody’s an expert.  I stopped, honestly, I stopped going on MMA forums about three years ago. I just, I, I don’t know how anybody can spend their time on an Internet forum.  But people do, unfortunately, you know, people do, and I think it’s, I think it’s to the detriment, but, by the same token, Frank, I mean, who am I to complain. And Carson’s Corner wouldn’t be a good show, or wouldn’t be, we wouldn’t get any listens if it weren’t for the Internet.  I mean, this is an online radio show so obviously we depend on the Internet, we depend on the forums to give us our listenership, but… I, I just think that it, it’s a double edged sword, it’s… you know.

Dux: Well, here, here’s the thing.  If you’re on a forum, here’s a real good tool.

Carson: Mmm-hmm.

Dux: Find out if the guy’s really using his real name or not. If a guy’s using his real name it means he’s not hiding something. Um, you know, I believe in accountability, and accountability… is equivalent to being honorable, you know? And what are you going to learn from somebody who isn’t honorable?

Uh, one of the worst things I see going out there, and I’m not going to mention any names, but there’s a guy out there, promoting, you know, uh, ‘You’re a fool if you don’t… if you fight fair,’ or something like that.  What he’s really saying in the subtext, if you really pay attention, is the ends justify the means philosophy.  And that’s just not the case.  There’s some things that you have to be willing to stand up for and sacrifice yourself for, and there are certain principles, um, you know, that, that we all hold dear in this country and this country was founded upon.  So to, to kind of push that philosophy, for me, is uh, totally, for one thing, totally against martial arts, because martial arts… training is all about self-discipline, respect for self, respect for others, and being a service to others. And you can’t be of service to others when you’re sitting there and operating under a philosophy of the ends justify the means.

Carson: Frank, well said, we’re going to leave it there. Thank you, once again, for answering listener e-mails…

I’m not sure exactly what principles of our Founding Fathers’ vision for America we’re violating here at The Martialist, where we believe strongly in the Bill of Rights (particularly the First and Second Amendments) and in strict construction of the United States Constitution.  Setting aside this, it’s offensive on many levels for Dux to stammer through his high-minded, altruistic vision of what the martial arts are supposed to mean while claiming that WE, of all the sites on the Internet, are “one of the worst things” he “sees going out there.”

What is a fair fight?  It’s a fight with rules — a duel in which both parties agree to obey those rules, mutually.  It’s an exchange in which either party, at least in theory, has an equal chance of winning the engagement.  This is the concept behind mixed martial arts bouts, boxing matches, and any other martial sport.

It is NOT self-defense.

A martial artist who forgets that his martial art is, first and foremost, a means of delivering force to an assailant has forgotten what he’s trying to accomplish. When you defend yourself and, more importantly, when you defend your family, you must NOT accept the assailant’s rules.  You must not play his game.  You must not engage in a sporting duel with him.  You must not, if you can help it, engage in an altercation whose outcome could go either way by equal probability.

No, in self-defense, you seek to stack the deck in your favor, to cheat, to fight as unfairly as possible.  You arm yourself with legal weapons, when possible, in order to be better prepared than is your attacker.  You train yourself to deal with situations with more skill and with a superior mindset than, you hope, your assailant brings to the exchange.  You learn and you practice with the goal of making the fight as unfair as possible — of making it as unequal an exchange as you can possibly contrive.

You hope, when that moment of self-defense comes, that you are much more likely to succeed than he is.  Your goal is different than his; you wish only to protect your family and avoid or escape the altercation.  He wishes to violate you and yours, materially or physically.

Note, also, that while in fighting unfairly you recognize that the attacker has no right to hurt you (and thus you have every right to take every legal, unfair advantage you can as the citizen defender), this is not an “ends justify the means” philosophy.  Over and over again on this site we have stressed legal issues such as parity of force.  We have analyzed cases like the Roderick Scott trial. We have warned you about leftist attempts to legislate into oblivion your right to self-defense.  We have told you countless times never to break the law in self-defense, for you will pay the price for doing so.

What we’ve said so many times is that there is a huge difference between pragmatic, reality-based self-defense and the stylized fantasies of not-so-martial artists who think fighting for your family’s lives (or your own) is some kind of game played according to mutually agreed guidelines.  That is not “the ends justifying the means,” but it most certainly is the recognition that there is no moral equivalence between the attacker and the attacked, between the assailant and the victim, between the rapist and the raped.

Spewing pseudo-spiritual garbage about the martial arts being about “service” or respect for your fellow man may make one feel wise or spiritually enlightened, but it’s nonsense.  It’s precisely the sort of thing that I would expect from someone who talks about “honor” from behind the dubious safety of weasel-words and thinly veiled references to his critics.  The fact that Bob Carson and Frank Dux felt they simply had to fire this little shot across the bow of The Martialist tells me simply that what we do here is worth doing.  If a man is judged in terms of the enemies he makes, I’d say we’re on the right track.