Saturday, December 30, 2017

Blue Collar Zen

Blue Collar Zen is the result of six decades immersed in Rinzai Zen Buddhism, beginning that journey in the late 1950s. In 1973 I had the luxury of being schooled and directed in this sect of Zen through the teaching and guidance of Moriie Gassan Roshi who died of liver cancer in 1994 at the age of 76. He was 27 years of age, living, working and studying Rnzai Zen in Kyoto, Japan when Japan surrendered in 1945. Ironically, he was also a chemist there, ordained as a lay-priest in Rinzai Zen.

Gassan Roshi had become greatly disenfranchised from his own government and eventually immigrated to the USA, where he got a job in the budding plastics’ industry in Erie, PA. It was here I met Gassan Roshi in 1973, following my own return from overseas deployment.

Gassan Roshi didn’t not talk much of Japan, of Zen, or of anything Japanese, until eventually it slipped of what he knew and was. Once I knew about that, I was constantly asking questions. In a private and direct fashion, Gassan started guiding me toward seeing what I needed to see, and when I was ready, finally see it—then use it to benefit all.

He was not brutal like the founder of Rinzai Zen, Rinzai Gigen (Lin-Chi in Chinese) in imparting his teachings and wisdom. He was kind, patient, tolerant and always laughing out loud at my ignorance.  Gassan Roshi’s favorite Zen master was Sojun Ikkyu, followed by Takuan Soho, Suzuki Shosan and Hakuin Ekaku. All rebels of their respective contemporary social order.

Quietly and without anything special and grandiose, I privately sucked up Gassan Roshi’s teachings and guidance until his death. He was a working man who held strongly to his Rinzai Zen ways. He always took the time and engaged his patience to teach me of everyday Zen. In 1992 he told me I was more Japanese than the Japanese, and presented me with my ordination in a non-ceremonious fashion, by simply giving me my Japanese name: Jiyu Yushi. And that was that.

But that was Gassan Roshi, nothing special, just see what you need to see, and do what you need to do, no matter the consequences. Sitting in temples, contemplating your breath is NOT living alive, helping others when you can, and then doing no harm, when you cannot help. Get out there and help others, no matter what. That is Rinzai Zen. Enlightenment is merely seeing what you need to see, in order to do what you need to do, in that moment, regardless of consequences.


Blue Collar Zen—there are no robes, no Inkas’ of enlightenment, no chanting; meditate if you need to, but always see with clarity, to decide correctly what needs done now. All perfect action arises from the perfect stillness within. Perfect stillness within, is the daily chore. And this must be reached NOT in a quiet temple, but while neck deep in the day’s bullshit, dealing with the assholes of life. We spend our days dealing with the bullshit, not sitting quietly in a safe temple, contemplating “nothingness.” Get out there and live alive, with all your might, to help when you can, and to do no harm, when you cannot aid assistance properly.

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

BRAIN, POLITICS AND DECISION-MAKING FOR THE FUTURE

“END OF THE WORLD” predictions have always been money-making big business” —Yushian (circa 2015)

What do people do who have reached that point in their lives where they suddenly realize they really have no control over anything outside of their skin (i.e. that decision-making that actually controls external events; a genuine, potent external locus of control)? Do they finally reach a life-changing pivotal moment, where they accept this reality, altering their external locus of control for an internal locus of control, in order to take command of the only thing any human being controls—our individual, internal decision-making process (mindfulness) that helps us control our emotional responses to external events? The smarter, more enlightened do. After all, that is all enlightenment really is—knowing we control nothing but how we choose to respond to the brain’s Limbic System’s reactions to external events. The rest hunker down into a state of vicious tribalism, build larger palisades around their tiny, insignificant huts, and bring in stores of weapons and supplies for a long and terrible siege against themselves.

Those individuals who cannot accept the fact that they have no control over anything outside of their skin, dig even more deeply into a gross fundamental misbelief that they CAN control these external events battering down their former “good life.” They only need the right savior and the right prayers and the right actions to once again wrest control over their crumbling outside world. They simply cannot believe, and certainly cannot accept that there is no savior to save them, no prayers to restore their once ordered life, and no focal point outside of their skin they can gain control over to restore the old, good way of living. This is too devastating to their tiny psyche. But that is real life. Things change. This change not for the better or for the worse—they simply change. So how are we going to adapt and change with the changing times. We all know what happened to the dinosaurs that failed to adapt to rapid changes they couldn’t control.

Even though these lost and deluded souls never owned any real control over their external world, they were EXTREMELY lucky for a short period of time, where their lives were born into wealthy privilege, developed within an abundance not normally experienced and endowed with a golden lifestyle, which, like all things is impermanent and died off. Good fortune wears out and turns bad…bad fortune wears out and turns good. Where we are on that normal human cycle either challenges us to rise stronger of get fat, lazy and entitled.

Any life of abundance creates and illusion of control: “If we work hard, say our prayers, and behave like we have been taught to behave, we will always have a great life!”  NOPE!!!!! Life on earth and especially human life doesn’t follow that matrix. We also must be aware that severe poverty also creates its own complacency of learned helplessness when we own only an external locus of control. Both ends of spectrum are on a continuum of learned helplessness—one is of expected entitlement. The other is of expected misery. Both are inaccurate to the fact we all own an internal locus of control—we control how we will respond to our emotional responses to wealth and poverty—to abundance and hardship. We are not helpless, even if we have no control over what happens outside of our skin. This is key to know and use!

Those who cannot accept that their locus of external control doesn’t exist—has never existed—remain stressed out over imagined conspiracies against them. They create swords and shields to protect and attack those who these lost souls believe are holding them down and preventing them from their former lives of glory and greatness, which was more about being lucky in the cycle of mankind’s growth, development and demise, than anything else.

People who cannot accept that they control nothing outside of their skins, resign themselves to an imagined helplessness where they are the assigned and justified victims of others holding them back and crushing them down, UNJUSTLY.

They seek a hardened and tough Savior to deliver them from their horrific desert, delivering them to an Oasis where their external locus of control will be restored and reunited to that Illusory World of Greatness. In reality, there was only a temporary bounty any time line is subject to. There are no saviors. There are only wise Sages who will help deliver souls from their own delusion. Or there are false prophets who LITERALLY profit from the ignorant and their ignorant desperations. There really is no fate—no one is fated to any one path. There is no destiny, either, as life is a continuous journey where ITS destination is moving through that doorway of death.

Ironically, Fate and Destiny simply resign within the mind as make-believe concepts of control which we will never own. REITERATING THE HARSH REALITY OF HUMAN LIFE: We are never in control of anything outside of our skin—ever! ACCEPT THAT AND MOVE ON, LIVING FULLY ALIVE IN THIS FACT.

What little control that we appear to have at any one moment in time is the Illusion Sages warn us against holding tightly. In all reality: Fate is an illusion we create so we can believe we can control our externals if we just follow that Fate with a devote religiosity. Destiny is an illusion we believe in that if we just follow that inner calling, we will reach a destination. But then what? Life is a journey where its destination is to open the door of death. That is life’s only destination. Everything else prior to that is merely a process of learning, selecting and regulating internals for survival. Both Fate and Destiny are fallacies we create to stop feeling out of control, because we are so damn terrified of the uncertainty of the next minute in our lives.

Acceptance and attention are the only cures to survive “End of the world prophecies,” intact, and to not get caught up in believing in external locus of control! “End of the world” offers a hardcore certainty in a life where an end to the suffering is a better certainty than an uncertainty of continued suffering…ahhhhh…but here the Sages warn us: “Pain is inevitable! Suffering is optional. We feel the inevitable pain and either use it well or wallow in it and suffer. We choose to suffer, even though the pain never stops.

The Sage, when given but a single corner can correctly deduce the square, but only when the Sage refuses to react to life and its pain, and instead, embraces an equanimity of mind to see and verify as many of the existing, interacting variables present. “This is why I hurt! So let’s do this instead to ease the sharpness. The pain will always exist, but I can manage it correctly so as to NOT SUFFER!

Uncertainty is the reality. Pain is always present. I choose to suffer. There is no predicting the future of anything. Man has a hard time with these realities. He thinks he can make them NOT EXIST B CONTROLLING SOMETHING!!!! OOPS! This is the blatant ignorance all True Prophets warn us against. Buddha did. Jesus did. Mohammad did. But the people don’t want to accept this. They want to control externals. BUT WE NEVER EVER WILL. Trying to is what creates the very suffering we want to stop.

There are no accurate prognostications of future events. Uncertainty rules! People get lucky, or they are good at formulating simple algorithms using all the existing data to project a probable outcome some of the time. BUT Chimps throwing darts at a dart board are more accurate at hitting the bullseyes than are political and religious pundits predicting future outcomes. But predictions soothes peoples terror of uncertainty, they make big money by selling big news, and by making big policies they give political leaders huge profits. These all die out eventually to be replaced in kind by another set of similar illusions. The cycle of mankind has never changed and there is nothing new under the sun of mankind.

Too many humans knee-jerk, defensively, to events moving counter to their wishful thinking (that damn amygdala). They cannot discern fact from fiction, especially when the fiction remains consistent with their fantasy wishful thinking. This is all based simply on the perceptual assessment of emotionally charged events appearing threatening. This very process adheres to a Type I error in cognition. We (humans) are genetically predisposed to engage daily false positive assessments of suspicious data presented to us. We tend to believe tigers exist when it is really only the wind blowing the grass. We are so terrified of the make-believe tigers, we don’t even take the time to accurately evaluate the situation to confirm the existence of tigers or not, and verify it was only the wind.

Fear and rage are our base instincts that are far more powerful than intellectual analyses of these potentially threatening events. We must learn to use our internal locus of control to engage intellectual inspection—that equanimity of mind—over knee-jerk fear and rage, in order to see all of the subtle changes and traces emerging from the all the different events unfolding before us. When we see these traces (the wind not the tigers—or we do see the stalking tigers if they do exist—and do not knee-jerk react to them, we can apply a learned wisdom (enlightenment). We use this wisely discerned information such that our responses are situationally correct to unfolding events accurately verified. Emotionally knee-jerking to bad shit or even just uncomfortable shit, prevents this ability to see and verify all the existing variables correctly and accurately.


But humans are humans—they are prone to be lazy, embrace negativity of those things positive, engage soothing opinion over harsh facts, hand follow the path of least resistance! It is hard, painful work to accept what we are hardwired to ignore and fear and avoid. BUT, Until we engage the daily mindfulness to accept we are in control of nothing but our mindfulness, that the future is uncertain, that pain is inevitable, and that we—as individuals--choose to suffer if we are suffering (we are all volunteers here, not victims), and that we can choose to adapt more appropriately to the constant, brutal changing times, only then will man act as an enlightened and benevolent creature man is capable of being, and stop believing in wishful thinking of false prophets.


Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Politics, Presidents and the Same Ole Shit

I find it hilarious how people bitch and moan and complain about the government--about the Democrats and the Republicans, about the lousy President, Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority leader...blah, blah, blah...like it is the end of the world and the end to our nation. The end of the world prophecy is actually very profitable for many in politics. I spent 60 years surviving the Cold War with the threat of nuclear annihilation everyday. We were sent home from school in October 1962 so we could die in our homes from nuclear war. We were told to stay indoors and do not come out. Hell, we had air-raid drills in school, as if hiding under those old wooden desks, with our coats over our heads, was going to keep us safe from thermonuclear missile strikes. It was a daily threat that was real then.
This is nothing new. North Korea????? Laughable! Learn from history. Abraham Lincoln was a forward thinking LIBERAL elected to government by a radically new, subversive political organization called the Republicans. This happened because the Second Party to the Democrats--the Whigs--were in disorder and fractured.
Guess what: Lincoln was elected, abolished slavery and we went to war over ideology, because Slave Labor kept the Southern Plantation Industry running. Without slaves, the South had no labor force. No labor force, no economy. They went to war to keep their economic prowess intact.
War, blah, blah, blah......good for business in the industrial North...blah, blah, blah...then Peace. Lincoln is assassinated and Andrew Johnson became President. He was a hardcore, corrupt, reconstructionist who wanted to undue everything Lincoln had down, especially freeing the slaves. Johnson was a hardcore Southerner and popular with Conservatives both in the North and especially in the South. Well Johnson's corruption caught up with him and Impeachment began. The House passed it, but the Senate refused to confirm Impeachment.
Sound familiar. There is nothing new under the sun, people. If a man or woman is President, it is because they are self-serving, arrogant rich assholes, regardless. No poor guy ever became president--ever!!!!! They care nothing for the poor, lower middle class and the hard working stiffs who cannot see beyond feeding their families each day. The president--this president included--offers only lip service to such souls, as all have done in the past. Presidents care for the poor, lower income and lower middle class only in regards to the votes you give them for re-election...so they always blow perfumed smoke up your ass to make you feel seen and important--but they don't give a shit.

Trump is no different than Johnson, or Nixon, or Kennedy, or Bush 1 and 2, or Obama, or Roosevelt 1 and 2, or Andrew Jackson. They are all arrogant, self-serving rich assholes!!! The sooner people understand this reality the better. In the end, it really doesn't matter who is in office as he or she is nothing more than a paper tiger anyway. The USA is run from a deeper more insidious power behind the scenes few ever get to see. Essentially, every President is a dupe for the Shadow Oligarchy running the country! But hey, believe whatever gets you through your day, right????!!!!

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Proper Selection and Training Are Mandatory for Good COPs and Good Soldiers & Marines

Ross and Murphy (2018) state, “the problem in many major use of force confrontations, including officer-involved shootings, is the limitations of reaction time necessary for the officer to fully cognitively process incoming stimuli, which can create perceptual distortions” (p. 68).
My question remains: Are the sensory distortions individuals experience in kill or be killed encounters due to such individuals being poorly adapted to and/or selected for such lethal events, as well as being poorly trained and prepared to meet high-risk, lethal force encounters? Well-selected and highly trained law enforcement and military operators do not experience such sensory distortions under the same dire duress of sudden lethal threats. Are we measuring the incorrect set of information when looking to solve the problems of such distortion under duress (Driskell, Salas, Johnston & Wollert, 2008; Hancock & Szalma, 2008; Picano, Williams, & Roland, 2012)?
Do inexperienced, poorly selected and poorly trained individuals experience sensory distortions because all they can do is default to what they know best, which is their base instincts due to their lack of familiarization (proper exposure training and/or experience) to such life and death scenarios? When people are unfamiliar with a potentially dangerous encounter, and cannot escape (run away) or fend (give warning, which takes time to recognize and address the threat) off the threat adequately, however sudden the threat appears, the mammalian brain panics. This panic results in the whole person defaulting to its millions of years of hardwiring. This hijacking of the Executive Functioning through more primitive brain structures (brain stem and limbic system), results in the reported sensory distortions and the individual’s short-circuited decision-making capacity (Cozolino, 2017, pp. 283–322).
I believe when the correct recruits are selected for high-risk operations and environments, who are then properly conditioned for combat duress, will be able to control their decision-making skills, which off-set sensory distortions due to Limbic System influences. This skill-set does require that we first select those with a measurable high resiliency to combat duress, coupled with a controllable, forwardly aggressive emotional constitution. Then these individuals need to be properly prepared for this life and death environment, through correctly implemented stress exposure training. Such individuals will be able to keep their focus on the threat(s) without defaulting to baser instinctions driven by the Limbic System and the Brain Stem’s fight or flight response. Keeping the Executive Functions operating smoothly and quickly so as to not allow the Limbic System full reign during the dire episode involving life and death is a combination of learned skill-set and genetic predisposition to remain calm even under emergency states (Driskell, Salas, Johnston & Wollert, 2008; Hancock & Szalma, 2008; Picano, Williams, & Roland, 2012).

References

Cozolino, L. (2017). The neuroscience of psychotherapy: Healing the social brain. New York: W.W. Norton.

Driskell, J.E., Salas, E., Johnston, J.H. & Wollert, T.N. (2008). Stress exposure training: An event-based approach. In P.A. Hancock & J. L. Szalma (Eds.), Performance under stress (pp. 271–286). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Hancock, P.A & Szalma, J.L. (2008). Stress and performance. In P.A. Hancock & J. L. Szalma (Eds.), Performance under stress (pp. 1–18). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Picano, J.J., Williams, T.J. & Roland, R.R. (2012). Assessment and selection of high-risk operational personnel: Identifying essential psychological attributes. In C.H. Kennedy & E.A. Zillmer (Eds.), Military psychology: Clinical and operational applications. New York: Guilford Press.


Ross, D.L. & Murphy, R.L. (2018). Stress, perceptual distortions and human performance. In D.L. Ross & G.M. Vilke (Eds.), Guidelines for investigating officer-involved shootings, arrest-related deaths and deaths in custody (pp. 68-95). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Myths That Are Not: Hick's Law, Mastery Development and Startle Reflex

Over the many years as a martial arts instructor and tactical trainer (beginning summer of 1972) I have witnessed and researched a dilemma that plagues tactical training.
This dilemma involves trainers who always seem to own a law enforcement or DoD background, but rarely harbor consistent and regular lethal force/combat experience. These trainers have spent their entire lives and careers as trainers, but have no combat experience, yet who are very commercially successful.
What I find in these trainers is that they often and erroneously create challenges to SOP Training methods. Now this would be a positive development if their challenges actually offered something more accurate and situationally correct to the high-risk, operational environment. Too often they do not.
The brain loves and seeks novelty. It loves that dopamine rush novelty releases in the brain. It is why novelty is so important in creating successful commercial marketing and curricula. Even when the novelty is BS, the brain (individual) still loves it, until it wears off.
When successful trainers create a challenge to SOP training methods and label the SOP training methods "myths" and "misconceptions," people buy into this, regardless.
Three examples of so-called myths successful tactical/martial arts trainers have generated over the past couple of decades involve Hick's Law, Mastery Development and Startle Reflex.
Let's look at each.
Hick's Law has always been involved in human decision making. But the Law must be kept into perspective. Human decision making under duress is incredibly complicated process, involving the brain/mind components at all levels of operations: genetic predisposition, early development limits, cultural indoctrination, adulthood experience and formal training. Such decision-making cannot be explained with Hick's Law.
Hick's Law only addresses the fact that, if I have ten variables I must check off to finally pick, say, #7, this process takes longer than if I have only three variables that I must check off, to arrive at selecting, say #2. It takes longer to put ten rounds in a magazine than it takes three rounds. That is all Hick's law states. Nothing more.
Too many make Hick's Law in to more than what it actually measures.
Mastery will get thrown into the mix for arguing Hick's Law, stating that those who are experienced will arrive at a decision faster than the inexperienced, when both have the same number of choices. This proves Hick's Law is invalid. Bullshit!
The problem with this argument is that there is confusing in what is being measured--when and where. The concept of Heuristics and Algorithms used to explain how the human brain makes decisions under duress uses concepts that are not the actual mechanisms going on in the brain. Don't mistaken the map for the territory.
The experienced operative, for example, will have consistently developed very specific schematics, overtime, that are placed in long-term memory. Very specific cues in the operational environment generate immediate recall--if the individual is alert to those cue. The familiar schematic that matches the cue is accessed and deployed. Usually it is very useful. The key for this process are the environmental cues and the alertness of the individual to these cues.
Experienced operatives know what to look for and what to discard in the chaos. So essentially, the experienced operative sees one or two cues that fit the correct schematic, while the inexperienced have to search all the existing variables because they have no familiarity. The choice is between a couple or all of the variables, depending on one's experience.
In unfamiliar environments, the experienced operative can actually integrate his intuitiveness (heuristics) seamlessly with his analytical thinking (algorithms), and arrive at a very quick and correct solution to the dilemma without panic--again, experience makes all the difference.
The Mastery argument that I see being challenged is about the length of repetitions and practice needed to reach mastery.
I have witnessed everything from 5,000 repetitions to 10,000 hours of hard work are required to achieve Mastery. But mastery of what? Are we talking mastery of correctly repeating a motor skill, a series of combined motor skills, or complex decision-making, choosing the correct actions to resolve a lethal threat before us? What does the "mastery" involve?
Mastery is complicated and cannot be reduced to a set formula of number of hours of repeated actions leading to said mastery. The only thing we can accurately say about mastery of skills needed to successfully navigate high-risk environments, is that it takes time and exposure to that level of risk.
Not only is time and actual exposure necessary, we must successfully, correctly engage those skills repetitively, in this high risk environment. There is NO way to do it easily, quickly and without risk to the operative, who is preparing for this high risk environment.
In Vietnam one had to engage in 90 days of consecutive combat to earn his CIBS. That in itself speaks volumes to Mastery.
The last argument is the Startle Reflex. Entire curricula are based on engaging actions under serious sensory distortions brought on by the startle reflex--gross motor skills, tunnel vision, stances squared to the threat.
First off, the startle reflex is just that--a hardwired reflex that cannot be negated. Responses to that reflex can be conditioned, however. We DO NOT NEED TO BE SLAVES TO OUR BASE INSTINCTS UNDER THREAT OF DEATH.
Every mammal, bird, reptile and amphibian harbors a startle reflex. It developed through our evolutionary need to quickly avoid threats and redirect attention to that potential threat. The periaqueductal gray of the brain directly activates the unconditional fear response. This reflex is ubiquitous, discrete and brief.
Since this reflex has been carefully studied back in the late 30s when high speed film was developed, we know that there are a set of standard motor responses all humans elicit under startle. This is an override system, activated when a sudden environmental event requires immediate attention. Even radical novelity can cause the startle. It is sensitive--NOT SELECTIVE.
Physical responses involve an eye blink, a forward movement of the head and characteristic facial expression. There is a raising of the shoulders with a slight forward cocking, a motion of the upper arms somewhat away from the body, with a bending of the elbows, giving rise to forearms and hands.
The forearms rotate inward so the palms face each other, more or less and the fingers clinch. There is a tightening of the abdominal muscles, a bending of the knees, and a motion of the upper body forward from the hips.
The entire reflex is designed to get the organism to react first and then assess, with the organism stopping immediately what it is doing. The idea is for rapid avoidance of a potential danger--like stepping on a snake. It doesn't mean we automatically default to sensory distortions.
Overtime, the organism learns to pair secondary cues and tertiary behaviors with the potential threat cue--noise, vision, movement. Loud noises still cause me to seriously duck and protect my head. These are conditioned responses in conjunction with the original unconditioned responses.
So as we can see, we cannot negate the startle, but we can work off of that startle and learn more appropriate responses to our threatening environment that provide us a higher degree of survivability in that operational environment.
We can learn to keep our Executive Function working and churning out correct decision-making with subsequently correct situational responses without our brain stem's/limbic system's default taking over, generating unwanted sensory distortions.
The startle reflex itself can become our useful cue to which we now forcefully exhale, allowing our positive self-talk to be triggered by the exhale--actually saying: "Shit! This sucks...but this is what we can do..." and then move from that point of control at millisecond speeds.
Brain stem/Limbic system operate a 50 milliseconds, while the Executive prefrontal lobe works at 500milliseconds, which is STILL VERY FAST. We can learn to think very fast--even when trainers say, "There is no time to think--you can only react." BULLSHIT!
When we are shooting to kill threats, we had better be thinking critically, and engaging target- discrimination with every single round we break into every single threat we shoot, or we are negligent.

So as we can see, myths are often fabrications from trainers who simply don't understand the fully story and then fabricate erroneous but novel theories from partial, incorrectly understood variables. Be careful.

Sunday, April 2, 2017

The Truth of Today's Commercial Tactical Training

I am going to offer the audience an "Opinion Editorial" on the status of current tactical training found in the commercial arena, in the US today.
Much of my experience and success in the arena of horrific human violence was the result of learning about horrific human violence either first hand, or from people who lived in that realm.
Growing up as a young, poor dirt farmer in West Virginia, our firearms were necessary tools to supply us with much needed protein, beyond the livestock that gave us meat, milk, milk products and eggs.
In that same environment, I learned to use edged weapons as essential tools to provide us everything from firewood for the wood burning stove and furnace, to using hand scythes to mow grass and alfalfa on slopes too steep for our single, old hand-crank, started tractor and horses. We cut the corn stalks for shucks with 14 inch blunt nose "cane knives" my Uncle forged from old Studebaker leaf spring steel.
Knives were used to skin and butcher everything from game we stalked and killed, to our livestock. The hardest to skin were those damn old goats--literally. We, processed all of our own meat and never had the luxury of what hunters do today with sending their deer-kills to a processing plant.
I actually got pretty good at making buckskin and tanning hide with my Aunt Jinjin (Virginia was her name). This lady was pioneer stock. She made everything by hand, from soap to candles and cooked on a wood stove. She hauled water up the mountain every day from the spring. She had no running water or flush toilets, using an outhouse. She lived like this well into her 90s.
Learning to use firearms and blades were essential daily chores when I grew up. Learning to use them to kill the enemy was an easy transition, and demanded only a change in my mindset to close with, and kill the enemy.
Formally, I learned my wrestling, boxing and "fencing" beginning at the age of eight. My "coaches" were all former Marines of WW2 Pacific Theater, and from the US Army’s guerrilla action in the Philippines. They drilled the basics in me: those boring, ugly, hard-core, practical and logical basics in me, over and over and over again—nothing fancy and nothing tacticool. Training was simple, and extremely difficult: BASICS.
Ole Uncle Jo, for example, was a Filipino from Mindanao. He was of the Tausug people or the Moros. He fought and killed the Japanese, sometimes hand-to-hand, using his barung (correct Tausug spelling, by the way) to assist in the killing. He also knew his history well. Moros were all a literate, sophisticated peoples, able to read the Koran in Arabic when the rest of the Filipino people remained an illiterate, oral tradition.
He always laughed when he would hear how the Moros made the US Army switch to the semi-auto Government Model 1911 in .45ACP, from their 38's (revolvers) because the .38s didn't offer enough potency to stop them. This isn't why this changed happened.
Most of the US Army troops in the turn of the 19th century actually carried the DA .45 Colt revolver. The .45 Colt is a more potent caliber than the .38 Special or the .45 ACP. The trouble with the DA Revolver was, it was a bitch to reload, and shooting a moving lunatic with a blade, wanting your head, was hard to kill in just six shots. They needed something that offered a more SPEEDY reloading capacity. The 1911 provided that, along with a bigger hole than the .38 Special.
The 1911 wasn't ever issued to the troops during the Moro uprising in the Philippines 1898-1920. The Krag rifle was, though, chambered in .30-40, and was the first USA smokeless powder, "high" velocity rifle. The DA .45 Colt was the standard sidearm.
The trouble with all handgun ammo is that it is all weak. These rounds are all anemic. Soooooo, you need a lot of them, and a swift way to get more into an empty gun, especially under duress of being killed.
In all of my deployments in combat, or on the mean streets, I never assume, "Oh, I won't need that much ammo." Or, "I won't need another full mag!" It was (and is) always: "Damn is that going to be enough ammo? I don't think I am going to be able to carry any more, and still be able to maneuver." One can never have too much ammo, or load an empty gun in battle fast enough!
Today, in the martial arts and in tactical training, the basics are being left out because they are boring and boring and boring, again. There are no substitutes for the basics ever! People want flash and novelty. They want something that will make them feel good about themselves in the moment. To stay in business, trainers and instructors have to give the public what they want, even if it is NOT what will help these people prevail in a lethal force event.
Most trainees today, will never need these skills—but what happens when they really do need them? Hmmm! It really is better to have the skills and not need them, than it is to need them and have no familiarity with them under duress. We train a lifetime for that five second lethal force event from which we want to prevail--or not!
Every time I turn around, some tactical trainer and martial arts instructor, who have never experienced the elephant, are throwing away the basics and creating something new. They are always writing about how the old time basics are worthless. They proceed to write long drawn out, gobbly gook articles, justifying their new shiny way of doing something, or roll out a piece of equipment, designed to act as a substitute for that basic skill being ridiculed as “outdated.” The mind loves novelty and chases after it!
I keep close track of DoD's training protocols at the BCT and AIT and SpecOps work. They too are getting further and further away from the basics, relying on high tech methods and optics to improve marksmanship. WHY? Their readiness-deployment capabilities, currently are a freaking nightmare. Conventionally, at the ground level, we are no match for the Russians. We would have to rely on our high tech airforce, of which the Russians are developing simple technologies to counter that technical superiority with basic electromagnetic physics. BASICS RULE EVERY WHERE!
Learning the basics is HARD and PAINFUL, especially when the learner has no fundamental back ground in the subject matter. Mastering the basics takes a hell of a long time and energy expenditures. Don’t let anyone tell you that simple is easy. It is not. Mastery cannot be had in a single seminar. The brain/mind doesn’t learn that way.
DoD doesn't have the time or money to make sure soldiers and Marines master their ground-pounding, rifleman basics. Old time basics was what Basic Combat Training was all about! Most of those 8 to 12 weeks was spent “yomping” over Dix's incessant sand dunes, learning field craft and shooting and weapons' handling, with a little first aid thrown in. That has changed.
DoD now gives soldiers and Marines high tech substitutes, making shooting easier, which WORK until the substitutes fail—run out of batteries or the optics get blown off the gun. That's when Marines and soldiers die, unnecessarily, because they don't know the basics through and through--they are equipment dependent!
A big problem is that even when I was in the military, more and more recruits were from the city, and had no experience shooting, tracking or other field-craft skills. Oddly enough, those who were in the SpecOps community in Vietnam, were mostly the poor, dirt farmer kids from the South, who liked that environment and were intimately familiar with shooting, field craft and land navigation.
Now there is just no correct shooting experiences nor daily chores teaching field craft skills, at an early age. This means the military gets recruits who know only what they see from TV, on social media, and in the movies about guns, survival, tactics and warfare. THIS IS BAD INOCULATION that now must be unlearned.
Way back when, Dan Gable (world class wrestler) was always an inspiration for me in the world of wrestling. I loved wrestling. I was good. He was a few years older than me. I followed him during the Summer Olympics in 1972. Not a single opponent scored a point on this man. This is like pitching two back-to-back no hitters in baseball. Unbelievable mastery of wrestling's basics--especially on the mat.
I was a training NCO at Ft. Polk then. Dan did nothing unique but the basics. He was not even that good at takedowns. BUT he was a damn relentless eel with the basics on the mat. Once he got hold of you, he never let up. His fitness (basics) was what wore you down! His basics on the mat got the pin, and the basics allowed him to easily escape being pinned and controlled from an adversary.
Dan went on to coach University of IOWA wrestling to become one of the winningest sports' coaches ever. Why? BASICS!
UI doesn't do as well any more. Hell, wrestling has gotten away from the basics, and it doesn't even look like wrestling. The audience wants the flash. Funny thing is, when these kids wrestle an old school dude who knows, stance (position), level change, motion, penetration, backstep, arch and lift, these fancy wrestlers with their so-called fancy "funk" wrestling are shutdown and pinned. It is funny to watch.
Funk wrestling is simply the result of pisspoor basics: poor penetration and lift. Get the proper penetration and lift and the funk wrestler simply gets pinned or rode for points.
It is the same with shooting guns under the dire duress of being shot at. The basics are simple but very hard to learn well. It takes a lot of time and effort to master these basics, but it’s these basics that help the man or woman prevail in any kind of a rolling gunfight—not equipment.
Understand the weapon. It's a tube, with a chamber, attached to a triggering mechanism. All sights do are provide two points of reference (they are a mechanism--like the trigger) to make it easier to make sure the muzzle and breech are aligned to the target needing struck. This allows the bullet leaving that tube to impact what is aligned to the muzzle and breech. That's it. One doesn't need sights to establish muzzle breech alignment. Sights are a tool that makes the process easier.
The other basics of marksmanship pertain to how the human controls the tool. Grip is the intimate connection of holding the weapon. Without a human gripping the weapon, the rifle or pistol is an innate, worthless item. Not until the person with the proper mindset, picks up the weapon, does the weapon become a weapon.
With a rifle the human connection is the brain and the two hands on the weapon, both as far apart as possible. There is a solid check weld and a solid shoulder meld. We have four points of contact with a rifle. The pistol, even with two hands on it, has only one point of contact. It is better to get a 360 degree grip (both hands) on that one point of contact, than it is to get only a 180 degree hold (one hand).
We have already talked about sights. The body aligns this weapon to the target with a natural point of aim, and the eyes confirm both the target needing shot, and the muzzle breech alignment to that target. We hold a hard focus on the target, using peripheral vision to capture and confirm muzzle breech alignment. This alignment must be learned with a hard focus on the Alpha Hotels who want you dead. BASICS!
The mind allows the weapon to break the shot without disturbing this muzzle breech alignment. If the mind does not do this, the body anticipates the bang and compensates for that, disturbing the muzzle breech alignment. BASICS!
The intimate connection of the firing hand and trigger finger to trigger must bring the trigger straight back without disturbing muzzle breech alignment. The mind/brain does this consistently every single press—even when being shot at! That most intimate connection of the mind and one small finger pressing that trigger straight back, especially when someone is trying to kill you, is all about the consistency of just doing it. "STRAIGHT BACK, ARTHUR, RESET, AND KEEP SHOOTING UNTIL HE GOES DOWN!"
Control the press and let the gun go bang without moving or flinching. This is very hard to learn.
Fighting of any kind is about calmly driven and accurate basics guided by a determined mind who hates to lose. For example, I don't throw wild and crazy punches. I aim at his chin and deliver my accurate hard jabs and crosses and uppercuts and hooks until he goes down. My body aligns the shot, and my eyes confirm. It is the same in shooting accurately and swiftly. Basics!
I am shooting the bad guys. Bad guys dictate what I do--BASICS!!!!!  I don't know how bad the bad guys are, nor how many. I keep shooting the closest, single bad guy at a time, until he is done fighting me, and then scam and go to the next. I take care of one bad guy at a time, but do it very swiftly and smoothly, never rushing and never pushing. Calmly killing the M*&%ther F&%$kers. BASICS!!
People have always asked me, "How do you deal with multiple assailants?" "Like I deal with one at a time, but more swiftly!" One does have to keep moving and move in a way that gets the enemy to run interference with each other. Move and shoot. Move and shoot. BASICS.
Oh Shit! I am shooting the bad guys and I am out of ammo (slide lock/bolt lock/or click). I bring my tool to my work space, my eyes verify the gun's demands of me, as I keep peripheral vision on the enemy. Peripheral vision picks up movement faster than direct vision does, so I will see those bastards rushing me faster with my peripheral vision, anyway. My eyes confirm mag to mag-well and bam, insert and re-acquire the bad guys, confirm and shoot. BASICS.
F&%%#K, he's bumrushing me. Calmly get a new mag in the mag-well, confirm, bam, it is in and the gun aligns to drop the confirm F%$#Ker. Change position to better cover, if needed during this. Moving as you reload a new magazine is BASICS! I also want a barrier between me and all the bad guys that stop bullets. BASICS.
I never stay static. I am moving all of the time to cover, changing my position. A moving target is hard to hit. So I run between cover. Settle, force an exhale and shoot the bad guys. Move again away from the kill zone. OR if ambushed, charge the enemy, off of and out of the kill zone. BASICS!!!! Standing still in the open and shooting is just stupid. Change level—fire at the bad guy, then run to cover, changing out a new mag.
Keep shooting and changing positions to keep shooting the enemy better. BASICS! How do you move? Oh come on, right? Really? Run like hell to cover, exhale, relax and shoot. Repeat. Learn to reload while running your ass off to cover. BASICS!
If ambushed in the open, dive for cover. IF NOT AN OPTION: Change level and shoot toward the F%$#Ker shooting me--slide lock--get up and run hard to cover, changing out the magazine on the run. BASICS.
Firearms basics with self-loading tools mean we must know how to feed it when empty (especially on the run) and unload it when it needs to be empty—making it safe. We must know the 3 malfunctions and how to clear the 3 major malfunctions (failure to fire, eject and extract). We need to know how to grip the gun, know our human postures while shooting the gun in these postures, and know the most intimate connection to the gun--our finger on the trigger.
We must know our mind and how that controls it all (let recoil happen, positive self-talk to keep things deliberate and smooth when people want to kill you). We must know how to get and sustain muzzle breech alignment to the target (sights make it easier, but they are not necessary). The body aligns our weapon to the target and our eyes confirm—verifying that alignment.
These are not negotiable. If you do not know these basics you do not know your gun and will die in lethal force events when one of these things happen in that lethal force encounter and you haven't ingrained the essential familiarity of that basic action.

I am old school. I have been shot, stabbed, slashed and blown up. If my gun is empty and I get a hold of your charging body to kill me, I will beat you to death with that empty gun, and then pull my blade. I am old and ugly, simple and brutal. My ways are basic and more primitive than not. I am still here, and that is why! I teach the basics to mastery. So I guess I am boring, too!

Monday, February 20, 2017

Teaching Students to Act Correctly to Potentially Lethal Threats

The importance of learning to engage our executive function when under duress is paramount to our overall survival, especially when we are attacked with lethal force. It is crucial when the enemy is shooting at us or assailing us with edged weapons to remain cool and calm under such processing pressure. It is even more important that we remain cool, calm and collected when there is a potential lethal force, but which has not yet expressed itself, least we shoot someone who doesn’t need shot. To merely allow ourselves to knee-jerk to our baser, paleomammalian survival instincts under the potential of a threat, leads to detrimental outcomes that are not situationally accurate and correct (Shelby, 2016).
With proper Stress Exposure Training (SET), the correctly ingrained cognitive skills and the mental attitude well-conditioned for such circumstances, we provide us the skills needed to respond to lethal threats correctly. Through learning engaging such disciplined and conditioned executive cognitive functions, such as target discrimination, moving to cover, offering verbal commands, and utilizing accurate threat assessments, we are less likely to kill innocents and take out the real threats. We don’t have to merely react like hammers to a perceived nail (lethal threat), potentially killing someone who really is no threat at all (Cozolino, 2014, 2010; Driskell, Salas, Johnston & Wollert, 2008; Matthews, 2012; McNeil & Morgan, 2010; Panksepp & Biven, 2012; Sharps, 2010; Staal, Bolton, Yaroush & Bourne, 2008).
It is irresponsible and very incorrect for professional trainers to excuse away the shootings of people who are not real threats, as something due to uncontrollable and natural human reactions under duress. Law enforcement officers, soldiers and Marines who shoot and kill people who are imagined threats, but who have not been confirmed as such, kill innocent people because of extremely poor preparation and training. These individuals need the best training science and bureaucracies hiring them can afford. Without this proper training, these men and women in these professions will merely default to baser, inappropriate, instinctive paleomammalian survival actions. The untrained and poorly selected military and law enforcement personnel will default to this rapid (50milliseconds from perceived threat to physical, knee-jerk, instinctive reaction because they really do not anything else. Under dire duress of lethal force all humans default to what they know best (Cozolino, 2014; Panksepp & Biven, 2012; Shelby, Singleton & Fosi, 2016; Sharps, 2010).
Defaulting to this baser survival mechanism relies on bottom-up processing, where the amygdala perceives information as matching previous information that has been stored as dangerous. Our implicit memories are a woven fabric of many past experience residues that create negatively biased templates for individual survival. This rapid identification process occurs under over consciousness, within 50 milliseconds of threat recognition. If the person simply goes with this and reacts to this potentially perceived threat without verifying that it is a threat, the person’s actions can be catastrophically incorrect. In addition, if the Marine, soldier or LEO is looking for a gun, knife or other weapon, being in the highly aroused sympathetic state, said individual is more likely to identify an object in the hand as that weapon being searched for (Cozolino, 2014; Panksepp & Biven, 2012; Selby, et al, 2016; Sharps, 2010).
Memory initially sees what we are looking at, with the executive functioning used to verify what we think we see. In essence, when we are searching for a specific item for which we know how it looks. Being an item of danger—gun or knife, the amygdala also knows. Under threat arousal, when we see something in the hand of our suspect, our immediate assessment from the amygdala may be “Gun!” or “Knife!” or “Club!,” because that is what we are looking for. It is our executive functioning that then looks more closely to discriminate what we are looking at. It is then we can actually see what we are looking at via our long-term memory, “Oh, no, that is not a gun. It is an iPhone,” or “Yes, that is a Glock handgun.” The amygdala sees “GUN!” simply because that is what we are looking for under a threat response. There is something in that subject’s hand—and we are hardwired to see false positives or tigers in the grass when the wind blows (Cozolino, 2008, 2014, 2010; Panksepp & Biven, 2012; Selby, et al, 2016).
We must learn to be mindful of ourselves in this potential threat, of what is transpiring and what may happen next. Any soldier, Marine, LEO or human entity properly trained, can engage this mindfulness under the duress of lethal force. And they must if they want to keep their executive functions in control of their actions to potential threats. We want to deliberately focus on the confidence and efficacy of their training, and to remain mindful of what is actually unfolding—both within us and outside our skin. If one feels capable of handling lethal force threats and has properly trained to manage them, he or she will "feel safer," and will respond more accurately to the need of the circumstance (Cozolino, 2008, 2014, 2010, Matthews, 2012; McNeil & Morgan, 2010; Sharps, 2010; Staal, et al, 2008).
Self-efficacy, leading to “feeling safer,” can be developed through proper stress exposure training, mindfulness training and correct mind-set training, i.e., how we feel about ourselves in this "battle for our lives." This mindful feeling of "safety under duress," is about the efficacy we have in our own abilities to hand this situation. This "feeling" of efficacy controls the brain's hardwired tendency to look for and over-react to threats in a mindless fashion. This focus of efficacy helps prevent us from knee-jerking into being a blunt hammer, blindly pounding away at imagined slights and dangers over verified threats (Cozolino, 2008, 2014, 2010, Matthews, 2012; McNeil & Morgan, 2010; Sharps, 2010; Staal, et al, 2008).
Simple physical tasks that we can learn to do in response to a fear-startle, will help us keep our mindset in the correct focus. This begins with a simple, forceful exhale when we are startled. This forceful exhale becomes a conditioned response to the "Oh S&%T!” startle we feel. We then allow that forceful exhale to connect to another cue, which becomes a conditioned response, allowing us to relax our eyebrows, lips, shoulders and neck in a wave of action. From this exhale and upper body relaxation, we begin to belly-breathe. We continue to focus on keeping belly breathing, as we are mindful of the fear response within us. Fear is nothing more than our psychophysiology preparing us to manage a danger. If the threat begins shooting at us or attacking us with that blade, we are now better prepared to appropriately counter these lethal assaults immediately and not panic (Cozolino, 2008, 2014, 2010, Matthews, 2012; McNeil & Morgan, 2010; Sharps, 2010; Staal, et al, 2008).
It sounds like the above physical skills would take long time to accomplish under duress of a threat. But as conditioned responses, using our top-down executive functioning to control, we can actually learn to cue off of threats within 500 milliseconds of initiation. Granted, it is not as fast and the bottom-up processing time, initiated by the amygdala in 50 milliseconds. But the probability of experiencing a false positive cognitive error in those 50 milliseconds, leading us to kill something that doesn’t need killing, is also much greater (Cozolino, 2008, 2014, 2010, Matthews, 2012; McNeil & Morgan, 2010; Sharps, 2010; Selby, et al, 2016; Staal, et al, 2008).
Individuals in the infantry, SWAT, SpecOps, and law enforcement professions, must learn to properly manage their fear-arousals so as to not simply knee-jerk react out of fear to startle, or to a potential threat, before such threats are actually confirmed as lethal. If such personnel worry more about their person safety than about engaging their daily missions, they do not possess the “right stuff” to perform their dangerous duties. Some people simply have no business in these professions, and when their genetic predisposition and early social development have not instituted a strong ability and correct skills to control their fear-response to potential threats, they would do better to find a different professional occupation (Cozolino, 2014; Mastroianni, Palmer, Penetar & Tepe, 2011).
Our Executive Functions (top-down thinking) improve its circuitry through correct repetitions and training, especially with regular stress exposure training and successful, real world experience. The more correctly conditioned we develop these verified responses to real threats, we start shaving off milliseconds here and there from identification through verification and actions taken. This is why DELTA force and SWAT operators rarely knee jerk to violent chaos, but engage cool, calm, and controlled target discrimination, killing only those who need killed (Cozolino, 2014, 2012; Klein, 2013; Mastroianni et al, 2011).
In emergency situations, such as lethal force encounters, we need to learn to talk to ourselves to remain calm and do what we know to do, in accordance to past, successful experiences, and in tune with our specific SET for such scenarios. Our brain has stored the familiarity templates in our procedural memories, but we need our Executive Functioning to access and use them. We must keep our Executive Functions engaged in order that we cognitively and physically prevail in this vicious and chaotic threat. Being mindful of our very thoughts, of our body, its sensations and tensions, while verifying, all threats correctly, allows us to make the correct decisions and subsequent actions. Individual strength, after all, in combat comes from owning the situationally correct, mental templates of prearranged and established clear cut actions, sustained over time through experience and training. For those who say there is no time for this, have never received the proper training, nor do they understand how the brain works under such duress. There is time, and we must make sure high risk professionals get the training they need or innocents will continue dying, unnecessarily (Cozolino, 2014; Panksepp & Biven, 2012; Driskell, et al, 2008).
The more we can encourage the students who come to use for professional training, to be ever mindful of what they are doing in training, teaching them to engage positive self-talk throughout their drills, guiding them to keep breathing, staying relaxed, sustaining good stances and positions, to see their enemy targets (hard focus), alien their weapons to the threat, aiming with their bodies, letting the gun tell them what it needs in order to keep shooting when we must shoot (Reload? Immediate Action? Malfunctions Clearing?), and then do that, we are teaching them to be less like hammers, and behave more like precision tools attuned to the moment (Driskell, et al, 2008).
References

Cozolino, L. (2008). The healthy aging brain: Sustaining attachment, attaining wisdom. New York: W.W. Norton.
Cozolino, L. (2014). The neuroscience of human relationships: Attachments and the developing social brain. New York: W.W. Norton.
Cozolino, L. (2010). The neuroscience of psychotherapy: Healing the social brain. New York: W.W. Norton.
Driskell, J.E., Salas, E., Johnston, J.H. & Wollert, T.N. (2008). Stress exposure training: An event-based approach. In P.A. Hancock & J.L. Szalma (Eds.), Performance under stress (pp. 271–286). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Klein, G. (2013). Seeing what others don’t: The remarkable ways we gain insights. New York: Public Affairs.
Mastroianni, G., Palmer, B., Penetar, D. & Tepe, V. (2011). A warrior’s guide to psychology and performance: What you should know about yourself and others. Washington, DC: Potomic Books.
Matthews, M. (2012). Cognitive and non-cognitive factors in soldier performance. In J.H. Laurence & M.D. Matthews (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of military psychology (pp. 197–217). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McNeil, J.A. & Morgan, C.A. (2010). Cognition and decision making in extreme environments. In C.H. Kennedy & J.L. Moore (Eds.), Military neuropsychology (pp. 361–382). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Panksepp, J. & Biven, L. (2012). The archaeology of mind: Neuroevolutionary origins of human emotions. New York: W.W. Norton.
Selby, N., Singleton, B. & Flosi, E. (2016). In context: Understanding police killings of unarmed civilians. St. Augustine, FL: Contextual Press.
Sharps, M.J. (2010). Processing under pressure: Stress, memory and decision-making in law enforcement. Flushing, NY: Looseleaf Law Publications.

Staal, M.A., Bolton, A.E., Yaroush, R.A. & Bourne, L.E. (2008). Cognitive performance and resilience to stress. In B.J. Lukey & V. Tepe (Eds.), Biobehavioral resilience to stress (pp. 259–299). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Knife Fighting in Combat Is a Myth

“Knife fighting does not exist in combat…Knife fighting is a duel with two people going at it with each other…”                                                      —Bob Kasper, 2011


Twenty-five years ago, in a friendly sharing of personal details about combat, the subject of “knife fighting” and “fighting knives” came up. We were both long-time Judokas, and were participating as members for a local Yudansha, which is a modern Budo term describing a board of senior black belts, who judge candidates testing for black belt advancement. The testing student was from a local Judo club, working toward his Shodan. There was a break in the testing format as we set up for the self-defense aspect of the testing. We had been seated next to each other, and naturally we began talking about the knife defenses and knife fighting that was sure to creep into this testing curriculum.
My senior colleague (Hanshi to my Kyoshi) with whom I was discussing these matters, was a former, venerated Marine Raider Captain, who served with the 1st Marine Raider Battalion in World War II as a Rifle Company Commander. This Captain saw direct action throughout the Solomon Islands, which was the United States very first offensive action of the war against Imperial Japan (Alexander, 2001).
The Captain reminisced about how he never used nor saw being deployed, any knife fighting or knife defenses in combat. He spoke about how the Marine issued bayonet (M1905), taken off the end of the Marine Corps’ Springfield ’03 bolt-action rifle, was only good for prying open ammo crates, opening K-ration packets or C-rations if one lost their P-38. He continued to critique how the issued Fairbairn stiletto “fighting knife” made by Camillus Knife Company was worthless (Alexander, 2001).
Cappy continued that attempting to use this relative long, but slender sixteen inch long bayonets, when used as a hand-held weapon, lacked the heft to be an effective combat weapon. A heftier bush knife (14-17 inch blade) that the indigenous used on the islands, would have been a better selection for a battle blade. “We needed a big blade that would facilitate traumatic damage through chopping power, if we wanted to achieve immediate stoppage of an attacking enemy soldier” he recalled (Alexander, 2001; Ripley, 1999).
“The bayonet on the end of the rifle facilitated powerful stabbing actions, which were followed by rifle-butt smashes to face and head,” Cappy declared. Historical records confirm this reality. Marines, since Belleau Wood, had been taught to triple team a single enemy—3 Marines to a single enemy—which made for a quick kill and moving on to the next attacking enemy. A single thrust from one bayonet was rarely enough to put down a determined Japanese soldier who yearned for such hand-to-hand combat (Alexander, 2001; Ripley, 1999).
Cappy reminded me that many Marines didn’t affix their bayonet to their Springfield bolt-action rifles as it messed with its accuracy and made using the rifle unwieldy. The primary 1st Marine Raider fire team was a BAR supported by four other riflemen with the Springfields. Early on in this campaign, only the Army troops had the M-1 Garands (Alexander, 2001).
To clarify, a combat weapon was and remains defined as a tool that will quickly dispatch an enemy with a single hit from the round or weapon, allowing the user to move immediately to the next threat (Alexander, 2001; Ripley, 1999).
Cappy continued to discuss how at the time of his experiences throughout the Solomon’s, his Raiders’ preferred “cold” hand-to-hand combat weapon was the Corpsman’s hatchet or the common E-Tool. Both of these tools were readily available. When these were wielded with strong and aggressive purpose with the proper evasiveness, against a charging Japanese soldier armed with sword or Arisaka rifle and bayonet, such counter-offensive actions with these weapons generated the essential immediate neutralization or incapacitation required for survival (Alexander, 2001).
When we look at the so-called knife cultures throughout the Pacific Theater of WWII and Southeast Asia during Vietnam, such indigenous personnel didn’t carry knives, but short swords, no less than 14 inches in length, hand-forged, differentially heat treated leaf-spring steel. Knives are lousy battle blades, and serve only as a last ditch, tertiary weapon. The Filipino guerrillas and Filipino Infantrymen, serving with the Alamo Scouts carried US made bolos, sporting a cutting serpentine style blade 17 inches in length. I personally never witnessed a Montagnard warrior with a seven inch knife on their person. I even carried one made specifically for me, in exchange for two cartons of US Cigarettes. Their “knives” never had a cutting edge less than 14 inches in length (Alexander, 2009; Mole, 1970; Reinhardt, 2012).
It was at this time, Cappy chuckled about all the current interest in “knife fighting,” “knife defenses,” and “counter-knife fighting” growing in popular in the commercial martial arts arena. “If only they knew, hey?” I asked him what other “fighting knives” he may have seen in the Solomons, asking about the Ka-Bar. He corrected me and told me that the Ka-Bar never found its way to Marine Raiders until 1943. He continued saying that he knew of none of his own Marine Raiders to use either the Ka-Bar or this stiletto, successfully, in hand-to-hand killing of the Japanese. He had heard rumors of Marines bayoneting Japanese soldiers, and of Marines using their “knives” to kill the Japanese in hand to hand. Cappy reassured me that he was never able to substantiate the claims. He did tell me that one of his own Raiders was killed by a Japanese sword. He was shaking his head as he explained the wound as extending from the Marine’s left shoulder to the Marine’s navel (Alexander, 2001).
A knife with the dimensions of the Ka-Bar, for example, being a sharp, seven inch, clipped-point blade, about twelve inches in overall length, cuts well, but remains too small to induce the degree of trauma necessary for the quick kills needed in combat. The amount of damage and trauma needed to immediately stop a highly resistant and determined adversary, simply cannot be accomplished in this combative context, with such a small tool. It becomes even more difficult when enemy personnel wear helmets, heavy face and neck garments, web gear and magazine chest rigs. Targets for lethal effect become even more limited (Dolinak, Matshes & Lew, 2005; Lurz, “Dubious 1”; Lurz, “Dubious 2”).
An example of using a large tool to kill the enemy quickly and effectively, when multiple enemy troops are present, can be verified when Marine Corporal Clifford Wooldridge (18June2010) wrested an AK from an approaching Taliban fighter during operation Enduring Freedom. Cpl. Wooldridge subsequently bludgeoned to death, the enemy with his own weapon. Wooldridge’s leadership and bravery that day helped him earn the Navy Cross for his actions (Michaels, 2012, November).
A Ka-Bar can be lethal but not in a swift manner needed in combat. To achieve that level of lethal outcome, the amount of injury one must suffer upon the enemy, amounts to wholesale butchery prior to death. This takes time and energy against a resisting enemy. Remember, in combat, peripheral injuries often do not always bleed. The emergency situation of combat causes the body to become flooded with catecholamines, which constrict capillaries within the peripheral circulatory system. Lethal trauma with a seven inch knife must result in deeply lying arteries are severed, with the lungs, liver and heart traumatically punctured in order for blood pressure to drop enough from blood loss, eventually inducing death (Dolinak, et al, 2005; Lurz, “Dubious 1”).
The aforementioned hand-to-hand combat the Captain had often discussed with me in class, consisted of violent motor skills he was taught in “post-graduate training,” when commissioned with the 1st Marine Raiders.  Cappy recalled, “All actions taken were offensive in attitude and execution. We attacked the attacker with brutal and violent attacks, against any target the enemy presented to us. We did not defend ourselves, but strove to neutralize the enemy swiftly, to manage the next enemy troop sure to appear. In hand-to-hand combat, there are multiple enemy troops needing engaged. In that environment, it was very easy to get a bayonet in the back or cleaved by a sword, while battling his comrade hand-to-hand.”
The movements Cappy learned for using any “fighting knife” were powerful thrusts, ramming the blade as hard as possible into several key target areas available. The targets to blast like a mortar, were under the rib cage from the enemy’s right flank and forward positions; driving the blade directly into the bladder region, from the front; thrusting the blade to the hilt, under the left armpit and under the left ear (Alexander, 2001; Alexander, 2009).
In addition, Cappy reflected on the brutal abruptness and viciousness of these actions. Raiders were instructed to strike with and manhandle the enemy into the knife with the free hand. Cappy always remarked, “We were taught not to fight with this knife, but to kill the enemy with the tool” (Alexander, 2001; Alexander, 2009).
Interestingly, the chief instructor sponsoring the Shodan testing, who asked Cappy and I to attend his test, overheard us talking, sharing our war stories. His attitude and response to us was—in all seriousness, “Only cowards use knives to fight other men.” We both refused comments on his statement.
Edged weapons that stab into and slice into living human tissue induce death through five functions. These are exsanguination (massive blood loss), air embolism (air in the bloodstream), asphyxia (suffocating), collapsed lung and infection. None of these events are quick and immediate. Only when an edged weapon is able to completely sever the cervical spinal cord, decapitate the head or cleave the skull and brain in two, will an immediate and quick death result (Amberger, 1999; Dolinak, et al, 2005).
Obviously, the dimensions of the Ka-Bar make such actions of decapitation and severing the skull virtually impossible. Severing the cervical spine with said blade is only possible if the head and neck are completely immobilized and the enemy well secured. Fighting with the Ka-Bar, in a toe-to-toe contest or duel, will lead to both parties receiving and inflicting multiple slashing and stabbing wounds, but not necessarily result death. Today people survive multiple cuts and stabs from assaults from small knives. In addition, duels with knives often become a defensive dance between opponents, were neither party is willing to close the distance and engage sharp steel (Amberger, 1999; Dolinak, et al, 2005; Reinhardt, 2012).
In the United States, when an individual uses a knife to commit any criminal act, those actions are considered lethal force actions under the Affirmative Defense law. Knives can and do kill human beings, as do screwdrivers, icepicks and barbeque forks. That is not the issue of the article. This article’s goal is to clarify what is “knife fighting” from “knife combat!” “Knife fighting” is more about sparring with, or dueling with knives between two opponents who are potentially equal in skill and attitude, who may or may not have arranged rules of engagement to follow—like drawing first blood or respecting the downed adversary. “Knife combat,” on the other hand is being in a combative situation (warfare, gang assault, violent rape), often surprised when attacked (ambushed), often at the disadvantage in position, and the knife is our last ditch “survival” tool to get us out of this situation. Combat often involves multiple adversaries who seriously want to maim and kill us any way that they can. “Knife combat” is a real ‘do or die’ situation, while “knife fighting” remains a contest between mutually agreed opponents where death may or may not be at stake (Alexander, 2001; Dolinak, et al, 2005; Patrick & Hall, 2010; Remsberg, 1986).
Too often, commercial martial arts establishments and tactical training groups create an elaborate “knife fighting” curricula, with a specially designed “fighting knife,” which is then advertised as an effective training protocol used in and for prevailing in close-quarters killing combat. When these curricula are carefully analyzed for combat effectiveness and efficiency, they are neither. They are exactly what they say they are—elaborate and sophisticated sparring techniques, i.e. “knife fighting skills,” which do not extrapolate well in the brutal butchery that is killing combat (Alexander, 2001; Amberger, 1999; Reinhardt, 2012; Ripley, 1999).
When we inspect the criminal use of an edged weapon, the knife in particular becomes more like a tool used by an assassin, where stealth, surprise and viciousness of attack completely overwhelms the unsuspecting victim. This is true in warfare, prisons and on the mean streets. This is not about fighting with the knife. It is about using some form of an edged weapon as a lethal force enhancer and a threat enhancer (Patrick & Hall, 2010).
  There is nothing wrong wanting to learn how to use a “fighting knife” with specific “knife fighting” motor skills, as long as the person learning said skills is not misled to believe such skills are combat effective and sound skills for self-protection. They are not. Such “knife fighting” skills are nothing more than choreographed moves that develop balance, hand-eye-coordination and kinesthetic rhythm. These last attributes are positive achievements, when kept in their proper place of fun and fitness. They, however, have no place in training and preparing individuals for prevailing in combat, and for an individual to attempt to utilize such skills in a combative context is a recipe for disaster (Amberger, 1999; Dolinak, Matshes & Lew, 2005; Reinhardt, 2012; Ripley, 1999).
Preparing men and women for actual combat is a difficult, expensive and brutal undertaking to do correctly. People die from bad training as well as from no training. And well-meaning instructors must advertise their training protocols and curricula in socially appropriate ways. This leads to the misuse of the terms: “knife fighting” and “fighting knives,” which, in effect lead to misunderstandings of the reality of “knife combat.”
Over the 6 decades I have been active in martial arts and tactical training, it can be hard to find correct semantics to describe what one does, and then offer this to the public for consumption. Most of what is sold as “knife fighting” is not combat effective. Most of what is sold as self-defense against knives is not combat effective against knives being used to butcher the enemy. Most of what is sold as a “fighting knife” is merely a utility or camp knife that could be used in a combative circumstance, against another attacking person. This doesn’t change the fact that such a knife still makes a lousy tool for last ditch combat. That hatchet, with a four inch bit, stuck in the stump over there, would be the better tool for this combative scenario (Reinhardt, 2012).




Reference
Alexander, J.H. (2001). Edson’s Raiders: The 1st Marine Raider battalion in World War II. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
Alexander, L. (2009). Shadows in the jungle: The Alamo Scouts behind Japanese lines in World War II. New York: NAL Caliber.
Amberger, J.C. (1999). The secret history of the sword: Adventures in ancient martial arts. Burbank, CA: Unique Publications.
Dolinak, D., Matshes, E. & Lew, E.O. (2005). Forensic pathology: Principles and practice. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
Kasper, B. (2011). Bob Kasper: The lost tapes: Combative knife skills. Boulder, CO. Paladin Press.
Michaels, J. (2012, November). Man-to-man combat still key to military strength. USA Today. Retrieved February 16, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/10/marine-valor-award-veteran/1674665/
Lurz, F. (n.d.). The dubious quick kill: Part 1. Retrieved February 16, 2016, from http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php
Lurz, F. (n.d.). The dubious quick kill: Part 2. Retrieved February 16, 2016, from http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php
Mole, R.L. (1970). The montagnards of South Vietnam: A study of nine tribes. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Company.
Patrick, U.W. (2010). In defense of self and others: Issues, facts & fallacies—the realities of law enforcement’s use of deadly force. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Reinhardt, H. (2012). Book of knives: A practical and illustrated guide to knife fighting. Riverdale, NY: Baen Publishing Enterprises.
Remsberg, C. (1986). The tactical edge: Surviving high risk patrol. Northbrook, IL: Calibre Press.

Ripley, T. (1999). Bayonet battle: Bayonet warfare in the twentieth century. London: Sidgwick & Jackson.