Paradoxal

First, on an individual scale, mental flexibility is needed. You need to be willing to run and fight on a melee battlefield, which would be unthinkable if you were stuck in the 1v1 dojo mindset. You also need to have the ability to kill (or in my case, "kill") an armored opponent in less than 2 seconds without yourself going to ground, as you probably won't have more than that before the lines push you out of position. This means adapting the blocks, strikes, and grapples to be used while moving, instead of slowly and strategically (but you still want to apply strategy!). You need to understand, not memorize the concepts; if you simply memorize WC's concepts, using them at scale would be very difficult, if not impossible. For instance, taking the opponent's balance: in small scale combat, this seems obvious, but how would you apply it to large scale combat? Certainly not by yanking their arm to throw their balance off! This can instead be done through positioning of your troops in key places that cut the enemy's troops maneuverability, as an example. Funnily enough, though, you can also "yank" the enemy troops to throw them off balance through baiting them into weak positions. Both of these cases can apply to single combat through your own positioning and through physically yanking (and psychologically baiting) the opponent, but when understood properly, the concepts themselves can be applied everywhere in life. Think of it like how Sun Tzu's Art of War is currently used in the business world. Again, I was taught that WC was specifically made to include *EVERYTHING* Chen style has, including the energetic and lethal stuff. It was pieced together from every system in the Shaolin temple at the time, using only the most efficient methods from each one, but that doesn't mean it didn't manage to achieve completion of all of them. Unfortunately, I can't make those public as I don't have permission from my teachers, and those contain some stuff that shouldn't be released publicly. This isn't a legend, but actual truth. Karate traces much of its origins to Southern Shaolin, most specifically the systems of White Crane and "Monk Boxing", though some Tiger and Mantis can be seen in particular styles of karate as well. If you're interested, I'd recommend checking out Jesse Enkamp's videos on the stuff. He does his research very thoroughly and gives sources for much of his findings. I'll link some good ones below: (I got the chance to train in this dojo with Hokama sensei myself, and can confirm that he is insanely knowledgeable about the history of martial arts! If you ever have the chance, please do check out his museum!)

Again, I cannot speak for all WC lineages, but the stuff I've been shown adapts to armored melee use quite well; I've actually had the pleasure to fight in full lamellar armor before, as well as in melee-scale mock battles. The WC stuff worked wonders there, and if you examine things from a strategic perspective, even the strategy used at individual levels scales to large army levels quite seamlessly. Plus, at the advanced level, WC actually has an entire arsenal of stuff dedicated to killing opponents, though this is rightly not shown publicly very often. If we're talking about it being just "personal defense," this would certainly not be the case. That said, I can certainly see how it could be taught wrong and thus be lacking such uses; if the athletic conditioning or the martial (as in, for your bones, for your tendons, etc.) conditioning were left out, then it would not only be useless on the battlefield but also for self defense. I have seen it taught without this stuff and frankly, I find such teaching to be very malicious. Another possible way it could be lacking is if you are not taught the actual strategic side of things, and instead take a very materialistic look at the art. What is shown as a "pak sao" should be thought of as a concept, but many people mistake it to be a very specific movement. Such people begin to teach, and thus entire lineages lose out on a large part WC. A similar thing has happened for modern karate, where many people learn stuff like "upper block" or "lower block" and are led to miss out on the fact that literally none of the movements in karate are just for "blocking." It's a shame, but on the bright side, there are still instructors in both WC and karate out there that actually know and teach the deeper parts of the arts.

If there were truly a "most effective martial art", it would most certainly not be boxing. Boxing is a sport, not a martial art! Even if we were to consider it a martial art, the use of gloves in practice makes it ineffective in actual combat because it lacks the conditioning required for bareknuckle use. Its footwork is specialized under the assumption of no kicks and no grappling, and is thus very ungrounded. Likewise, it not only lacks kicks and grappling, which are essential parts of any fighting system, it also lacks trained defenses against them, and against weapons. It can be useful as a training tool for understanding close range fighting, and it can be very fun, but it is not self-defense oriented on its own. I dunno what you've been taught, but the WC I've learned includes kicks, grappling, and groundwork. It is certainly not just defensive or stationary, and includes everything Chen style taiji has. Historically, WC was made for the express purpose of raising soldiers with the same skills as Chen style in 1/3 the time, for the goal of killing Chen style practitioners on the battlefield. Yes, there are dumbasses claiming to be "masters" while never pressure testing themselves or doing basic conditioning, but they are simply delusional at best and scam artists at worst, and certainly do not have even a rudimentary understanding of martial arts.

It's literally just a slap. If you've shooed a fly away with your hand, you've done a pak sao. If you've slapped anything with your hand, that's a pak sao. It's one of the natural movements humans use to get stuff away from them. If you don't see how to use a slap to counter an attack, I'd recommend solo visualization training. Visualize the attack coming at you, and figure out a way to slap it away. It can be a hook, straight punch, uppercut, backfist, elbow, knee, or any kind of kick, to name a few. What is important here is learning an innate understanding of how the body works and how pressure affects it when applied in different places. This is not how I was taught, and will thus not comment on it because it is not my place to. What I was taught, however, is that "pak" means "slapping" and "sao" means "hands", while "tek" means legs. The concept involved is "slapping", so the concept can be applied with any limb, tool, or weapon. You'll have to wait for a video, but as a theoretical, lightly slapping with the flat of a sword to parry. Don't fully extend the arm. As far as I know, all of WC has passed through Ip Man, but I've mostly trained in the William Cheung lineage. Again, I'd like to emphasize that just because you CAN win without stepping doesn't mean you SHOULD win without stepping.

This lines up with the memories of a past life that I have, as mine are from 1945, but I was born in 1995. Time *does* pass "differently" over there, however, as it is outside of what we call spacetime. Additionally, the loved ones I've had contact me from beyond the grave have all pretty much been in the days/weeks immediately after their passing; one even visited me within an hour of death. I don't know if this is because they hadn't gone to the other side yet, though.

If I recall correctly, Eliphas Levi classified this under "necromancy" and included a ritual for it in The Doctrine and Ritual of High Magic. It's been awhile since I've read through it though, so I'm not able to point ya further. That said, I can confirm it is possible as I've had conversations with loved ones who passed on myself. I'm not sure I'd recommend it, however, as it is much better to figure out a way to process this loss among the living. If ya get caught on the world of the dead, it'll prevent ya from living this life afterall.

I'd appreciate access to current events if possible!

In the Wing Chun I was taught, a core principle was that everything you can do with your hands should also be able to be done with your feet (and any weapon you might have). Thus, chi sao practice can become chi tek, chi dao, chi gun, or any other "chi-(weapon)" you decide to take up. I realize that's slightly different from push hands, but I still find the idea of applying hand movements elsewhere to be super useful.

I'd go back and recommend the first one I was forced to learn: wing chun's pak sao. Literally all of WC's moves can be used to counter any attack and as an attack, but the pak sao stands out for two major reasons: its simplicity to learn and the distance it gives. Pak sao, or slapping hands, is just as the name says. You can use it to slap away straight punches, to stop or redirect round punches, to stop or redirect kicks of any kind, and to attack anywhere on the body. If you combine two pak saos, you can create many different combinations of simultaneous attack and defense. If you apply pak sao using the legs, (pak tek instead of pak sao, literally "slapping legs"), it can be used as a sweep, a kick, or a block. The exact same concept applies to all weapons as well! All this from the same motion we use to get rid of flies! Most importantly for beginners though, the pak sao generates extra distance compared to many other blocking methods, thus giving them space to get their bearing. Beginners are likely not trained to see shots coming and are certainly not prepared to intercept them at close range, so pak saos will allow them to defend themselves as safely as possible while learning to see openings. If you're good enough at it, you literally do not need to step at all to win a fight (I'd highly recommend stepping anyway, though!). I'd love to hear other opinions though?

When applicable, of course! You can only go so slow with momentum-based weapons lol I'm actually working on my roundhouse and hook kicks with this for the next few months (at least). The specific method I'm using is facing left, do a slow and controlled roundhouse til I'm facing right, chambering, then going the other way with a hook kick. Both sides, ofc. But it's been doing wonders for all the little muscles that don't get easily worked other ways, and has been very good for improved control, speed, and power.

This is the way. I'm a little whippersnapper compared to most of yall, but I'd like to think I'm at least a bit experienced in the arts. My sifu has always taught us not to teach if we are not specifically told we are allowed to, and I agree with him. Martial arts is a matter of life and death (in a self defense context) so poor teaching could very easily get someone killed. Add in that if ya suck, ya may not even *know* that ya suck til it's too late. Very basic rule of thumb (from my personal, limited view) is: if you cannot use it in a live situation reliably against an attacker that means to take you out, you should not teach it. This alone will disqualify many "teachers", but going further, you then need to be able to take this move from full speed to as slow as possible so that the students can see and comprehend it. This is difficult enough that I know of pro-level fighters unable to do it (try making a 360 kick slow enough to take a minute without losing your balance, yall tkd folks)! Thus, even though I'm confident in using most of what I've learned in a live situation (including chain whips, meteor hammers, spears, swords, knives, in addition to bare hands), because I do not have the control to slow those things down enough, I have no delusions about being able to teach. I just wish more folks thought this way, cause then martial arts would be a lot less watered down.

If anything has been a disaster for society, it would certainly be ill-informed folks being given a position that allows them to spread false information unchecked. You, for example, make a lot of heavy-handed claims while feigning humility and refusing to give any reliable sources; this is extremely dangerous, even if you mean well. I don't think that abortion and birth control is a Christian issue, however, as the bible has no way to comment reliably on modern inventions.

They persecute pagans because it doesn't matter what they (as in, individual believers) personally believe. Rather, much like how nation-states interact in the international stage, a claim of "one true god" can only be staked if they are willing and able to defend it; a nation cannot claim sovereignty over their borders if they do not have the capacity to defend those borders. As those "false gods" were worshiped for thousands of years before this "true god," believers in this new divinity must draw this line to defend it. Though, I could ask you the same question: If there exists one God, how can other gods possibly have been conceived of and worshiped by human hands? Well, we can start from here. How many cultures have been wiped out by Christian warfare? How many people have had their lives irreparably twisted by misguided and misplaced Christian hatred? I would argue that you would need to be a fool to love a system of belief that has hurt so many things dear to you. And you believe a podcast, of all things, is a reliable enough source of information to correct whatever I've got wrong? I would give you the same recommendation, however with the caveat of a careful examination of sources that you use! Make sure that you consider the motivations of publisher, author, and research teams of each source, as well as the time period it was published under and the medium it was published in. Critical thinking in these sorts of loaded matters is extremely important, but is often not taught. Using church sources or podcasts for history knowledge, for example, is entirely invalid and any knowledge gained through such sources is questionable at best and infohazard at worst, as such sources are by their very nature, unchecked in power and unaccountable in responsibility. Likewise, large organizations such as the church have very specific motives for whatever information they release, which needs to be taken into account.

I downvoted as I didn't wish to dig up parts of the post from a few weeks back (I only read it when I downvoted, so I'm fairly late), but since you asked... This, for example, is what actually happened. This is blatantly false and I'm unsure where you found such information (ah, who am I kidding? Obviously from the church). The only kernel of truth in it is that *yes, rapes did happen*, but it was the invading crusaders who were committing them! First, compared to the cultural genocide that Christianity (and Islam, for the record) have committed since their inception, it would have been much preferable to stay "tribal" as you call it. However, most importantly, Christian culture remains very "tribal" despite what you're implying. Christians still kill others for not lining up with their beliefs. They still ostracize and discriminate against "othered" cultures. They still belittle and berate those that they cannot be bothered to understand. As a man, you are still liable to be "called to defend the tribe, to the death most likely, having to leave the women and children back at the home." This is called "war," or sometimes, "peacekeeping." In fact, the situations in the middle east unfolding currently are directly caused by European and American Christian interference and obstruction (look to the end of WW1 for most of the modern conflicts roots). You, as a man, are still expendable (unless, of course, you are a president or other socially "important" figure). "Barbarian" is used to describe someone whose language you cannot be bothered to understand. The very fact that it is being used to describe people who will "inevitably" attack Christendom does not paint a kindly picture of "loving thy neighbor." Except there is! Abrahamic religion claims that the god worshiped by whichever sect you're a part of is the only "true" god, while actively demonizing any other potential god figure. Essentially, the very existence of any religion other than a *single* monotheistic religion has the potential to disprove said monotheistic religion. Because this is an existential threat, monotheistic religions will inevitably try to wipe all other religions out (as can be seen by history). It is a closed-minded philosophy by nature. This is still the motus operandi of the American right-wing, and they still get away with it. People are killed because of this shit even today, even in "first world" countries. Using this logic, you could say that the *holocaust* was a "social and cultural phenomena," despite it very clearly being something that should not be described that way. Do not dismiss the atrocities committed in the past, for as long as we try to distance ourselves from our darker history, we will be doomed to repeat it. If that creator were truly all knowing and all powerful, then they would be nothing more than a sadistic psychopath. Now, please let me be clear that there *are* good aspects to Christianity. I don't believe all Christians are "bad," but I do see a lot of very critical flaws in the system that is commonly taught. Part of why I'm critical here is that said flaws have been a very, very negative influence on the world over the last two-thousand years, vastly outweighing the good that has been done. Yes, some people have been saved due to Christianity, but many more have been killed for the good of those few. Despite all this, it seems like folks are willfully blind to the atrocities that they benefit from, brushing them under the rug like you do in your posts. "It's a shame" doesn't cover it when entire cultures have been wiped out and millions of people have been tortured and killed to spread "love and peace."

In a sense, yes, but historically most of these arts do trace lineage back to either Buddhist or Taoist practice. As far as I know, everything that came out of Shaolin was designed specifically to enhance (or to be a self-enclosed) Buddhist practice, and literally every system of Karate, as well as its derivatives in TKD, trace a major part of their lineage back to Shaolin. I'm unsure whether Japanese jujutsu has roots in Shaolin or in Taiji, but I see a lot of similarities to Taiji in Aikido. Additionally, I do know that what is commonly called 'ninjutsu' definitely has major influence from Shaolin. Thus, I'd argue that these arts are not being rationalized into "peace-loving" after losing a war, but are rather returning to their roots after a divergence twisted them too far into the martial side of things. Extreme yang becomes moderate yin, after all.