KAPAP Seminar today

So I took one today and while there are lots of things that could be improved, I did exercise for 3 hours and had a good time.
For those curious about the difference between KAPAP and Krav Maga, here’s an article that explains each.
http://www.usadojo.com/articles/krav-maga-not-alone.htm
Basically KAPAP lacks most of the things I don’t like about Krav Maga. It’s more military oriented, and doesn’t feel that much like a glorified Taebo session like some krav maga classes seem to go.
The good part: Instructors seemed humble enough, learning along the way.
Typical knife and stick work, blocks, some grappling and ground work. The firearm disarm drill was ok but pretty optimistic, meaning you never have a guy pointing a gun at you straight to your face at contact range with the arm extended. Wish the exercise was done with more realistic stances, disarms where the gun is pointed at the waist/chest.
Now for the bad part: Just like in KM, it was emphasized that you don’t spar full contact because its not a sport. I don’t know if saying such a thing impresses anyone, you know, “this is not a sport”, as if implying its more effective or something. You only have an idea of how good or bad you are when fighting someone for real, even if its in a gym with gloves and mouth piece. I assure you its much more realistic than not fighting at all and having a false sense of security about your abilities.
Resisting and fighting was not encouraged. Unlike Biagorria’s classes where if you feel like and your partner is up to it, you continue fighting beyond the exercise in question until you submit your adversary, in this case it was strictly cooperative partner drills.
The disarm drill explanation had some serious flaws, the difference of double action and single action only pistols was explained (well done) but it was explained taking no consideration about revolvers, saying that if you grip the slide and frame tight, only one shot will come out and after that the gun is jammed. I waited for the revolver explanation but it never came. Since I was there as a volunteer for such exercise, I explained that revolvers would not “jam” because of an empty case in the chamber. I had bit my tongue during other mistakes like a good student, but this was downright dangerous, leaving a handful of total novices with no firearm training with the wrong idea about their ability to neutralize and attacker’s weapon.
“The drills works too with revolvers” said the instructor, not leaving room for debate and hurrying on with the next drill. Ok man, I thought, hope none gets killed because of that.
A few knife disarm drills where ok, one in particular done by the instructor “with a real live knife” was again, walking a very thin line, since if that knife had been razor sharp like mine are, he would have lost a finger or two. This time I had the good sense not to bother explaining anything.
Maybe the worse part of all was that after the class ended and everyone was asked what they thought, in typical Krav Maga fashion, a very snobby (and sweaty) guy explained how amazing it had been to see how it happens on the real world and that now he new he could handle those situations. As I said many times, this is the thing I dislike the most about KM and think its so dangerous for people to feel such a false sense of security.
I try to overlook the bad and concentrate on the good things learned. The head instructor is a man with a fair amount of military experience and training, so overall, we’re not talking of yet another publicist or real estate broker thinking he’s Chuck Norris and holder of the special forces deadly secrets because he’s a KM instructor.
Doing it once a week would be worth it because of the stick, knife and grappling practice alone. Combined with another weekly class or two of mixed martial arts and an occasional world class training session with Jorge Baigorria, that could be an interesting combination.

FerFAL

FerFAL on Twitter

Twitter is pretty simple and I often find some thought or piece of inforamtion I'd like to share but I either have no time or its too short for a blog post.
That's where Twitter will come in handy.
This is my Twitter: Fer_FAL(click on it and clikc "follow")
Take care and have a nice Friday night!

FerFAL

Retreats and reality: Should I stay or should I go?

Anonymous said...
Instead of putting the money in a rural hideout or supposed 'sanctuary', when crime and society get out of hand.

It would instead be far wiser to buy a house and plot of land in a good 2nd or 3rd world country in South America for instance, and move there.

That's Ferfals advice. It seems to me alot of people are just asking for trouble for no good reason, apart from just being stubborn. It's not patriotic, it's stupid.
April 15, 2010 7:00 PM

I would have chosen a few different word but yes, that’s about right.
That’s why I’m pretty adamant about the super fortress retreat.
It just doesn’t work for what it’s theoretically supposed to.
You put all that money, effort, etc, etc so as to have this impenetrable bunker … for when SHTF, the ballon goes up, or whatever you want to call it, and if that ever happened it will not turn out as you dreamed.
So you turn out believing you’re ready for sometihng your not. But the wonderful thing is, such a situation is so unlikely. Its like when Lisa Simpson sells a lion repelling stone to Homer. She tries to explain to him that it works because there’s no lions running around in Springfiled… Homer still buys the rock from Lisa for 20 bucks.
Now, the problem just doesn’t stop there. Some people end up buying the $20 buck stone, only that it costs several hundred thousands to get set up as you’re supposed to, and it requires serious life changes, some of which people go out of their way to achieve.
Maybe its people that don’t enjoy that lifestyle but think its better for the end of the world (they end up living a miserable life and the world never ends) or they make serious financial sacrifices, losing jobs and such, and end up broke because of their SHTF planning. Funny how this supposedly “end of the world proof” idea can’t survive without a serious influx of funds.
So you have to A) Be able to work from home, and not just barely make it but have a solid business that can take a few downturns without sending you running to the nearest fair sized city (which is wisely two gas tanks away… you know, because of biker looters) looking for a job. B) Actually enjoy living in the country/farm/woods, wherever it is you ended up at.
And that’s what it all comes down to, what you like to do.
Live in the country or in the woods or next to a national park because its what you LIKE doing. Don’t thinks it’s the best SHTF proof plan, its not. But if that’s what you want then its more than enough reason.
Now, be sure that you can sustain that livestyle, make sure you have adequate infrastructure, medical assistance near by, job opportunities or ways of making money, otherwise you go from “Not good for end of the world” to “awful choice no matter if times are good or bad”.
Then you have others to consider, your wife, your kids, family.
Some people actually enjoy that their kids can see grandpa or grandma every now and then. What about when they grow up? Will they have an education, social life? Or are they supposed to marry the homestead’s sheep or go buy a bride form Asia?
Talking about surviving from a practical sense, when things are no loner sustainable in your country, you just leave. Always has been that way, always will. Living in your retreat shooting it out with the ex cons, UN soldiers or cannibals every week or so is not realistic.

Want to prepare for a worst case scenario, as in we have to leave and never come back worst case scenario?
Live wherever it is you want to live, and have a small property in another country, and put it up for rent on the mean time.
Its not only going to cost you a small fraction of what a fully loaded end of the world retreat would, but you can also put it up for rent while the world doesn’t end. Find a place you like and you can go there on holydays too.
“Honey: We’re buying a small house/apartment in Australia/Brazil/Uruguay/Thailand (wherever it is you like). We’ll put it up for rent and use it ourselves every once in a while”
or
“Honey, I’m spending all our savings and asking the bank for 100.000 more. We’re moving to Nothingville. Well, not actually Nothingville, its 100 miles from there so you wont be able to watch a movie in a real theater ever again. Or see other real live people other than ourselves. Oh by the way, say bye bye to your folks, you’re never seeing them ever again as well!”

So after you get divorced and lose your kids you move there and start living the dream!

Serious now guys. History is the key, and history tells us that when SHTF bad, you leave.

What I’d like to do is keep a small apartment in the capital district in Buenos Aires, the part I know would be the last part to fall before the entire country goes to hell. Uruguay would be even better though harder to rent probably.
Not only can I have a plan C location, its also one that can be rented to tourists on weekly or monthly basis. That means not only that I’ll have the place furnished and in proper condition, I can stop renting it whenever I want and move there myself, and I don’t depend on a two year contract. Besides, it makes almost twice as much as renting for longer terms. Even with a couple months loss if it doesn’t rent and even giving 10% to some realtor to take care of it, you’re making money and having a place available at a moment’s notice. You can stay at a friend’s house or use your emergency cash to pay for a hotel until the place is available.
Now that’s a realistic alternative for a worst case scenario.

FerFAL

Reply: Homesteads, security and devaluation.

Don Williams said...

1) I would note that Mel Tappan agreed with Ferfal. Mel argued strongly against having an isolated
homestead in the countryside -- and argued for being in a small town --in an agricultural area but large enough to have a diversified economy. (Including a hospital).
The concern, as Ferfal noted earlier , is whether those small towns (5000+ people) will dry up and blow away if the national economy collapses.

2) The model is Kinda like the fortified hill towns of the Middle Ages -- or the Greek city states that arose circa 500 BC.

One where people slept behind high stone walls at night with guards on watch --then went outside the city walls in the daytime to work on surrounding farms --with horsemen on patrol scouting the surrounding countryside to give early warning of any invaders.

3) The early pioneers of Kentucky also built forts to which the farmers could retreat from Indian raids -- and kept up mounted scouts to patrol and give warning.

4) As Mel Tappan and Ferfal both noted, a single sniper can take out an isolated farmer at any time.
then kill his wife and children. A bandit gang is even worse.

An advantage that farmers can have over such gangs is that farmers can grow hay to sustain horses -- and horsemen can run down and ambush bandits that are on foot.

This was what once defined an aristocrat.

April 15, 2010 8:10 AM

Blogger WATYF said...

Ferfal... are you saying that there's no practical purpose whatsoever (as far as survival goes) to owning a remote parcel of land?

Could it not be used for food (hunting/fishing/farming)? Could it not be used for temporary refuge if crime gets too bad in the area you're in? Is the only choice really to just stay near a high-population/high-crime area and rely on security forces to protect you? Doesn't that make your every move (going to the grocery store, visiting a friend, etc) extremely dangerous?

I know you have experience with this, but I'm just having trouble wrapping my brain around how this works exactly. The US is pretty spread out. The urban areas are packed, but in the rural areas, population density can be extremely sparse. And crime is much higher (per capita) in urban areas than it is in rural areas. So that means that in urban areas, 6% of the populace might be inclined to commit violent crime, while in rural areas, only 1% might be inclined to do the same. So, not only am I less likely to be around people (in general), but even with the people I am likely to be around, it is less likely that those people will be willing to commit a violent crime against me.

And with the much higher percentage of home-owners in rural areas of the US being armed, how could a very small percentage of a very small population (i.e. those inclined to commit violent crimes in rural areas) be an overwhelming force?

I understand that crime rates will rise (both in urban and rural areas) if an economic collapse happens, but even then, it's still a law of averages. I would be much more likely to be attacked in an urban area than I would in a rural area. And any precautions that can be taken in an urban area (i.e. always carry a gun/knife/spare money/meds/etc) could also be taken in a rural area, thus still keeping your chances better in the rural areas.

April 15, 2010 8:13 AM

The typical misconception of living like the Ingalls family but with AR15s while the world goes hell all around you? Yes. Absolutely.
I assure you it does not work when crime goes off the charts. I’ll put my first born in that bet as well.

Its just impossible,, it’s a nice idea that works perfect in fiction, not in reality. Rhodesian white farmers, isolated homes and retreats throughout history have been whipped out when crime gets out of control and are in fact the reason why cities started in the first place.

You avoid crime typically found it cities of course, you do NOT avoid getting killed when crime gets out of control, and there’s no distance in the modern world that avoids that. You got there with a car? So will others.
Now, what we know that does work are gates communities, a solid perimeter, and serious professional security. Private neighborhoods as they call them here.
Even better and something that is becoming more and more popular here among those that can afford it are “quintas” neighborhoods. These are similar to walled communities but with small farms instead.

Half an acre, one or two maybe, not much , but several of them together, with a secured perimeters and security. That gives you enough land to have a certain independence. You can have a nice garden, of course not serious plantation but a good sized orchard and some small animals. In some cases they have community buildings for horses. You have your own, but you share the facility/security.
This could work also for cows, sheep ,etc.
In a worse case scenario, this would be a possible solution. Until things go completely to hell and you just have to leave the country, that is.


FerFAL

Homesteads, security and devaluation.

Anonymous said...
How did land outside the larger cities do after the Argentina collapse... not the burbs, but small acre homesteads? I've read your notes on people who were tortured in isolated areas.

We are buying a place w/ cash for investment - about 5 acres with a humble house outside the city. Close enough to be w/in an hours drive, but far enough to be considered country and not burbs. We'll enjoy during good economic times as a second home. This has neighbors you can see, but just not on top of each other compared to inner city. This is not an Idaho retreat, but a place we could probably get to if our large US city had major problems. And we could store a few supplies to get us through a short term event; while also leaving our city life home going for job purposes.

Did these type of set-ups prove helpful for those inner-city people during the Argentina collapse?

Small farms and homesteads arent safe here. Even those are now offered within a community that has its own security these days.

Sounds like a nice place. Neighbors within screaming distance are more important than most people realize.
The retreat in Idaho works perfect as long as shit DOESN’T hit the fan, at least not bad. Its simply impossible to defend and well, you’re a sitting duck for anyone with a gun and half an ounce of brain.
The place you mention could be a good place to live in if things get worse and you can coordinate security with your neighbors. I wont lie to you. When crime gets bad there’s no other choice: You need security. When times are REALLY bad, you need, good security, not just a fool walking around. Here, that’s most often found in high end building of gated communities. The communities that went half way about security and went for the cheapest offered are now paying for that mistake.
Maybe this is not your case but you could eventually tlak with your neighbors, organize yourselves and either pay for good private security or do it yourselves if people are available. Usually what happens is that people have jobs and see that its better to keep working, chip in, and outsource your security, no problem there if you hire serious people.

Anonymous said...
Hey FerFal. You stated you need money most of all and I agree if it's a slow slide or a mild depression. But what good is money in a Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe type hyperinflation? What would you do in those types of extreme situations?
April 13, 2010 6:15 PM

Well, it depends on the kind of money you had. If you had Swiss Francs I’m sure you could have exchanged it for whatever currency you needed. If you had gold or silver I assure you, you wouldn’t be using it for fire like they did with their own currency.
When that type of thing happens, it happens in places that use a currency that isn’t very strong. These days a country going through that will start using Euros or Dollars on the side pretty quick. Laws forbidding it wont matter much, its impossible to control.
If something like that happens to the dollar or Euro, then you can expect an important parallel market running on gold and silver.
What would I do? I’d have my food, water and other basic supplies sorted out, means to defend myself too. The things we talk about here all the time. I’d try to have an emergency stash of money, put most of it into precious metals or a currency I trust more than my local one that apparently is about to collapse.

FerFAL