Monday, May 16, 2016


I like Michael Clarke's style that is his flare for karate. I like his uncompromising spirit. I like the fact that he advertises on his blog that karate is a self learned art. What I don't like is his ambiguity.

I don't believe that anyone can actually pay for karate. I don't pay for karate. I haven't paid for karate since 2006. Do I have a "black belt" sure I have one that holds my pistol up. Oh wait, it's made of leather, not cotton. No I don't have a black belt. This whole blog is about not paying for karate. I don't think you should pay for it.

The problem with "learn this on your own," or "the equipment will teach you the lesson" is that people are not you. The self learner can read books, do research, contemplate karate, but the person who needs permission will not. The person who doesn't want to go against the grain, go against convention by not spending money, by not seeking out the expert, by not putting on white pajamas will look at ambiguity and say that it is too hard. They are untrained. They don't know what they are looking for or at or what they want, and all too often the difference between the legitimate dojo and the illegitimate dojo is that after black belt one teaches them something and the other teaches them nothing. By this time it's too late. $10,000 or more invested and a whole lot of time and people will not be willing to say they made a mistake by going to the wrong dojo.

People are all to willing to pay for what you can't pay for, success, love, happiness. You can't pay for these things, but modern advertising thrives on these ideas. If you say you need a dojo, people will find the first dojo that meets their expectations, usually based on television and movies. If you say they don't need the dojo, but don't offer alternatives than they will be driven to the bad dojo anyway. If you say that you can't buy something but don't show people how not to buy something than people will try and find a way.

What's the difference?