Monday, September 04, 2017

Cruising the Web

Bari Weiss, a staff editor and writer for the NYT opinion section, of all places, has a very timely plea of praise for cultural appropriation. He explains the dangers awaiting a society that insists that no one can use anything from some ethnic group that he or she does not belong to.
These days our mongrel culture is at risk of being erased by an increasingly strident left, which is careering us toward a wan existence in which we are all forced to remain in the ethnic and racial lanes assigned to us by accident of our birth. Hoop earrings are verboten, as are certain kinds of button-down shirts. Yoga is dangerous. So are burritos and eyeliner.

It’s no longer just the online hordes that will string you up for your unintentional sins, though the cost of that public shaming can be devastating. In Portland, Ore., activists recently created a list of “white-owned appropriative restaurants” for residents to boycott on the grounds that white people probably shouldn’t make banh mi or dosas. This summer, the University of Michigan posted a job for a “bias response team” employee to “enact cultural appropriation prevention initiatives.” I wonder if they’ll go after people for using algebra (thanks, Muslims).

If this insidiously exclusionary view of culture goes the distance, it will take us back to a separate-but-equal reality that this country has spent the past half-century clawing our way out of. You can already see the beginnings of it, with the advent of racially separate commencements at schools like Harvard. Participants argue that it’s an important way to affirm group solidarity, but it’s not hard to imagine a demand for segregated schools in the not-too-distant future.

Consider the simple act of eating a meal in an era of cultural purity. This weekend I had dinner in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, cooked by a Palestinian who was raised in Israel where her brother served in Parliament. Yet her restaurant is billed as Lebanese. And she accents her traditional dishes with herbs — cilantro, basil — that would never be found on a plate in the Levant. But if proponents of cultural purity had their way, I’d have spent the evening cordoned on the Upper West Side watching “Yentl” and eating gefilte fish.
We're so often told that one of the great strengths of our country is that we are a country of immigrants. I believe it and should since my ancestors didn't come here until the 19th century. Well, what is the idea of such a claim but to say that these immigrants have enriched our culture? How can they really be contributing if no one else is allowed to appreciate and borrow from their contributions because everyone has to follow the words of LaVar Ball and stay in one's lane. That would so diminish what is praised and valued about our nation's culture.

The black-balling of anyone who says or does anything that someone else might deem bigoted has now spread to young-adult (YA) as detailed in this article at Vulture.com about the reaction to the debut YA novel in a new series. The YA novel by Laurie Forest, The Black Witch, sounds very promising and was gaining a lot of buzz until one blogger decided that the premise was racist.
The hype train was derailed in mid-March, however, by Shauna Sinyard, a bookstore employee and blogger who writes primarily about YA and had a different take: “The Black Witch is the most dangerous, offensive book I have ever read,” she wrote in a nearly 9,000-word review that blasted the novel as an end-to-end mess of unadulterated bigotry. “It was ultimately written for white people. It was written for the type of white person who considers themselves to be not-racist and thinks that they deserve recognition and praise for treating POC like they are actually human.”

The Black Witch centers on a girl named Elloren who has been raised in a stratified society where other races (including selkies, fae, wolfmen, etc.) are considered inferior at best and enemies at worst. But when she goes off to college, she begins to question her beliefs, an ideological transformation she’s still working on when she joins with the rebellion in the last of the novel’s 600 pages. (It’s the first of a series; one hopes that Elloren will be more woke in book two.)

It was this premise that led Sinyard to slam The Black Witch as “racist, ableist, homophobic, and … written with no marginalized people in mind,” in a review that consisted largely of pull quotes featuring the book’s racist characters saying or doing racist things.
I haven't read the book, but from this article it sure sounds like that the reviewer didn't realize that the whole point of the book was detail the whole point of the book was growth of the main character as she realizes that the bigotry towards other beings was wrong even if that was what she'd been taught all her life. It sounds like those people who find The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn a racist novel simply because of its use of the N word without realizing that it is a classic of anti-bigotry as Huck rejects what has he has been taught and decides that he needs to rescue Jim because they are friends and he doesn't care if it means he's going to Hell. It's one of the greatest passages in all American literature but seems to have passed over the heads of those who want to just ban students from reading the book because they don't understand Twain's message.
I felt good and all washed clean of sin for the first time I had ever felt so in my life, and I knowed I could pray now. But I didn't do it straight off, but laid the paper down and set there thinking- thinking how good it was all this happened so, and how near I come to being lost and going to hell. And went on thinking. And got to thinking over our trip down the river; and I see Jim before me, all the time; in the day, and in the night-time, sometimes moonlight, sometimes storms, and we a floating along, talking, and singing, and laughing. But somehow I couldn't seem to strike no places to harden me against him, but only the other kind. I'd see him standing my watch on top of his'n, stead of calling me, so I could go on sleeping; and see him how glad he was when I come back out of the fog; and when I come to him agin in the swamp, up there where the feud was; and such-like times; and would always call me honey, and pet me, and do everything he could think of for me, and how good he always was; and at last I struck the time I saved him by telling the men we had smallpox aboard, and he was so grateful, and said I was the best friend old Jim ever had in the world, and the only one he's got now; and then I happened to look around, and see that paper.

It was a close place. I took it up, and held it in my hand. I was a trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:

"All right, then, I'll go to hell"- and tore it up.

It was awful thoughts, and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming. I shoved the whole thing out of my head; and said I would take up wickedness again, which was in my line, being brung up to it, and the other warn't. And for a starter, I would go to work and steal Jim out of slavery again; and if I could think up anything worse, I would do that, too; because as long as I was in, and in for good, I might as well go the whole hog.
Well, it seems that this blogger missed the point about The Black Witch and wanted to make sure that no one else reads the book. Her review was shared by lots of people who hadn't even read the book but just bought into her opinion. Other bloggers, some of them teens jumped on board the black-balling of The Black Witch and proudly boasted that they hadn't read the book they were condemning. And this seems to be an increasing among the PC purity of YA Book Twitter.
Many members of YA Book Twitter have become culture cops, monitoring their peers across multiple platforms for violations. The result is a jumble of dogpiling and dragging, subtweeting and screenshotting, vote-brigading and flagging wars, with accusations of white supremacy on one side and charges of thought-policing moral authoritarianism on the other.
Representatives of both factions say they’ve received threats or had to shut down their accounts owing to harassment, and all expressed fear of being targeted by influential community members — even when they were ostensibly on the same side. “If anyone found out I was talking to you,” Mimi told me, “I would be blackballed.”

Dramatic as that sounds, it’s worth noting that my attempts to report this piece were met with intense pushback. Sinyard politely declined my request for an interview in what seemed like a routine exchange, but then announced on Twitter that our interaction had “scared” her, leading to backlash from community members who insisted that the as-yet-unwritten story would endanger her life. Rumors quickly spread that I had threatened or harassed Sinyard; several influential authors instructed their followers not to speak to me; and one librarian and member of the Newbery Award committee tweeted at Vulture nearly a dozen times accusing them of enabling “a washed-up YA author” engaged in “a personalized crusade” against the entire publishing community (disclosure: while freelance culture writing makes up the bulk of my work, I published a pair of young adult novels in 2012 and 2014.) With one exception, all my sources insisted on anonymity, citing fear of professional damage and abuse.

None of this comes as a surprise to the folks concerned by the current state of the discourse, who describe being harassed for dissenting from or even questioning the community’s dynamics. One prominent children’s-book agent told me, “None of us are willing to comment publicly for fear of being targeted and labeled racist or bigoted. But if children’s-book publishing is no longer allowed to feature an unlikable character, who grows as a person over the course of the story, then we’re going to have a pretty boring business.”
And if you're dismissing this as just a few rabid Twitter YA readers, it is still having an impact on authors.
Another agent, via email, said that while being tarred as problematic may not kill an author’s career — “It’s likely made the rounds as gossip, but I don’t know it’s impacting acquisitions or agents offering representation” — the potential for reputational damage is real: “No one wants to be called a racist, or sexist, or homophobic. That stink doesn’t wash off.”

Authors seem acutely aware of that fact, and are tailoring their online presence — and in some cases, their writing itself — accordingly. One New York Times best-selling author told me, “I’m afraid. I’m afraid for my career. I’m afraid for offending people that I have no intention of offending. I just feel unsafe, to say much on Twitter. So I don’t.” She also scrapped a work in progress that featured a POC character, citing a sense shared by many publishing insiders that to write outside one’s own identity as a white author simply isn’t worth the inevitable backlash. “I was told, do not write that,” she said. “I was told, ‘Spare yourself.’

Another author recalled being instructed by her publisher to stay silent when her work was targeted, an experience that she says resulted in professional ostracization. “I never once responded or tried to defend my book,” she wrote in a Twitter DM. Her publisher “did feel I was being abused, but felt we couldn’t do anything about it.”
Reading through this entire article is very demoralizing. While many people have been calling out the snowflake culture on college campuses, it seems that it has been spreading to other industries and communities where people's careers are being threatened simply because they're not perceived as sufficiently towing the line although the good news is that the concentrated online campaign doesn't seem to have hurt the sales of The Black Witch. Many young people have better sense than those trying to direct what they read.

25% Off in Office and School Supplies

Deals in Office Products

Deals in Home and Kitchen

Cathy Young writes about the rising threat to liberalism posed by leftists. Yes, we need to worry about those on the so-called alt-right, but those on the left who want to shut down speech they disapprove of have much more power in academia and publishing than anyone on the right has.
But illiberal leftism goes far beyond petition-signing and racist-shaming on social media. And there is no reason one cannot worry about authoritarianism on both the left and the right, especially since the two feed off each other.

Even if the excesses of “PC culture” were limited to college campuses, this would be a problem, given how central the free exchange of ideas is to the purpose of the university. Feminist lawyer and author Wendy Kaminer warns that “soft authoritarianism” on campus has consequences outside, “teaching future generations of leaders the ‘virtues’ of autocracy.”

But it’s not limited to college campuses. Left-wing illiberalism already has real power in the real world, through public opinion and activism—online and offline—and even through law and policy, when offensive speech is reclassified as “harassment.”

The casualties include yoga classes, museum programs, and burrito shops terminated on charges of “cultural appropriation.” And they include uninhibited discourse in the media, where retaliation for heresy can have very tangible consequences.
As often happens, we can look to Europe to see where this will end.
Hate speech laws have been used to chill debate on various issues, including criticism of Islam. French courts recently upheld a ban on the television airing of a short film showing happy Down’s Syndrome children and urging women not to terminate pregnancies after such a diagnosis—on the grounds that it could “disturb” women who had had abortions.

Of course, even in a liberal culture, some ideas are rightly considered beyond the pale even if it is legal to express them—be it Holocaust denial, defense of slavery, or advocacy of wife-beating. Few would regret the passing of a time when one could casually use racist, ethnic, or sexist slurs without incurring severe opprobrium. There is always a consensus on what cannot be said in decent society—though the specifics of that consensus change....

Under the illiberal left regime, the exceptions keep expanding until they become the rule: any grievance can further narrow the boundaries of acceptable speech or thought. This is especially alarming given the ability of giant Internet companies, which fly the banner of cultural progressivism, to deplatform undesirable speech—a practice whose potential for de facto censorship is worrying even to many on the left.

This expansion of the unutterable stems from the fact that left-wing authoritarianism is not just an excess of zeal but the expression of a world-view. It is an ideology that treats individuals solely as a product of their racial, ethnic, sexual and other identities; treats “privilege” as original sin; and seeks to eradicate anything that may be perceived as oppressive to the “marginalized”—a utopian project that inherently requires speech- and thought-policing. (Ironically, Jews are a suspect category for progressive “identitarians” just as they are for reactionary ones: since Jews in Western societies are viewed as “privileged,” the anti-racist rhetoric of the left often erases anti-Semitism.)

....Illiberal leftism also derides liberalism itself as a “philosophy of rich white male domination,” pillorying Enlightenment philosophers and free speech proponents for their racist, sexist, or imperialist views. Such attacks miss an essential fact: The liberal philosophers of the past may have shared many prejudices of their time, but they created the doctrine of universal human rights that has allowed us to transcend these prejudices.

Defending the liberal order from right-wing attacks is not made easier when progressives try to discredit its foundational values as a tool of the privileged—or when liberal society itself becomes less free because of pressures from the cultural left.

Those who fear the rise of anti-liberalism today often look to the 1930s for ominous parallels. In those dark times, liberal democracy’s enemies came from both the right and the left. We should heed that lesson.

Matt Labash tells the story of who the people are who are behind the Patriot Prayer, the group being termed as white supremacists and neo-Nazis who were the ones being attacked in Berkeley a couple of weekends ago. It turns out that the leaders are a Japanese-American and a Samoan named Tiny and that the purpose of their group is to bring moderates together in Unity, peace, love, truth—these simple things” to heal the country. As he spent time with them, he learns more about who they are. They just happen to believe that people should be able to gather together at a political rally no matter what their message.
Joey believed that a person should be able to attend the political rally of his choice in America, or to wear a MAGA hat in a place like Portland, Ore., without worrying about getting hit in the face. So he started Patriot Prayer in 2016—it has no employees, and he takes no money from it. He began throwing rallies and marches in liberal cities on the West Coast. In the early days, his rallies had overtly pro-Trump themes. These days, mentions of Trump have mostly been scrubbed from his own rhetoric, as he knows even invoking the name can be alienating. (Plenty of those who show up at his events are ardent Trumpers, with whom he maintains an easy rapport.) Instead, his emphasis is on freedom and unity.
But, apparently, antifa groups find this so noxious that they attack him anywhere they can find him.
Joey admits he’s not some perfectly pure-of-heart missionary, that he’s also a bit of a provocateur. Though how provocative should it be, he wonders, to attend your own free-speech rallies in liberal enclaves in a free country without wishing to be physically attacked? Media types frequently charge that violence follows his rallies, and indeed it does. Precisely because antifa brings it. Blaming Patriot Prayer for provoking antifa into attacking them at their own events is a bit like blaming black marchers for provoking racist Alabama policemen into creasing their skulls with billy clubs for traversing the Edmund Pettus Bridge. It’s both a denial of basic human freedoms and victim-blaming of the highest order.
Sounds just like fascism, right?

Here is his description of what happened when a few of these guys from Patriot Prayer went to the park where the antifa thugs gathered against the "No to Marxism" rally..
From the moment we hit the square, the “Nazi” catcalls start. Whatever’s happening on the stage seems to cease to exist, and the energy around us turns very dark, very fast. Joey, Tiny, and Pete start walking with greater purpose, on the balls of their feet, almost like fighters entering a ring... As the chants rain down (“Nazis are here! .  .  . F— you! .  .  . F—ing fascists!”), we near the stage thinking we might find some kind of buffer zone, since the police knew that some of Joey’s original rally-goers would show up. But there isn’t one. Our progress is halted when we run up into a small clearing snug up against a barrier. And behind that barrier, near the park’s “Peace Wall,” is a wall of human blackness.

A hundred or so masked-up antifa ninjas and affiliated protesters seem to simultaneously turn. It looks like we’ve interrupted al Qaeda tryouts. Joey, Tiny, and Pete all raise their hands high in the air, and flash peace signs, a conciliatory gesture. But nobody here wants peace. Not with fascists on the scene. As Joey nears the barrier, one of the ninjas swings and misses. Then the barrier topples, and they pour over, chanting, “Fascists go home!”

As I’m reading the action into my recorder, antifa slides around me on all sides, nearly carrying me off like a breaking wave. The boys are about 20 yards off and walk backwards. Pete catches a shot right on his stars’n’stripes dome from a two-by-four and goes down, blacking out for a second. Tiny, trying to protect everybody, pulls him up with his massive Samoan hand and pushes him out of the scrum. The mob ignores Pete, as he’s just an appetizer. Joey is the entree.

First he catches a slap in the head, then someone gashes him with something in his ribs. He keeps his hands up, as though that will save him, while he keeps getting dragged backwards by his shirt, Tiny trying to pull him away from the bloodthirsty ninjas. Someone crashes a flagpole smack on Joey’s head, which will leave a welt so big that Tiny later calls him “the Unicorn.” Not wishing to turn his back on the crowd, a half-speed backwards chase ensues, as Joey and Tiny are blasted with shots of bear spray and pepper spray. They hurdle a jersey barrier, crossing Martin Luther King Jr. Way while antifa continue throwing bottles at them. The mob stalks Joey and Tiny all the way to an Alameda County police line, which the two bull their way through, though the cops initially look like they’re going to play Red Rover and keep them out. No arrests are made. Except for Joey and Tiny, who are cuffed.

A crack reporter for the Los Angeles Times will later write that they were arrested for charging the police, which couldn’t be less true. A Berkeley cop tells me they were arrested for their own safety (and weren’t charged)....

I’m made even more sick when I look down the road and see a punching, kicking mob form a circle around a new victim. By the time I roll up on them, an older man in camo-wear spits out from the maelstrom. As he runs to safety, an antifa thug runs up behind him, sucker-punching him as hard as he can in the back. I will go home that night and watch several more cold-blooded beatdowns on YouTube that I didn’t personally witness.

A squad car rolls up on the mob, but the black masks block it. The cop throws his car into slow reverse, inching backwards, as if to say “please don’t hurt me,” while an antifa member yells “F— you, pig!”

Politico reports that the Obama Department of Homeland Security since early 2016 had been worried about antifa attacks.
Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of “the capitalist system,” racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI.

After President Donald Trump’s election in November, the antifa activists locked onto another target — his supporters, especially those from white supremacist and nationalist groups suddenly turning out in droves to hail his victory, support crackdowns on immigrants and Muslims and to protest efforts to remove symbols of the Confederacy.

Those reports appear to bolster Trump’s insistence that extremists on the left bore some blame for the clashes in Charlottesville and represent a “problem” nationally. But they also reflect the extent that his own political movement has spurred the violent backlash.

In interviews, law enforcement authorities made clear that Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric and policies — first as a candidate and then as president — helped to create a situation that has escalated so quickly and extensively that they do not have a handle on it.

“It was in that period [as the Trump campaign emerged] that we really became aware of them,” said one senior law enforcement official tracking domestic extremists in a state that has become a front line in clashes between the groups. “These antifa guys were showing up with weapons, shields and bike helmets and just beating the shit out of people. … They’re using Molotov cocktails, they’re starting fires, they’re throwing bombs and smashing windows.”

Almost immediately, the right-wing targets of the antifa attacks began fighting back, bringing more and larger weapons and launching unprovoked attacks of their own, the documents and interviews show. And the extremists on both sides have been using the confrontations, especially since Charlottesville, to recruit unprecedented numbers of new members, raise money and threaten more confrontations, they say.
It does indeed seem that the problem is on both sides. And it sounds like the authorities are feeling helpless with dealing with these confrontations. And these episodes are happening all over.
Even before Charlottesville, dozens and, in some cases, hundreds of people on both sides showed up at events in Texas, California, Oregon and elsewhere, carrying weapons and looking for a fight. In the Texas capital of Austin, armed antifa protesters attacked Trump supporters and white groups at several recent rallies, and then swarmed police in a successful effort to stop them from making arrests.

California has become another battleground, with violent confrontations in Berkeley, Sacramento and Orange County leading to numerous injuries. And antifa counter-protesters initiated attacks in two previous clashes in
They can use social media to organize their supporters to come out for whatever rally they see advertised. There are all sorts of these anarchist groups that like to portray themselves as opposing fascism but are really just searching out opportunities for violence. DHS has begun looking into the connections between these groups in the U.S. and "foreign anarchist extremist movements."
Some of the antifa activists have gone overseas to train and fight with fellow anarchist organizations, including two Turkey-based groups fighting the Islamic State, according to interviews and internet postings.
The fear is that the election of Trump has escalated the violence. But the authorities seem overwhelmed trying to follow what these groups are doing and hare having trouble infiltrating such groups. It's all pretty scary stuff. And this report should be a wake-up call for all those idiots comparing antifa to the forces storming Normandy in 1944.

Coupons for money off in every category

$20 off top Kindle models and more savings on Kindle Bundles

Try Amazon Music Unlimited 30-Day Free Trial

Jonah explains why
there really isn't much of a difference between the alt-right and antifa. They're all just people, mostly young men, who enjoy rioting and breaking stuff.
Can anyone really dispute that this is a huge part of what’s going on with all these radicals on the left and the alt-right? A big swathe of the bad things that have happened over the last 10,000 years can be attributed to hormonally charged young men pulling stupid crap. Yes, yes, before the feminists get mad at me, plenty of young women have done stupid crap, too (indeed, there’s a weird school of thought that thinks it’s a great triumph when women live down to the lowest standards of men, but that’s a subject for another time).

If you want to get all Darwinian about it, you could chalk it up the common behavior of male chimpanzees and humans alike of getting into fights to impress females. If you want to get all Moynihanny about it, you can blame the degradation of families and fatherhood. Or you can blame secularization, or the ennui that comes with late-stage capitalism, or the frick’n influence of Nietzsche or Mr. Rogers. The point is young people, particularly males, love to create drama, defy authority, and anoint themselves the heroic warriors of their tale.

In that passage from Matt “Those Aren’t Pillows” Labash’s essay, Tiny admits he would have joined Antifa if he had stumbled on a different YouTube video. That pretty much tells you all you need to know. Some people just want an excuse to act on impulses that have remarkably little, if anything, to do with ideology. Radicalism is better understood as a psychological drive than a serious intellectual position.

The best analogy is to criminal outfits. I’m sure if you talked to a Crip or a Blood, they’d be able to talk your ear off about how different Crips and Bloods are from each other. But I think all rational people understand the differences are smaller than those between Coke and Pepsi. My hunch is that if you held everything else constant, a Crip born in Blood territory would grow up to be a Blood....

But as Irving Kristol once said, “When we lack the will to see things as they really are, there is nothing so mystifying as the obvious.” And so supposedly serious people expend enormous energy trying to explain why their pet goon squads are morally superior to other goon squads.

Never mind that the people exhausting themselves trying to justify Antifa’s antics consistently steal a base. As Matt “Smell My Fingers” Labash demonstrates, many of the people these self-styled Roter Frontk√§mpferbund are beating up aren’t fascists, save in the sense Orwell had in mind when he wrote that “the word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’” Sure, Antifa will beat up fascists, and my dog will chase squirrels. But my dog will also chase chipmunks, rabbits, mice, crows, deer, and — given the chance — gnus. Antifa appears equally discriminating.

And, unlike conservatives who condemn the white supremacists and neo-nazis, the leftists defending Antifa are actually lending aid and comfort to them by crafting ridiculous rationalizations for their behavior. As we’ve seen, that’s all these shmucks need.


Matt Vespa reminds us
of when Democrats professed to support a wall on the border.
Yet, in 2006, Democrats were singing a different tune about the border wall in the sense that a lot of them were for it, including then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). The Daily Caller reported on Obama’s border wall support back in 2016:
A leaked internal memo from Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign says that fencing at the US-Mexico border could help cut down on illegal immigration.

The memo, which was made public by anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks, is dated September 7, 2008 and contains a list of immigration promises and proposals.

One of Obama’s “core goals,” according to the memo: “Preserve the integrity of our borders to reduce illegal immigration.”
“Securing our borders will not solve the illegal immigration problem in isolation, but combined with an earned path to citizenship for the undocumented and new legal alternatives to unauthorized entry, some additional fencing could help get the border under control.”

A section titled “Fencing,” says Obama “Supports physical fencing along border under very specific circumstances, where it makes sense as a matter of security and to act as a deterrent to unsafe undocumented entry.”
Well, by progressive standards, Barack Obama is now a racist. Yet, it also shows how insane the Left has become over the past decade. The descent into identity politics and the general shift leftward in political orientation has led the Democratic Party to become insanely out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially in immigration.

Best Deals in Vitamins and Supplements

Interesting Finds at Amazon: Updated Daily

Spring Savings in Grocery and Gourmet Food

Home and Kitchen Markdowns

Here's another entry for the stupid crook catalogue. Some really boneheaded robber thought it would be a good idea to try to rob an MMA gym. Needless to say, it didn't go well for the robber.
According to FoxLA.com, citing police, the suspect walked into the Defiant MMA & Fitness studio in Burbank, Calif., with a gun and attempted to rob the place shortly after 9 p.m. local time. Instructor Jacobe Powell, listed as an amateur MMA fighter on his Sherdog.com profile page, was teaching one of his students when the suspect entered. Powell knocked the gun out of the suspect’s hands and subdued him until police arrived.

In his own words:

“My instincts kicked in. I used my judo training to go ahead and subdue him and got the weapon away from him before the cops arrived,” Powell said. “One of my guys here who was training called the police, and I just subdued him until the police showed up.”