Category: Interesting stuff
By Jack Kerwick
Since the horrible summer of 2020, crime has risen precipitously in cities throughout the United States. This alone should be sufficient to convince decent American citizens to train in self-protection. Those interested in doing so should be cautious, however, lest they fall victim to, as Richard Feynman referred to it, “the ignorance of experts.”
It doesn’t take much of a critical eye to discern that the overwhelming majority of the martial arts instructors on YouTube convey, at best, mixed messaging. At worst, they are demoralizing.
In any event, they set their students up for failure.
A particularly instructive illustration of this phenomenon is a recent exchange between two skilled martial artists, former Navy Seal Jocko Willink and Tim Kennedy, an Army Ranger. Kennedy was a guest on Willink’s podcast. A viewer asked the two special operators how a “non-fighter” should train for self-defense.
The host turned the query over to his guest. “Anything is better than nothing,” Kennedy insisted. Even “CrossFit training,” given its self-defense component, is a viable option. While there is no right or wrong course of action to take when it comes to training in self-defense, there are “degrees of better.”
For Kennedy, one can’t go wrong with the “foundational martial arts”: wrestling, boxing, Muay Thai, and Jiu-Jitsu. Elaborating, he said: “You know, you step up against a guy that has a little bit of knowledge in any one of those . . . they’re a pain in the ass. And if he has a little bit [of knowledge] in all of them or he’s really good at one of them? Just kiss your ass goodbye. You’re going to sleep.”
Willink unequivocally agreed. Yet he also informed his sizable audience that they already have a “natural defense,” which is to “run away.” If someone comes at me and “you’ve got a knife, or whatever,” Willink said, “I’m going to run from you. It’s OK. It’s defense. I’m being defensive. I’m running away from you.”
Kennedy replied: “I 100 percent agree with you.” He added that if someone came up to him and demanded that he give him his wallet, Kennedy would reply: “You’ve got to catch me first.”
Kennedy and Willink are representative of an attitude that pervades the contemporary world of martial arts. While martial artists generally, and Tim Kennedy and Jocko Willink specifically, are good guys, the attitude they’re exhibiting isn’t just lamentable—it’s outrageous. It’s outrageous because decent human beings, recognizing, as they do, the Kennedys and Willinks of the world as authorities on the subject of self-protection, turn to them for assistance in helping them surmount their own fears of being preyed upon.
Their advice is terrible, in more ways than one.
A capable martial arts instructor must ask and answer for himself the following questions:
1) What is a martial art?
Let’s get back to basics and remind ourselves that “martial,” as in martial art, means “of or pertaining to war.”
War.
The martial arts, then, are, historically and etymologically, the arts of war.
Martial arts instructors, then, have a singular task vis-à-vis their students: They must instill martial prowess, i.e. the skill and the will to incapacitate the enemy by whatever means necessary. The violence for which a student of a real martial art trains is the violence that is necessary to prevail in a conflict that could become lethal.
2) What is the context within which martial arts students will prepare themselves to use violence?
Given the definition of a martial art, the only appropriate mode of training is one that prepares students to unleash violence within the context of a potentially life-threatening attack launched by a determined assailant against innocents, whether those innocents are students themselves, their loved ones, or other innocents who can’t fend for themselves.
Put another way, martial arts students should not be training for duels, matches, contests, bar fights, or street brawls. They should not train to brawl at all. Like soldiers, students of the martial arts should train to dispatch potentially homicidal assailants with ruthless efficiency.
Students pursuing self-protection training in a martial art should be trained to encounter, not “opponents” but, rather, “enemies.”
There are only enemies, anti-humans who have divested themselves of their humanity by choosing instead to become bipedal predators who feed off of the blood of innocents.
3) Against whom am I preparing students to use the skills that I instill in them?
To repeat the last point: Students should be training to become as capable as possible of destroying the enemy. And the enemy is anyone who won’t think twice about raping, robbing, bludgeoning, and murdering innocents in order to get what he wants.
Let’s put this another way: Students are not training to win contests. They’re not training for sport. The enemy is not likely to be an athlete, a boxer, or another martial artist. Nor should students be training to kick the ass of some guy who is acting like a douchebag.
In other words, boxing, wrestling, Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu—the arts Tim Kennedy and Jocko Willink recommend for those who are interested in learning self-protection—presuppose a context fundamentally other than the context of a martial art, the context of war. They presuppose an opponent, someone with whom one can “square off” or with whom it is safe to go to the ground. This assumption is at once wholly intelligible and appropriate within the context of a sport. It couldn’t be more inappropriate, more dangerous, within the context of a possibly deadly confrontation, of war.
As far as grappling is concerned, most of the pioneers of World War II close-quarter combatives were grapplers. So too were many of their students. And yet they have always insisted, forcefully and repeatedly, that the ground is the last place to which one wants to go in a real violent confrontation—however masterful a “ground game” one may have achieved. The ground, given its solidity and the potential it has to be uneven and strewn with debris and broken glass, isn’t remotely as accommodating as a mat in a dojo. And considering the likelihood that the enemy could have a weapon and/or fellow belligerents waiting in the wings to whom a defender will be that much more vulnerable while on the ground, training in a grappling art leaves much to be desired for the only kind of (non-sportive) confrontation for which decent civilian adults should ever prepare.
When we turn to the standing arts, things are not much better. The conventional fighting stance that students of boxing and many other martial arts are taught to assume reinforces this fiction—an invidious fiction—that it is some single opponent against whom they’ll be “squaring off.” Yet squaring off, putting up one’s dukes, is likely to be neither necessary nor desirable against a scumbag or gang of scumbags who are resolved to cave in the side of your skull with a crowbar or a tire iron, or who sucker strikes you in the back of your head with a rock.
The point is that the only type of violent transaction for which it is both morally and legally permissible for adults to engage occurs everywhere but comes from nowhere. It is a life or death situation, whether or not the assailant or assailants intend to extinguish the lives of their targets. There’s nothing sporty or organized about it.
Since microseconds count, it should be obvious that there is no time for a person targeted to square off. Not only is it not likely that there would be time to do so while under attack. Even if there was time to do so, it would be a waste of time, for it takes more time to stand in a guard position and then strike than it takes just to strike!
And by throwing up the hands in front of one’s head and face prior to pre-empting the enemy’s assault, one renders exponentially more difficult to sustain any argument from self-defense one may try making upon severely injuring or killing an assailant. This is because if one had time to assume a conventional fighting stance, then, presumably, one had time to walk away or otherwise diffuse the confrontation. In squaring off, one consents to “fight.”
Again, in a ring or within the context of sport, this makes sense. In the context of self-protection, it most assuredly does not.
So, to put it simply and contrary to Tim Kennedy’s suggestion, a person is not likely to be violently attacked by a practitioner of boxing, wrestling, Muay Thai, or Jiu Jitsu. One must train accordingly.
4) To whom will I impart this training?
The people most likely to pursue training in an art of war for the sake of defending themselves and their loved ones generally possess various peculiar characteristics.
First, while they may be of any age, those who are seeking training in a combat art tend to be older. Since they want to learn how to maximize their odds of being able to successfully defend themselves within their unique bodies, they are not aiming to compete, so styles and systems that specialize in flashy, choreographed, but largely impractical techniques are not going to appeal to them.
Second, they are not, then, likely to be especially athletic, if they’re athletic at all. Every drill, every habit sown, must be conducive to the end of making students ever more efficient at neutralizing those who would prey upon them.
Third, they are most definitely not troublemakers. They don’t need their instructor to repeatedly warn them against using the skills they acquire in their training for nefarious or otherwise illegitimate purposes.
Nor do they need to have the very fears that motivated them to pursue martial training in the first place reinforced by the people—their instructors—to whom they turn for help in surmounting their fears!
What this means is that instructors who go about with a long face, as if they lament having to train their students in the use of violence, who indiscriminately (without any attention paid to circumstances) tell their students to run, and who deluge them with ominous tales of the “prison-trained monsters” up against whom they may come further ensconce the anxieties, and possibly the trauma, that motivated their students to take up the study of self-protection.
They do their students a grave injustice by failing to deliver the goods.
5) What motivates people psychologically to pursue training in martial arts?
To reiterate the last point, it is fear, the fear of not being able to successfully defend oneself and one’s loved ones from verminous bipedal predators that fundamentally accounts for why your average person, particularly your average adult, takes up the study of a martial art. This being the case, instructors have an obligation to help their students manage and channel that fear for the purpose of annihilating the enemy, if the occasion should ever demand this course of action.
Instructors who fail to know their students by strengthening this fear fail their students.
6) How will I do right by my students in satisfying this longing?
Instructors fulfill their calling by refusing to peddle fear porn consisting of tales of invincible bad guys, life imprisonment for decent people who defend themselves and their loved ones from the bad guys, and orders to run from the bad guys!
Yet they have a duty to do more. Martial arts instructors need to spare no occasion to instill in their students both the physical skill and, critically, the moral will, the mental focus, to excise from the planet like the malignant cancer they are, any and all who would imperil the innocent.
Period.
The enemy is not invincible. He’s mortal. Whatever his race, religion, or tribe, and whether he is a drug kingpin, a terrorist, a mafia hitman, a gangbanger, or an ex-con—the enemy bleeds, breaks, and dies.
He can be critically injured, maimed, and killed.
Instructors should continually remind their students of this axiomatic truth. Students of the martial arts, specifically, the arts of war, don’t need to be told how dangerous such lowlifes are (as if they would go around looking to pick “fights” with these types, or any types, once they got a little training in a warrior art under their belt!). They need to have it drilled into them that the godless are not only mortal but will in fact be forced to come to terms with their mortality if the evil are ever so stupid as to attack them!
This is the martial spirit. We need more of it in the world of martial arts.
And those American citizens who are willing to assume responsibility for their own protection by pursuing the study of a genuinely martial art should take care to seek out an instructor who has asked and answered the foregoing questions.
05 August 2019 4:03 PM
Inconclusive Musings About Two Mass Killings in the USA
I do not think I know anything like enough about the two mass murders in the USA to have much to say about them yet. So here are some inconclusive musings.
But I note here that, as in all my writings on such subjects , stupid people are banned from reading what follows. If you don’t know whether you are stupid or not, I also advise you not to read it. If you find yourself thinking that I am trying to excuse mass murder, then that means you are definitely stupid, for I am clearly not doing that. You should go and lie down until the mood has passed. Alas, the stupidity will persist.
As usual, I wait for facts before reaching conclusions, which slows me down among all the others rushing to judgement. Sometimes, as I know from the case of the Quebec City mosque killer, Bissonnette, here… https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/04/reposted-in-the-light-f-new-information-another-mass-shooter-turns-out-to-have-been-taking-mind-alte.html
…crucial facts do not come to light for long months, even years, after these events – if they ever do. In my experience, police all over the world are sublimely uninterested (in Britain actively uninterested) in the drug use of the perpetrators of such crimes, and often only stumble across them by accident.
But there are some features of the El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, killings on which I will comment. As usual, the reporting concentrates upon the horror of the crimes, as it must. It is then swiftly followed by standard-issue editorialising about guns and gun control of the usual sort. This neglects to notice that mass gun ownership is not new in the USA, but dates back to the foundation of the country. Yet these rampage killings only really began about 50 years ago, and have been growing more common in the past five years. So in simple logic, the free availability of guns alone cannot be blamed for these incidents.
But in this case there is also quite a lot about the supposed ‘right-wing extremism’ of one of the two accused, the alleged El Paso killer Crusius. (Not the other killer though, see below) I have discussed the significance of such affiliations here in long posts on the Jo Cox murder here https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/04/my-reply-to-the-secret-barrister-.html
I would also draw readers’ attention to what I wrote about the Charlottesville killer, Fields, two years ago (the caveat still very much applies ) https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/08/on-the-miserable-events-in-charlottesville-virginia.html
My questions, as to what might have caused Fields to become mentally ill enough to be rejected by the US Army in the first place, were not purposeless. I stick by my belief that, if you find a mentally-ill young person in the modern world, you will almost certainly find a current or former marijuana user. But this grows harder to establish definitively, as police in many jurisdictions long ago gave up even cautions or diversion programmes for those found in possession of marijuana, and are not interested in probing it now. In fact they are positively uninterested, because the connection makes their abandonment of law-enforcement look foolish. So while five or ten years ago their drug abuse might have been recorded, it is not now.
More than a year after his crime, in November 2018, the range of drugs (potentially amphetamines, ‘anti-anxiety’ medication and SSRIs) , which Fields may have been legally taking, possibly all at once, was briefly revealed at his trial: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/james-alex-fields-trial-deadly-charlottesville-white-nationalist-rally-set-n939991 The key passage reads : ‘Fields later told a judge he is being treated for bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression and ADHD.’
‘Treated’, of course, means ‘given drugs’. We still do not know what illegal drugs Folds may have taken before he became mentally ill. But it is not hard to guess.
I recently checked for the latest information on the mass murderer Roof, whose crime has been attributed to a political motive (though as usual it is hard to see how such a filthy act could possibly have aided any cause to which it is attached) and found this https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-dylann-roof-20170202-story.html . His admitted problems include a ‘Mixed Substance Abuse Disorder, a Schizoid Personality Disorder, depression by history, and a possible Autistic Spectrum Disorder.’”
Well, that is pretty much evidence of substance abuse. Which substance or ‘mixed substances’ would you guess might be involved here in the origins of the stated ‘disorder’ ? Me too. Likewise the word ‘Schizoid’ tends to be associated with drug-related mental illness. ‘Depression’ is generally treated with powerful SSRIs, and Autistic Spectrum Disorder can be treated with Risperidone, an antipsychotic. In modern America, none of these things would be considered abnormal enough to merit special note, especially once Roof’s crazed action had been attributed to the white supremacist opinions which he holds, insofar as such a person can be said to hold opinions. To me, and to anyone familiar with the subject of side-effects of legal medications, and indeed the problems associated with marijuana, these are flashing red lights. But they emerged quietly 18 months after he was arrested for the murder of nine people, and long after most people had lost interest in the case.
I have also addressed the subject of the supposed political affiliations of other violent, irrational, apparently politicised persons in this article on the Leytonstone knife attacker, Muhaydin Mire here . (‘You ain’t no Muslim , Bruv!’) https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/08/the-man-who-thought-tony-blair-was-his-guardian-angel-yes-really.html
I strongly recommend that you follow the link. There is much fascinating material in it which you will not easily find elsewhere, about unhinged people and religious and political affiliation.
My point is that it is possible for people who are unhinged (usually by legal or illegal psychotropic drugs and sometimes by both in succession) to espouse ostensibly political views, but this does not necessarily mean that they can correctly be classified as political actors. I know too little about Crusius to say anything other than ‘Can we wait for a bit more information?’
But in reports that I have seen, the strong interest in Crusius’s supposed right-wing extremism (I note that the suggestion that he posted a raving manifesto before his alleged crime is as I understand it not yet proven) is not matched by concern about alleged left-wing opinions held (according to the ‘Heavy’ website) by the (now dead) suspect in the Dayton, Ohio killing, Betts . See for example https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/connor-betts/
Attempts to analyse Betts’s Twitter feed (I use his original spellings etc) found that ‘he described himself as “he/him / anime fan / metalhead / leftist / i’m going to hell and i’m not coming back.” He wrote on Twitter that he would happily vote for Democrat Elizabeth Warren, praised Satan, was upset about the 2016 presidential election results, and added, “I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.” The Greene County Board of Elections lists his party as “Dem.” ‘. When Donald Trump was elected President he is said to have tweeted that ‘This is bad’.
I don’t propose to make anything of this in itself. Rather the opposite
These vague semi-literate mutterings obviously cannot be used to attempt any link between Betts and the American left. And, by the way, I am not suggesting any equivalence between seething racial bigotry and peaceful mainstream Democratic Party leftism, in case anyone was hoping to pin that on me. They are obviously utterly distinct. To make such a connection between Betts and the Democrats would obviously be absurd. In which case, perhaps some similar caution should be observed in the case of Crusius. This is not to exonerate any purveyors of hate. What they do is wrong even if it has no connection with Crusius. It is to avoid misunderstanding the reasons which led to this crime, because we are anxious to give it a political explanation.
Crusius’s alleged actions may well be as unconnected to his supposed politics as those of Betts, though I doubt my plea for this will get much of a hearing.
What I am saying here ( see especially the Muhaydin Mire case, referenced above) is that crazy people quite often adopt political causes to make themselves feel important and part of a movement. But they do this because they are crazy, not because they are really political in nature. The affiliation is part of their craziness, and can’t be equated with the genuine, rational political affiliations of sane people. The interesting question is ‘why are there now so many more crazy people than there used to be?’
I still wonder what, if anything, these two alleged culprits will turn out to have objectively in common, when we know all that there is to be known about them – if we ever do. But until we do, I must be inconclusive, and speculative. So please don’t tell me I have reached any conclusions here. As Sherlock Holmes always said, it is a capital error to theorise without data. Not, alas, that it stops everyone else.
Categories
We need more kids like this!
Categories
Whoa!
One salty New Zealand Dude!
“Thou Shalt Not” (1934). After passing of the Hays Code in 1934, the head of photography at Columbia, A. L. Schafel took this photograph (colorized by me – the original was B/W) as a protest to censorship. The picture violates all ten rules of the code that you can see listed on the wall.