© COPYRIGHT 2009 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – August 2009 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
http://www.americancombato.com
http://seattlecombatives.com
DECENT human beings do not like to fight. Reasonable people do all that is possible to avoid physical violence, and one mark of a savage (a category into which violent criminals, troublemakers, and anyone who is inclined to get physical without objective justification fall neatly into) is that his mindset, lifestyle and conduct reflect the following psychological syndrome:
• He tends to enjoy physically assaulting and dominating others — and he is of the conviction that violence is really a good "solution" when one is displeased with other people for any reason, or frustrated by them in any way.
• He tends to believe that there is justification for him personally to physically assault and batter, or otherwise terrorize others, whenever disagreements or disputes arise, or whenever he observes or confronts behavior or ideas that conflict with his own. Often, he sees little wrong with the idea of using violence to take property that belongs to others; his only concern being how to get away with the act.
• He possesses extremely poor impulse control (much like an animal) and "just gets violent" whenever he "feels like it". Unlike a rational human being, the savage often "feels like it", and the savage takes that feeling as full and complete justification for becoming violent.
Precisely why some people are this way is an interesting psychiatric or psychological question. The problem is: Some people are this way. And whenever a civilized human being finds himself targeted by such a creature he is in imminent danger.
One of the big problems in developing the ability to defend oneself is developing the psychological "set" that enables one to maintain a READINESS to go into "war mode" and to physically stop a dangerous aggressor in whatever manner one must, and to achieve and to maintain a WILLINGNESS to do so. The two are related, but they are not identical.
"Readiness" refers to that state of physical, tactical, and mental "equipping" by which one has learned the mechanics of combat, and has developed practical skill and ability in the use and application of such skill and ability. In other words, the individual who is "ready" CAN do it.
"Willingness" refers to that mindset, established and "in place" that assures with reasonable certainty that when and if it ever becomes necessary to do so, one will unhesitantly use whatever one must in order to neutralize a dangerous attacker. In other words, the individual who is "willing" WILL do it.
Proper training in any form of personal defense, with or without weapons, must address this matter of readiness and willingness, because without it, physical skill can be irrelevant. After all, if you are in possession of a loaded handgun but are not technically able to employ it properly, you lack the readiness to use it. And if you are deficient in the mindset that enables you to shoot someone immediately, when a life-threatening emergency demands that some lethal felon be shot in order to prevent him from murdering either yourself or another innocent person, you lack the willingness to use it. For all practical purposes, were you to be thus deficient, your possessing a loaded firearm would do you little good. Being "armed" in such a case, would mean literally nothing.
Most people who take to the study of self-defense do have some inclination toward becoming genuinely ready and willing to act when and if they must. However, a surprising number who gravitate toward certain martial arts lack even a minimal inclination to that mental and physical state, and they believe — incorrectly — that merely by learning physical movements they will be able to defend themselves. This is not true.
Many who are to a degree "ready and willing" are not SUFFICIENTLY SO. They tend to fudge. Their motives may be honorable (ie they hate violence, they do not want to injure someone, they wish to be "absolutely certain" that causing serious injury to another is totally necessary and justified, etc.) but motives — honorable or not — do not alter FACTS. Thus, when confronted by a dangerous attacker, they HESITATE, and in consequence their skill and mindset, such as they possess either one or both, does them no good.
Here, hopefully, is the wake up call some people need:
WHILE YOU, AS A CIVILIZED AND INNOCENT PERSON BEING VICTIMIZED BY A DANGEROUS CRIMINAL ASSAILANT MIGHT NOT BE PREPARED TO RUTHLESSLY KNOCK OUT, BLIND, MAIM, CRIPPLE, OR KILL HIM (IE THE ASSAILANT) HE MOST CERTAINLY IS QUITE PREPARED TO DO THIS TO YOU! SO, IF YOU NEED TO DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST SUCH A MONSTER, HE WILL HAVE THE UPPER HAND EVERY TIME BY VIRTUE OF HIS POSSESSION OF A MINDSET THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE.
We have no time for or interest in "toughguys". People who enjoy conflict — physical or otherwise — tend often to be at root quite cowardly, and are in any case, by our standards, less than fully human. (We do not refer, when we say this, to legitimate combative sports participants. Judo and karate competitors, kick boxers, wrestlers, and boxers operate in a wholly different venue than our self. We are a combat arts professional and a self-defense teacher. We respect those who train for sport, but that is not what we do, and it is a separate matter). What we wish to emphasize here is the need for anyone who aspires to be able to defend himself to work hard at that mental conditioning that is so necessary for the realization of his goal.
If you are nonviolent and do not wish to hurt others, good for you! But consider that the context of an emergency, when some extralegal swine has decided that he will victimize you regardless of your nonviolent preferences, then it behooves you to transform yourself — to be ABLE to transform yourself — into a vicious, ruthless, unmerciful combatant. If you do not do so, there is virtually no chance that you will be able to handle a serious aggressor. You might be a technically expert practitioner of a legitimate martial art. That's not the point. The techniques might be effective — potentially. But unless you are READY and WILLING to ferociously and relentlessly go into action and take the battle into the enemy's camp (as Fairbairn put it) you are operating, if you "operate" at all, at greatly reduced efficiency.
We realized, back in the 1960's as a student of ju-jutsu and karate, that while these arts were worthy, beautiful, and somewhat applicable to self-defense, the crux of the issue when a real attack comes, is MINDSET; and proper mindset was either not addressed in classical/traditional training at all, or it was addressed in the context of winning matches, which is a kind of mental conditioning quite different from that which is required for winning in combat.
See a violent aggressor as a TARGET, not as a human being. Condition yourself to attack his eyes, his throat, to break his leg, or otherwise seriously maim him the moment you perceive yourself to be in imminent danger of serious injury. Cultivate remorselessness. This should be easy, but isn't for some people. Consider that — a) You did not ask for the situation that now threatens you or yours, and b) There is absolutely no objective reason on earth to care even slightly about the damage that anyone who attacks you ends up suffering. HE STARTED IT. YOUR WELL-BEING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A TROUBLEMAKER'S. TO HELL WITH HIM.
We cannot say if the question is standard any more, but we can say that we knew it to be standard some years ago, when the live interview portion of a prospective police trainee's screening process was given: "HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT USING YOUR SIDEARM AND ACTUALLY SHOOTING SOMEONE, IN THE LINE OF DUTY?" The exact wording varied, of course; but that was essentially the question.
While no police department wants to hire anyone who is inclined to resort to lethal force under less than extreme, emergency conditions, there is no police department anywhere that knowingly hires anyone who feels that he "couldn't" bring himself to shoot someone! Why? Because the truth is that some people need to be shot in order to stop them from doing something horrible. And if and when a law enforcement officer finds himself in a situation where in fact he cannot bring a situation to conclusion either peacefully or with some lesser degree of force, THEN HE MUST BE CAPABLE OF TAKING AN OFFENDER'S LIFE. Period. There's no "nice" way to say it or to do it.
And the exact same thing applies to every student of personal self-defense and close combat. Be like a GOOD police officer: Never use any level of force if peaceful means remain open to you to resolve any situation. Try to use means other than force whenever and for as long as possible. However, when it becomes clear to you that one or more others is unamenable to either settling something peacefully or permitting you to disengage and leave the scene without further discord, HAVE NOT THE SLIGHTEST QUALM ABOUT DOING WHATEVER INJURY MAY BE NECESSARY TO YOUR ATTACKER(S), AND DOING IT IN THE MOST VICIOUS, UNDERHANDED, FEROCIOUSLY MERCILESS MANNER POSSIBLE. ONLY SAVAGES PREFER TO USE VIOLENCE, AND WHEN THEY DO, SUCH SAVAGES DESERVE TO REAP THE FULL CONSEQUENCES OF THAT WHICH THEIR OWN OUTRAGEOUS AND EVIL ACTIONS BRING ABOUT!
When you go to war, you go to WIN. Any way you can or must. The enemy, never forget, intends fully to do whatever he can or must to achieve the violation and destruction of YOU; and that is his intended purpose.
You may not be willing to destroy an attacker. But you can bet your life on this (and many have bet foolishly before you, and have as a result lost their lives by betting wrong!) YOUR ATTACKER IS PERFECTLY WILLING TO DESTROY YOU!
Let the full message sink in.
No comments:
Post a Comment