Tag Archives: Violence

Power, Rights, and Illiberal Freedom

As I’ve noted before, power is the ability to enact one’s will.

Negative freedom is the ability to act according to one’s will without external constraint.

Positive freedom is the ability to act according to one’s will.

A right is a license granted by a higher (not necessarily divine) power to either act according to one’s will or enact ones will within a particular domain.

Notice how similar these definitions are, differing primarily in emphasis.

Freedom is a form of power, and power a form of freedom. Rights are a form of power granted from above.

Any right or freedom is necessarily an exertion of power.

Any right is conditional, and can be taken away by the granter of said right. The assignment of rights is an act of power of the superior upon the inferior.

Granted freedom, whether by court, law, or constitution, is not truly freedom, but a right. It is conditional.

All positive freedoms are necessarily granted, the provision of the ability to act is implied within the definition. Some negative freedoms may be granted, in which case they are not true freedom, merely another right, power bequeathed by the superior. Granted freedoms, freedoms as rights, liberal freedoms, are conditional upon the higher power granting them. They are constrained by that higher power and are therefore not true freedom.

As noted, power comes from, at base, the capacity for violence.

Rights are granted by a higher power with the greater capacity for violence; the superior grants his capacity for violence and his authority to his inferior.

True freedom is a form of power, and, therefore, comes from, at base, a capacity for violence.

True freedom is a reality, not a right.

The reality of whether a person or people has the capacity and will for violence to stay free.

True freedom dies well before any actual impositions on the people. It dies when reality becomes a right, and therefore conditional on a higher power.

Illiberal freedom is the freedom of fact, true freedom.

Gun Deaths

David Auerbacher has a piece where he argues that stats are on the side of freedom haters. He is right if you think having many studies of rigged studies by lying ideologues using false measures and ignoring confounding variables (ie. race) are ‘the stats’. But rather than addressing the usual idiocy that has been addressed to death elsewhere, I would like to comment on one specific phrase used by him and other freedom haters.

“Gun deaths”.

The use of the phrase ‘gun deaths’ is a sure sign that the person making the argument is arguing in bad faith (if not outright lying with statistics) and has absolutely nothing worthwhile to say on the topic of guns and violence.

What this phrase ignores, and what gun control advocates scramble to hide is that guns have substitute goods.

The large majority of gun deaths are suicides, another thing liberals try to hide with the phrase ‘gun deaths’ by trying to lump suicides in with murders and mass shootings. Substitute goods for guns in relation to suicide include: drugs, poison, rope, plastic bags, carbon monoxide, water, electricity, high places, and knives, to name some of the more common suicide goods. Guns have the advantage of being quick, relatively painless, and mostly effective, but the other suicide goods are all adequate substitutes.

Side note: Isn’t it odd that liberals, who support euthanasia and the right-to-die, suddenly hate the right-to-die if it bolsters the emotional case for gun control.

There are also many substitute goods for guns in relation to murder, including: knives, fists, feet, bats, hammers, carbon monoxide, matches, drugs, water, and explosives, to name of the most common.

By only measuring ‘gun deaths’ the deceptive liberal is ignoring that someone without a gun can easily obtain other methods of killing themselves or other people if they should choose. To say gun deaths rise or fall in relation to gun availability or gun control measures is to say nothing of any value at all. If the gun is not available, the gun death will likely become a knife death or an OD or a drowning, etc.

“Nearly 75% of the cases involving firearms are actually gang related.” Does anyone honestly think that gangs will stop murdering each other if law-abiding citizens are restricted from owning firearms? Leaving aside that what makes criminals criminals is that don’t follow laws, such as gun control laws, is there anyone that could possibly believe a gangbanger would say to himself, “I really wanna ice that bitch nigga, but I ain’t got no gat. It therefore behooves me to refrain from committing violence upon his person, however much  distress his continued existence upon this mortal plane causes me.”

No, if a gangbanger wants to ice a bitch nigga, and he ain’t got a gat, he gonna get himself a knife and stab that bitch nigga.

Guns deaths is used specifically to hide the substitution effect for murder (and to conflate murder and suicide) so that deceitful freedom-haters can paint gun freedoms in a negative light.

There is nothing special about a gun death that separates it from a knife death, a hanging, a drowning, or an OD. A person is no less dead if they are killed with a knife than with a gun. There is no reason to make this distinction other than rhetorical or statistical manipulation.

If anybody uses the phrase ‘gun deaths’ you can ignore their arguments because they are, at best, full of shit and not worth listening to.

Preventing the Killing Fields

There was a discussion on Twitter of which I was not a part concerning Anders Breivik. Alice Teller made the following point:

I agree, it is better to lose to chaos than to become chaos ourselves. While killing children under the direct command of God may be acceptable, we do not have and likely will never have that divine command and hoping we can receive it is abhorrent. A divine command that horrific is something that should be feared, not desired.

I bring this up because just last week while reading of Rotherham I wrote a rash Tweet in anger to the effect of: ‘Where is England’s Breivik to cleanse Rotherham? No jury in the world would convict you.’ I deleted it a little while later because while I still support crucifying everybody who was involved with supporting foreigners in sexually enslaving English children, holding up a child murderer as a positive example is simply wrong.

Which brings me to my point: the goal of neoreaction is to prevent Breivik-style mass murders.

Eventually, there will be a reaction against the current order as white men lose their trust in government officials as they watch them support foreigners as they rape their daughters, murder their sons, steal their jobs, destroy their freedoms, and ransack the national treasury. They will feel rage, as it is only natural to feel rage, and they respond to this rage with right-wing folk activism. Breivik was not a madman, he was the first reaction of the powerless white working-class against their masters and their masters’ imported voting-class.

Right now, violence is the only response available to the white working class. If the situation stays as is, eventually the white working class will respond the only way they can. When one’s own are threatened, a violent response is the natural response; it is currently not white men’s response because white men are unnaturally generous and their ethnic identity has been repressed. But this could rapidly change if their good nature is abused.

The goal of the neoreactionary project is to ensure that it never comes to the point where working-class white males need to slaughter imported foreigners en masse to be able to be able to celebrate their own culture and ethnicity and be treated justly in their own lands.

****

Sidenote: When I’ve written on this before, some of whined that I’m making threats. I am not. This is not a threat, this is reality. Most men need a few things to be content: a wife, a family, meaningful work, and a cultural space into which he can fit. The modern progressive order is robbing men of all of this. When the white man realizes he has no place, he will become discontent. Enough discontent among the working-class will lead to violence, it always has and always will.

This is the way it is. It is not a threat, it is simply the way reality works.

Repost: Patriarchy: Restraining Males

In light of the Isla Vista massacre, I bring an old post of mine to your attention:

I came across this today, a discussion about patriarchy by a feminist (named Clarissa). She’s discussing a post from another feminist (named Soraya) at Alternet.

Soraya believes that nasty, old, religious men hate and fear young women for some unspecified reason and instill patriarchy because of this fear.

She’s wrong in that the patriarchy is designed to oppress women; any control occurring over women in patriarchy is only incidental to patriarchy’s primary purpose of controlling men.

Clarissa notes the obvious, that the non-religious and women are just as interested in maintaining  patriarchy as the religious. She notes that the patriarchy “oppresses people who can’t or won’t conform to traditional gender roles.”

She’s more right. In a later post she clarifies what she means by patriarchy.

The patriarchy is a system of social relations where… people accept and enforce strict gender roles in order to perpetuate the system where men castrate themselves emotionally and psychologically in order to be able to purchase women and women castrate themselves sexually and professionally in order to be able to sell themselves.

She believes this to be a bad thing.

She’s right, in that patriarchy is designed to psychologically and emotionally castrate men, she’s wrong in that this is necessarily a bad thing.

****

Let’s start at the beginning.

The male human is the single most ruthless, deadly, and dangerous predator ever brought forth by nature. A single male human is capable of wreaking terrifying damage. A group of male humans can execute almost unfathomable levels of destruction.

In addition to being capable of mass destruction, the male human is naturally inclined towards violence.

The male human is the apex predator.

****

In addition to being a predator, the human male is also a creator, capable of building wonders beyond imagination.

The human male is also capable of extreme laziness and hedonism.

The average male, is  generally neutral in his inclination to his choice between hedonism, destruction, and creation.

Hedonism is easiest and is enjoyable, but scarcity makes it impossible but for those living in abundance and safety. Hedonism also does nothing to benefits society; rather it simply consumes resources.

Creation requires the most effort and is the least enjoyable (at least in the short-term), but it creates value for society and meaning for the male human.

Destruction is enjoyable and is easier than creation, but it does not create value, it either value and/or takes value from someone else.

Society requires males humans to engage in creation to advance, but out of the three creation requires the most effort out of the male and is (often) the least enjoyable.

****

So, how does society encourage a male human to create?

There are really only three ways: force, access to resources, and sex/family.

Force is problematic. It requires other male humans to threaten this, so you have to encourage them to do so (so it doesn’t really solve the problem, only transfers it). It is also only moderately effective: a human male will usually counter with his own force when threatened and will often die before submitting, especially if the male has nothing to lose. Even if force works, an enslaved man will generally only work the bare minimum necessary to keep the threat at bay. The incentive structure for slaves is not set to maximize their creative potential.

Access to resources works, but only to a point and can be unreliable. Human males don’t require much to be happy: food, shelter, some entertainment (ie. destruction), and sex. He will create to get these basics, but attempting to bribe more creation out of him will likely be fruitless, he will often prefer his leisure to more resources. Also, if resources are withheld, he may simply respond with destruction to gain the resources.

The third option is sex/family. A male human will willingly create and undergo hardships he wouldn’t otherwise for the benefit of his mate and his children, and their futures. He will try to create (or destroy) to attain more resources than he would normally need or want simply to give to his family.

The third option is the only stable and reliable option where the majority of males will willingly create rather than engage in leisure or destruction. It is also the only option for society where the male doesn’t have a decent chance of responding with destruction.

****

The problem with the third option is a male human can not know if a child is his or not. The human female knows exactly which children are hers and can invest in them secure in that knowledge, the male does not and can not.

The male will rarely create for the sake of children not his own and will often attempt to destroy those children not his own.

For the male to create, he needs reassurance that his children are his own.

Also, if sex is freely available to a male, there is no need for him to create to access sex.

****

Hence, patriarchy.

Under patriarchy sexual access is highly controlled by social mores and/or force.

Because sex occurs only in marriage, the married male human knows that the children of his wife are his and his alone. He will then be induced to create as much as he can to provide for them and ensure their future.

Because sex is restricted solely to marriage, the male can not go outside marriage for sexual access, so he needs to create to win and provide for a wife.

These restrictions on males force the male into creation to gain sexual access.

The patriarchy castrates his destructive impulses. His desire to rape, his desire to murder, his desire to burn, his desire to loot, his desire to laze about in leisure, they are all controlled, because if the male engages in this behaviour he loses his ability to engage in sex and reproduce. He loses his future.

Monogamous patriarchy goes further: by restricting sexual access for each male to a single female and ensuring that all but the greatest losers have sexual access, it decreases the likelihood of violent competition for sexual access by lowering the stakes and ensures that each male will have a family and children, ensuring he is invested in the future.

The patriarchy is essential to controlling male humans’ destructive impulses.

****

Isn’t castrating a male’s natural impulses under patriarchy wrong?

No, it is a necessary element of civilization. Marriage is the basis of civilization.

Civilization can not come into being without it.

Without this castration, society will either be chaos (as male humans fight for sexual access) or very primitive (think lost tribe in the jungle).

Everybody suffers.

****

Any controlling of female humans in a patriarchal society is incidental. The controlling of women’s sexuality, by having social mores limiting her from having sex outside marriage, is a necessity for controlling males, but it is not the purpose of patriarchy. It is a by-product of controlling the males.

People who condemn the patriarchy are missing the bigger picture.

They live in a culture where the patriarchal castration of humans males is the norm and has been for millenia. They do not think outside it, so they see only the bad (the control) not the good.

They see only the castrated males, those males who have been inculcated for generations to create, not to destroy.

They assume all males are naturally like this. They do not realize that the mass castration of males through patriarchal mores has throughout history been what has suppressed their natural predatory instincts.

They react in horror when males engage in the violence that is natural to them. They seem to believe that this is somehow abnormal.

They do not realize that rape, murder, burning, looting, war, and violence are the norm.

****

The breakdown of the patriarchy can have will lead the male to either hedonism or destruction:

1) Male disengagement: As males’ desire for sex can be accessed outside of patriarchal marriage, they will contribute less to society. They will let laziness take over.

As our current patriarchy is breaking down, we can see this occurring in our society in two inter-related movements: the child-man and MGTOW. The child-man and MGTOW realizes that sex can be gotten outside the patriarchy (or forgoes sex altogether) and has no family to create for, so he creates only enough to sustain himself. He no longer creates what society needs to advance. If these movements become big enough, they could significantly impact the society’s production and continued health.

2) Violence: As males’ become less engaged they may engage in violence either in rage, to obtain resources, or for entertainment.

This is unlikely to occur on mass scale anytime soon, although it might. The destruction of the patriarchy in the black community has resulted in high criminal rates. The rest of society could follow.

The prevalence of porn and video games will leave most males too sated in relation to both sex and destruction, for a number of males to have enough inclination to engage in socially and legally proscribed violence, which should prevent a mass movement towards male violence.

Incidences of violence from individual males can be expected. Notice how among the examples of violence I posted, the perpetrators were single. Anytime you see a mass murder, a terrorist act, etc., check the relationship status of the male perpetrator; he will almost always be single. Patriarchal marriage reduces a male’s inclinations to violence.

****

Neither outcome is good for females.

Male disengagement means less resources for women, less resources for their children, less resources and progress for society as a whole, and a lack of fatherly involvement in their children with the attendant social problems.

Being less inclined to violence and less physically capable women are at the mercy of males should males decide to engage in violence.

****

The patriarchy exists to control males; control of females is incidental.

The patriarchy is good for both females and males and for society as a whole.

Omega’s Guide – Martial Arts

You have now joined Toastmasters and bought How to Win Friends and Influence People. You  have started to practice what you have read in the latter and are on your way to learning basic social interaction skills.

Now it is time to gain confidence. You will gain confidence in your social skills as you practice, but to really gain confidence you have to have something to be confident about. So this week’s task will be to start training in a martial art.

Why should you train? A few reasons:

  1. Nothing gives you confidence like training in martial arts. Throughout my 13 years of public schooling, I was by far the most confident during the half year I was in Taekwondo.  The accomplishment of attaining a real skill, the manly vigor from hard work and training, the adrenaline of violence, and the knowledge of being able to fend for yourself should violent interaction occur combine to give you confidence like nothing else can possibly match (other than maybe enlisting). A few months of training and you will feel more confident throughout the rest of your life.
  2. You’ll meet people with a similar hobby. Those social skills you’re learning won’t mean anything if you’re not meeting people.
  3. You’re attaining a practical skill that will make you a better person. Martial arts requires and trains you in strength, discipline, and perserverance.
  4. You’ll get in shape. A martial art will require physical activity and will provide a base level of physical fitness.
  5. It will also make you more attractive to the opposite sex. Nothing attracts the femmes quite like being able to display physical dominance through an implied ability to wreak physical violence.

Those together should be more than enough of a reason to join.

****

Before I go any further, I should say I am  not an expert. I have practiced a martial art for about 3-4 years and done some reading on the issue. What I am writing here is mostly my own opinion and knowledge; people with more experience and knowledge than me may disagree with some of what is written. A lot of the advice concerning martial arts, particularly when it comes to choosing a school/style, can be very controversial. My advice is meant to help guide you at the beginning, but it is not the be all and end all. Use your own common sense.

****

Purpose

First, you need to know what your purpose for training is. The type of school and instruction you choose should be determined by what you want to get out of it.

If you simply want a place to get a manly workout, grow some discipline, and hang out with other people interested in the same, most martial arts will do.

But if you have a specific purpose or goal, you will have to choose the right art to accomplish your goal. If you want to sport fight, you will need to choose certain arts that focus on this aspect, such as judo. If you want to try MMA sport-fighting others will be necessary, such as MMA and Brazilian jiu-jitsu. If you want to kick ass “in the streets” (this should always be said with sarcasm/irony) you will need others, such as krav maga. If you want to learn weapons, bujinkan, fencing, or kendo will be the way to go. If you want to steep yourself in long-held martial tradition and culture, most oriental arts will be good. If you want to learn throws you’ll need a different art than if you prefer striking and you’ll need another if you wish to focus on ground-combat.

Each art has a different focus and a different style and will suit different purposes, you should choose an art that is focused on what you want. Also, choose an instructor in that art that will provide the kind of instruction you want.

If an art does not meet your purpose, choose a new one. (This is not a license to jump from art to art or instructor to instructor for no reason. If you’ve tried 3 or 4 instuctors/arts and none are “right”, you should seriously consider whether the problem might be you).

One particular aspect to remember is its effect on your life. An art that focuses on hard training, heavy competition, or full contact can lead to faster, more efficient learning and can be fun, but it can also lead to long-term injury or strain that can have negative impacts on the rest of your life. On the other hand, a holistic art can lead to positive improvements to other aspects of your life. It’s up to you and your preference what you choose, but be make sure to take this into account.

I’ll do a rundown of some of the major arts you might be interested in at the end of this post.

****

Your Attitude

Before you begin, adjust your attitude. It is the single most important thing on whether you get anything from your training. Training is a commitment, you will only get from it what you give.

  • Are you prepared to attend regularly? If you are not willing/able to attend at least once a week you should just skip it.
  • Be prepared for the long haul. Learning an art takes years of difficult practice. Make sure you are committed. It will often be frustrating and you will often be tempted quit and give up. Don’t.
  • Be prepared to learn. This is simple enough, be open to instruction and have an open mind. You are there to learn, do so.
  • Check your ego at the door. Any good instructor will be correcting you; any good student you work with will offer tips for improvement. When they do, be gracious and improve. Don’t get defensive. Don’t make excuses. Don’t be offended or angry. Nod and accept instruction with gracioussness.
  • Don’t be an ass. The other students are there to learn as well. Treat them with respect; don’t pound on the new guy or act like you’re better than the guy who’s been training for a decade. Help facilitate the other students in learning.
  • Embrace the pain. Instruction will hurt. You’ll be thrown, you’ll be hit, you’ll be tired, you’ll be sore, and your joints will be bent in all kind of uncomfortable positions. Expect the pain, accept the pain, embrace the pain.
  • Relax and enjoy. Don’t be afraid, don’t be tense, don’t be mordbidly serious. This should be fun. Enjoy yourself, enjoy the company of others, and enjoy your training. Don’t go too far with this. Take your training seriously, don’t be an irritating jokester who ruins the training. Fit in with the mood of the dojo; if the dojo’s mood is either too serious or not serious enough for you to train, find one that fits better.

****

Research

Before anything else, go online and find out what kind of martial art instruction is available in your proximity. Knowing you want to learn Jeet Kune Do won’t do you a lick of good if there’s nobody within 500 miles to teach you.

Choose which ones sound interesting then research. Rea search the art being taught itself, the dojo, the instructor,etc. Find out as much as you can about the ones that interest you. Joining an art can be a large investment of time, money, and effort, so know a bit before your begin.

Here’s some things to look out for in your initial research and first visit.

  • Does the instructor/dojo/art have a lot of negative reviews on the internet? There will always be detractors and cranks, but use your sense, are the criticisms valid? If they are valid are the aspects being criticized acceptable to you?
  • Is the dojo/instructor licensed? Some of the more established martial arts, such as Taekwondo, will have central governing bodies. If a dojo is not a member of its central body, there’s probably a reason; be wary. Membership implies a certain basic standard for instruction, but it alone is not a guarantee of quality. Note, many arts do not have a licensing body, so don’t worry about it if there isn’t one, but this also means that there is no guarantee of a base standard of training.
  • Check out the instructor’s credentials. Is he an advanced black-belt in his system (or a few systems) or if in a non-belt system, has he been training for a while with quality instructors? Does he claim an absurdly high amount of credentials? (A 30-year-old claiming to be a black-belt in 12 arts is probably not reliable).
  • Does the dojo/instructor bash other arts? A lot of people get involved in stupid dick-measuring contest over whose art or school is better. If the dojo’s site has a lot of this, it’s probably not worth the time.
  • Is the art the new invention of the instructor who mixed the best of everything? It’s probably a scam. In most cases you want to go with an art that is established.
  • Does the instructor/dojo claim secret, arcane knowledge or super techniques? Most good martial art techniques are fairly simple, mechanically speaking (simple does not mean easy). If the site goes on about their secret techniques or arcane knowledge, it’s likely BS. No, there is no such thing as an unblockable, invincible move. Every technique has a counter and every technique has a weakness.
  • Does the dojo promote a holistic approach to training? Training can encompass more than just learning how to hit somebody. Often it can also focus on other things such as proper diet, proper exercise, balance in life, proper breathing and relaxation techniques, overall body control and usage, etc. Whether you prefer simply learning to just beat people’s faces in or a more holistic approach, see if the dojo support your preference.
  • Related to this is technique versus principles. All arts and instructors will teach both techniques and principles, but on a sliding scale some arts/instructors will focus more on training techniques in response to specific situations while others will focus more on on the use of your body and the training principles behind the techniques. Leaning towards the former will help with learning self-defence faster, but the latter will help with learning it moer thoroughly. The latter is also more prone to abuse, as the results are less immediately tangible. Neither is necessarily better, but you should wathc for this to meet whatever your goals may be.
  • Be careful of dojos that seem to hooked on “cool” things such as ninjutsu, samurai, ancient warriors, special forces, etc., as often poor instructors will try to make up for it with flash. Some arts, such as bujinkan, do have a heritage of ninjutsu or samurai and some, such as krav maga, have a history of military training, so this is not absolute. Also, a little bit of advertising flair is okay. But if the primary focus of the dojo’s site is on “be a ninja in two years”, or “train like the SEALs do”, or something else “cool” like that, be wary.
  • Does the site focus on the training or the belt? The belt is a sign of the training; it is not overly important. If the instructor’s site guarantees you a black belt in two years, or focuses too much on the attainment of the belt rather than the training itself, then he has the wrong attitude. If the belt is that important to you, buy one of Ebay for a couple bucks.
  • Does the site make unrealistic guarantees? If you’re guaranteed to be a black-belt master in a year, skip it. Everybody learns at a different pace, someone guaranteeing something by a certain time period is likely just pushing you through a belt mill.
  • Does the site/instructor make unrealistic claims? No martial art will make you invincible. No art will train you how to “beat” an opponent a foot taller and 100lbs heavier in a fight. No martial art will teach you to beat a gun-wielding maniac while unarmed. There is no such thing as an unbeatable technique.
  • Contracts and introductory classes. A decent dojo will usually give you the option of watching a couple classes before joining. A good dojo will usually have an introductory deal of a few classes or a month of classes for newbies. A dojo requiring an expensive, long-term contract before letting you try or watch a few classes first is likely not a dojo you want to be a part.

If your research leads you to think the dojo might be an acceptable place to learn, move on to arranging a visit.

****

Your First (Few) Visit(s)

Once you’ve decided on a dojo you want to try, set up an appointment to attend and begin your introductory classes. While there here’s a few things to watch for:

  • The instructor is by far the most important external aspect of any martial arts training. Finding a quality instructor is far more important than which art you will choose; any art will be useful if taught well, and any art will be worthless is taught poorly. Make sure you get a good instructor. Ensure he’s competent, honest, disciplined, knowledgeable about his art, and all-around a fundamentally good guy. If he strikes you as dishonest or sleazy, don’t return. If he slags on other schools a lot, don’t return. If he doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing, don’t return. If nothing else, make sure you have a good instructor, that will make up for almost any other faults, while a bad instructor will ruin any other good aspects of the training. An instructor that’s an ex-cop, ex-prison guard, or ex-army, etc. will likely have been in situations of real violence and will likely be a better teacher than someone who has not seen real violence.
  • Is the instructor respectful of his students? A good instructor will correct his students, sometimes harshly, but he will also be respectful when doing so. An instructor who disrespects or bullies his students is not one you want to follow. (Remember above, correction, even harsh, violent, and painful correction, is not bullying or disrespect).
  • Is the class carried out in safe manner? Bruises, welts, and a certain level of pain are a necessary part of training and accidents causing major damage will inevitably happen, but recklessness is not something you should tolerate. If the instructor engages in or allows reckless or dangerous actions leave and do not come back. Of particular note is the dojo’s methods of joint manipulation; holds, bars, and joint manipulations should be done and should hurt but should always be controlled. If viciously reefing on people’s joints is accepted in the dojo, you are going to seriously suffer for it in the long run.
  • Is the training lawful? This is simple, the instructor should not be teaching you to violate the law; if he is, leave. A good instructor will point out the legal implications of the actions he is teaching. He will teach you about the proper use of force. An instructor who doesn’t is not one you should be learning under. ex. If the instructor encourages you to stomp on the face of a downed opponent without mentioning the legal consequences of such an action in real life, you probably don’t want him teaching you. If an instructor encourages picking fights, don’t train with him.
  • Consider class sizes and personal time. Is the class a good size? Optimally it will be about a dozen or less; a larger class is not necessarily a deal breaker, but only if ran well. Did the instructor, or at the least one of the instructor’s high-ranked students give you some personal instruction? Don’t demand or expect the instructor to focus only on you, but he (or in a larger class, one of his subordinates) should occasionally give you some personal feedback.
  • Are the students respectful of each other? A good instructor will maintain discipline and a proper attitude among his students. If his students, especially the more advanced ones, are bullying or disrespectful the instructor and dojo are probably not worth your time.
  • Observe the high ranked students closely. These are the kind of people the instructor and his training will turn you into. Are they skilled? Are they competent? Are they in shape and disciplined? Are they respectful? If the advanced students do not display the qualities you want to eventually display as a martial artist, the dojo is probably not for you.
  • Observe the demographics of the students. The bulk of the general students (assuming you aren’t attending family classes, a ‘new students only’ class, or other demographically specialized classes) should be relatively fit men in their 20-40s. If the students, especially the more advanced ones, are mostly out-of-shape, the dojo has low standards (if some of the white belts/newbies are out of shape, that’s not that big a deal). If there are a lot of children under 16 with black belts, be wary, the training might not have particularly high standards. If there are a lot of middle-aged women, the training likely has low standards. To simplify, if the type of people in the classes loko like the type of peopel who wouldn’t hold up under solid training, you are not going to get solid training.
  • Did you enjoy it? Training is tough and often painful, but you should get some level of enjoyment/satisfaction out of it.
  • Is the training realistic? If you are training for self-defence the training should be realistic. A practical martial art should focus on disarmament, de-escalation, and withdrawal.
  • Is there contact? Any good martial arts training designed for fighting will include solid contact.  Many dojos/arts will train at half-speed for learning purposes, that’s fine, as long as the contact is still solid. Solid does not necessarily mean hard though. It’s rather difficult to explain, it’s more something you experience. but I’ll attempt. Think of it like throwing an object. If you underhand a hacky sack at someone, they’ll feel nothing, that’s soft and not solid. If you whip the hacky-sack at someone it will sting, but it won’t not them back or disrupt them; that’s hard but not solid. If you whip a fist-sized rock at someone, you’ll break their rib and knock them to the ground unconscious, that’s both hard and solid. If you lob the same rock at them underhanded, you’ll knock them back and they’ll know they’ve been hit, but without serious harm; that is solid, but not hard. The best training is the lobbed rock; when you’re hit and hitting you want the contact to be felt, to rock you back, to seriously disrupt you, but you don’t want it to be get to the point of serious injury.
  • Does the instructor teach aliveness? To teach basic techniques, the compliance of your training partner is a necessity. No technique is “unstoppable”, in fact most are, mechanically speaking, rather simple to counter if expected. In any training of basic techniques your partner is allowing you to practice on him and vice versa. For example, simply going rigid can stop many a joint lock (short of simply blowing through a joint), but will leave you open to a strike, but because you are practicing a joint lock, your partner probably won’t strike you, so your vulnerability won’t be readily apparent, but your “successful” counter will be. A good teacher should be teaching you how to actively comply with your partner so you both can learn. On the other hand, he should not be teaching you to simply go limp or to fall over for your partner; he should not encourage your to fall when your opponent taps you or to give the lock when your opponent screws it up. Aliveness is allowing your partner to use you, but still providing a level of resistance suitable to his training level/needs. A good instructor should be training his students to actively comply and actively resist.
  • Is there sparring? Any good martial arts training designed will include sparring at some point. Some will arts/dojos will reserve sparring for more advanced students because the system/instructor believes those students without the requisite training will not learn from sparring, while others will through you in right away; either way is fine, but if no one, not even the high-level students, ever spars, the training is unlikely to provide you with any useful fighting skills. Also, sparring should include solid contact. If simple touch is enough to point in sparring, the training will not be teaching you much self-defence-wise.
  • Are you sore/tired? Good training should be work and it should hurt. Not every class will focus on intense, physically tiring activity, some will focus on more technical aspects that don’t require as much physical effort, but if you’ve been going for a month and have never broken a sweat or received a bruise, the training is probably not worthwhile. Again, if you aren’t being hit hard enough to bruise at least occasionally, you are probably not receiving good training.
  • Does the dojo overuse patterns? Patterns, repetition, drills, kata, and or whatever you wish to call it will be involved in any training as you everybody needs to drill the basics, but if everybody spends the entire class running patterns against an imaginary sparring partner the training is going to be of limited use for fighting.
  • Is there a lot of spiritual mumbo-jumbo? A certain amount of talk on qi does not necessarily invalidate the usefulness of a traditional art, but if the art relies on focusing your qi to do techniques over distances or over-emphasizes qi, it might be quackery.
  • Cross-training. MMA has highlighted the problems with focusing solely on striking or, to a lesser extent, grappling. A good school for self-defence may focus on one or the other, but it should cross-train both. If the dojo you attend focuses only on striking, you may want to either reconsider the school or plan to attend a school focusing on the grappling after a few years.
  • Are the facilities maintained? A certain level of messiness is fine, some dojos train outside, and many dojos can’t afford fancy facilities but if the facilities are dangerously run down be wary.
  • Be wary of board-breaking. If any emphasis is put on learning board-breaking, you probably don’t want to return. Board-breaking is a relatively simple skill to learn that has no real benefit beyond looking cool. It’s mostly a waste of time.
  • Everything I said about belts, contracts, secret knowledge, etc. also applies to your introductory visits.

A lot of this is vague and subjective, none of it is hard and fast, so use your common sense and make sure your chosen place to train fits your goals. When choosing your art/dojo you may have to make some compromises based on the availability in your area, that’s fine, nothing is perfect, but never compromise on safety, the quality of the instructor, or the lawfulness of your art.

****

The Style Wars and Real Fighting

Before I do, I should note a major controversy between traditional and MMA-influenced styles. When the UFC tournaments first started, most of the traditional striking-based schools got blown out of the water in the competition, sometimes embarrassingly so, while Royce Gracie dominated with Brazilian jui-jitsu. Since then, a vocal faction of the MMA-oriented schools have derided the traditional schools as useless (Bullshido is a favoured portmanteau). They will strongly attack the traditional arts and advise against them; they will also demand that any art must show it’s potential “in the ring” before it has any validity.

While there is a lot of BS found in many of the traditional schools and in McDojos, most traditional arts have adapted to the changes by adding grappling curriculum to rid themselves of the deficiencies highlighted by the MMA tournaments (and many of the grappling arts adopted some striking techniques). You can get good training in the traditional arts, whatever some of the style-wars extremists may argue, you just have to be careful for the things I mentioned above so you don’t end up in a scam.

Some of the traditional arts will exclude competition because their training regularly includes dangerous or unsporting techniques (eye gouges, groin attacks, etc.). That’s not a problem, insofar as the art is teaching proper technique properly. Being able to win at sport-fighting in a controlled environment is not the be-all-end-all of martial arts, it’s biggest problem being its heavy focus on ground-based grappling, something you never want to engage in in the real world, but if you never spar or train in active resistance you won’t learn anything of use in a “real” situation.

In terms of “real” fighting most martial arts will give you a leg up on untrained and inexperienced opponents of similar size and weight. No art will allow you to simply make up a huge size difference (there’s a reason MMA has different weight categories) and anybody that claims otherwise is likely untrustworthy. As well, the kinds of people who fight and brawl a lot in real life, generally labelled violent felons, will likely have more “real” experience than anybody in any kind of fighting art. No art will prepare you to “win” against these kinds of fighters.

The major hurdle in a real fight is psychological. A real fight is fast and often unexpected; its not like in the movies, or even the MMA, where people kick and punch each other over many long minutes. Fights usually start and end fairly rapidly because the aggressor wants to seriously hurt the other person and will either succeed shortly or be stopped rapidly. On that point, sheer naked aggression can often overcome any amount of training; the will and desire to inflict damage on another by itself is often usually enough to “win” a fight. Most people are unaccustomed to desiring to seriously hurt people; in any martial arts training, even the most heavy contact MMA, people are generally restraining themselves and trying not to hurt the other. Adrenaline (and drugs) can let the body withstand an amazing amount of punishment; it’s unlikely you will be able to take down someone hopped up on rage or PCP, no matter you training. The combination of surprise, fear, and aggression of a real fight will usually make most of your actual techniques and training. The biggest advantage of training should be simply learning to stay calm instead of panicking in the face of aggression.

In terms of real life fighting, your training will provide you with a leg up, that is all. It is not a guarantee of being able to win or even hold your own. Any art worth taking that is designed towards self-defence should be training you to not panic, to disrupt your opponent (preferably using trained muscle memory), then remove yourself, rather than trying to “win”. You are simply not going to be able to reliably “defeat” much larger opponents, adrenaline-fueled aggressors, or experienced, violent criminals, not to mention the potential legal ramifications of “beating” someone in real life.

****

The Arts

Here’s a small summary of a number of the more popular/more talked about arts. I’ve tried to be neutral regarding the style wars and have tried to give each each art a fair shake in both its strengths and weaknesses. Partisans of a particular art can feel free to flame me in the comments.

MMA – If you want to do MMA fighting, a specialty MMA dojo/gym is probably the best way to go. MMA places will focus mainly on sport and will often be some combination of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, kick-boxing, judo, Muay Thai, and wrestling. You will learn both striking and grappling. MMA sport-fighting will apply to real fighting quite well. You may end up concentrating a lot of effort on less “practical” ground-work (you never want to on the ground for extended periods in a “real” fight) and you will likely be trained out of certain unsporting techniques, such as attacks on the groin and eyes.

Brazilian Jui-Jitsu – This is primarily a grappling art focused on grappling your opponent to the ground to go for submission. It became very popular following its success in the MMA and is a staple of MMA fighting. A must if you plan on doing MMA-style sport-fighting. For practical self-defence, you should do some cross-training if you take this, as you do not want to be going to the ground in public for extended periods of time.

Boxing/Kick-boxing – The classic American martial sport. If you want to get into boxing sport-fighting, this is obviously a must. It’s primarily used for sport and is striking based, so cross-training into grappling is a must if you want to transfer to MMA or for self-defence purposes. Also, be careful about using this for self-defence, as there are major differences between fighting with and without gloves and boxing itself is heavy on rules.

Greco-Roman Wrestling – Another sport-fighting art which is focused mainly on bringing your opponent to the ground, it is essential for that sport. It can also, with cross-training, be a good base for MMA. The rules of wrestling are fairly strict, so it’s probably not the best for strictly self-defence purposes.

Muay Thai – A traditional Thai system focusing on striking with particular emphasis on the use of knees and elbows. It’s a full-contact art with a large emphasis on conditioning. The violence and hard training of it can lead to it being a problematic art to keep up in the long-term. It is a base of a lot of MMA striking techniques and it has its own competition system.

Krav Maga – A stripped down martial art developed for and used by the Israeli Defence Force. It completely removes any holistic aspects and is concerned with teaching someone as efficiently and rapidly as possible to enact violence for survival. It can be thought of as the assembly line martial art for those wanting to learn self-defence as quickly as possible. There is a fair amount of quackery and glorified exercise instructors teaching this art, but if you can find a good instructor it can be good for self-defence.

Karate/Taekwondo – The two big ones of the traditional striking arts; karate tends to focus more on punching, while Teakwondo focuses more on kicking. Both gained strong popularity a few decades ago, but suffered a loss of prestige in the martial arts world following the introduction of the UFC. Due to their popularity, the arts are rife with McDojos and frauds. You can get good training if you get the right instructor and in some areas these may be the only arts available, but be careful. Neither are heavily used in the MMA, but both have their own competition systems. Kyokushin Karate is a form of karate based around heavy contact and would be a solid art for self-defence purposes.

Jujutsu – A traditional Japanese art focused on grappling that has numerous schools and has morphed many times. There is are so many forms of it and it forms the base of so many other schools that I could not give an adequate summary of it. It can mean almost anything.

Judo – A traditional art derived from jujistu that is based primarily around grapples and throws. It is often used as a base art in MMA and it also has its own sporting system. It’s an excellent art to learn.

Sambo – A form of judo mixed with traditional Russian wrestling styles. It has its own sporting structure. While the sport has not had that large an impact on MMA, combat sambo is very much similar to the MMA.

Aikido – A traditional Japanese art focused on using an opponents force against them and on facing multiple attackers. It’s advantages are that it doesn’t require much strength as it is more about redirecting your opponent’s strength and its one of the few arts that concentrates on multiple opponents. It’s often criticized for its unrealistic training and it can have some heavy spiritual aspects to it that some people find off-putting. Shodokan Aikido adds a more competitive and realistic element to the art. It also has a weapons component to it that may be of interest to some.

Kung Fu – Kung Fu refers to a wide variety of Chinese martial arts with a wide variety of emphases and styles; far too many to summarize here. There is a lot of impractical showiness throughout many forms of Kung Fu, so if you are looking for fighting practicality be wary. Wuushu, in particular, is known for it’s showy performance aspects. Wing Chun is one of the most popular forms in the west and is more oriented towards real world fighting; it focuses primarily on close range striking and grappling. Kung Fu often often offers training in traditional weapons and some styles have their own sttructures of competition.

Bujinkan – A Japanese art made of a number of different traditional samurai and ninja schools. It has a very broad focus, familiarizing students a wide range. It also places a relatively strong emphasis on training with traditional weapons; if learning traditional weaponry is your goal this is the art to try.  It’s connection to ninjutsu combined with its lack of official guidelines leads to a high proportion of frauds and craziness. If you can find a good instructor, its broad focus and emphasis on disabling attackers can make it effective for self-defence.

Systema – A Russian martial art with some links to Russian special forces that focuses on body management and movement while eschewing techniques. It can refer to a few different strains of Russian martial arts and sometimes is also used to refer to combat sambo. It has a broad focus and a holistic approach grounded in the Orthodox faith. It’s special forces links and the holistic aspect of it can lead to a fair amount of fraud and quackery. You may be able to find a good teacher, but be careful. It’s history may interest Slavs and the Orthodox.

Fencing/Kendo – These are sword-fighting arts. You won’t get any self-defence value out of them, but if sword-fighting appeals to you, it can be a good way to instill some martial values and discipline and socialize with other people.

****

Your Goal:

This week your goal is to find a martial art you that interests you, contact the instructor, and join the arts introductory classes.

The White Conservative Male

I recently watched Django Unchained, a movie I thoroughly enjoyed. At one point, slave-owning Leonardo asks concerning the blacks, “why don’t they just rise up?” The Last Psychiatrist already addressed this better than I could:

Anyway, perfectly ordinary slaveowner DiCaprio asks a rhetorical question, a fundamental question, that has occurred to every 7th grade white boy and about 10% of 7th grade white girls, and the profound question he asked was: “Why don’t they just rise up?”

Kneel down, Quentin Tarantino is a genius.  That question should properly come from the mouth of the German dentist: this isn’t his country, he doesn’t really have an instinctive feel for the system, so it’s completely legitimate for a guy who doesn’t know the score to ask this question, which is why 7th grade boys ask it; they themselves haven’t yet felt the crushing weight of the system, so immediately you should ask, how early have girls been crushed that they don’t think to ask this?   But Tarantino puts this question in the mouth of the power, it is spoken by the very lips of that system; because of course the reason they don’t rise up is that he– that system– taught them not to.  When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.

If “the system tells you what to do” doesn’t seem very compelling, remember that the movie you are watching is Django UNCHAINED.   Why did Django rise up?  He went from whipped slave to stylish gunman in 15 minutes.  How come Django was so quickly freed not just from physical slavery, but from the 40 years of repeated psychological oppression that still keeps every other slave in self-check?  Did he swallow the Red Pill? How did he suddenly acquire the emotional courage to kill white people?

“The dentist freed him.”  So?  Lots of free blacks in the South, no uprisings.  “He’s ‘one in ten thousand’?”  Everybody is 1 in 10000, check a chart.  “He got a gun?”  Doesn’t help, even today there are gun owners all over America who feel that they aren’t free.  No.  You should read this next sentence, get yourself a drink, and consider your own slavery: the system told Django that he was allowed to.   He was given a document that said he was a bounty hunter, and as an agent of the system, he was allowed to kill white people.  That his new job happened to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident, the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life.  His powers were on loan, he wasn’t even a vassal, he was a tool.

This is not to minimize the individual accomplishment of a Django becoming a free man.  But for the other slaves, what is the significance?

Of course Tarantino knew that the evil slaveowner’s question has a hidden, repressed dark side:  DiCaprio is a third generation slave owner, he doesn’t own slaves because he hates blacks, he owns them because that’s the system; so powerful is that system that he spends his free time not on coke or hookers but on researching scientific justifications for the slavery– trying to rationalize what he is doing.   That is not the behavior of a man at peace with himself, regardless of how much he thinks he likes white cake, it is the behavior of a man in conflict, who suspects he is not free; who realizes, somehow, that the fact that his job happens to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident… do you see?   “Why don’t they just rise up?” is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: “why do the whites own slaves?  Why don’t they just… stop?”  And it never occurs to 7th graders to ask this question because they are too young, yet every adult thinks if he lived back then, he would have been the exception.  1 in 10000, I guess.  And here we see how repression always leaves behind a signal of what’s been repressed– how else do you explain the modern need to add the qualifier “evil” to “slaveowner” if not for the deeply buried suspicion that, in fact, you would have been a slaveowner back then?  “But at least I wouldn’t be evil.”  Keep telling yourself that.  And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what’s up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot?  You’d say what everybody says, “look wildman, don’t ask me, that’s just the system.  Can’t change it.  Want to rape a black chick?”

Then I read this. According to the statistics given about one in four women suffers violence/rape at the hands of men, although, I have read elsewhere that this number is exaggerated and one in eight would be more accurate. But either way, tThe original giver of these numbers seems shocked that these numbers are so high.

I think the better question is why are these numbers so low?

When men are dominant over women in absolutely every area of power: physical strength, political strength, economic strength, capacity for violence, etc., and these same women hold control over the one base desire to rule them all, why isn’t there more use of force by men to take what they desire?

Women have what men desire and there is little they can do to stop men from taking it. Yet, only a small minority do.

Why isn’t there more violence and rape?

Then I read this: white men are scary. The title says it all. Down in the comments Vanessa stated this:

White men gained power, not because of violence, but because of innovative technology and organization

That’s precisely what makes them scary. They’re not just violent, but clinically focused and horrendously efficient.

I’m German, you know. People think German men are cowards, but they’re not. They’re just very slow to anger, and thank God for that. It is as if the white men of the world have been asleep, and they’re starting to wake up. It’s going to get very scary very fast.

I’ve written about this before. The human male is the apex predator; the single greatest biological killing machine God and/or evolution ever brought forth. White men have brought this violence to levels of horrificness and efficiency previously unknown (except possibly Ghengis Khan).

And yet the question remains, as Vanessa points out:

I think the idea of “white male privilege” is the ultimate Frechheit. It’s not that white males privilege themselves, you ingrates, it’s that they privilege everybody else. They go out of their way to give help everyone else to the same standard of living that they have.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

I don’t know if this is ignorance, or their hate talking, but it makes them sound like clueless idiots.

I’ve written about this before as well. The white man created the greatest civilization in the history of the world and he has the unrivaled power to dominate any who oppose him and take anything he desires. Yet, instead of using this power for absolute domination and enslaving those who aren’t the white man, he allows others to become a part of his civilization.

Why is this? With this unrivaled power, Why does the white man not take more than a few nebulous “privileges”?

Then, we come to another roadblock: even among white men, there is a power differential, an ideological one.

Simply put, almost the entire capacity for violence among the white man rests in one ideological tribe, which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll label conservatives. The military is conservative, the police are conservative, gun owners are primarily conservative, white males. This ideological tribe controls every level of violence in society.

Yet, in white society, these conservatives are the outer party. Almost the entirety of the government, the media, the education system, etc. rests in the hands of the conservatives’ rival tribe, which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll call liberals.

This seems odd. The white, conservative male controls the hard power of society by a large amount, but invites others to share in his civilizational inheritance and allows the other white tribe to control the soft power.

Why doesn’t the white male, armed and capable of violence, take control of institutional soft power from the type of people who believe a moral lecture is “hardball”?

What is it about the white, conservative male that causes him to not use the power he has to dominate others?

Why doesn’t he rise up?

Following that: what happens if the white, conservative male sees he controls hard power and has the capabilities to completely dominate others? What happens if he decides to use it?

What happens when the white, conservative male realizes how the system is set up, and decides fuck this?

The system may seem invincible now, but as Vanessa said:

I think you are underestimating how angry young white men are and how little some of them have left to lose. They used to feel like they were the good guys, and they wanted to protect their reputation, but now they know everybody hates them.

Lightning Round – 2012/10/17

Read this post. Ian knocks it out of the park on Happily Ever After.
Related: The boomers destroyed traditional society, now, they reap the consequences.
Related: Childless women are miserably happy.
Related: Twu Wuv and game.

Feminist realizes traditional courtship is pretty good.
Related: 5 dates; what a lucky guy.
(Dude, if you somehow come across this: RUN NOW).
Related: Said feminist was a fraud.
Related: Feminist sex is a fraud.

Manosphere news: In Mala Fide has returned as an archive. It starts well.
More News: Congrats to the Captain.

When civil society dies, people will vote for their own self-interest.

Men are trained to be more afraid of fighting than of being hurt.

Violence is ok if it’s anti-ideological. Only sick people have ideology.

“One wonders if there’s a high correlation between “Angry Radical Leftists” and “Folks Who Don’t Get Math” ?”

Educated women’s contempt for men.
Related: Another article on snark; humour for the mentally enfeebled (when used in excess).
Related: A women mistakes feminist snark for humour.

Florida gets itself race-based academic goals.
GL Piggy comments.
Elusive Wapiti comments.
Related: I agree with France on the no homework thing, but their reason is idiotic.
Related: Education is not scalable.

Men struggle in marriage; the MSM is almost catching on.
Even the NYT notices it (in Italy).

How the destruction of marriage effects the welfare state.
Related: Bread and circuses.
Related: Is it really a win if the other team forfeits?

40% of every small business dollar goes to regulations.
Related: Thank you ADA.
Related: This guy is a total bastard.

“Nagging begot the Nanny State on Steroids.”

Women spend more on health care. Am I ever surprised.

The moral case for capitalism.
Related: An economics experiment.

Oh California…

The MSM, only a few months behind the Captain. Some day they’ll catch up.

Society is of women, civilization is of men.
Related: Cliques are for high school girls, not men.

The manosphere loves women by saving them from themselves.

SMP is harsh for both men and women. You can’t always get what you want.
As this guy exemplifies.
So does this women.

A man’s virginity is worth 1/100th of a woman’s. Colour me surprised.

Confidence in self-destructive choices.

What she doesn’t see, is that women enjoying womanly things is anti-feminist.

Amanda Todd was the result of a sick society. No legislation or anti-bullying will rectify this.
Related: How our schools train narcissists.

Why some parents hate parenting.

The purpose of psychiatric medication? No riots in DC.

What happens when you screw over a generation.

Science: This is kinda cool. Wonder what Koanic would say about the Denisovans?

Slowly, but surely, the MSM is coming to accept the science.

Fat is not only unhealthy, it will lower your testosterone.

The drug war explained in a single chart.

Only an over-educated, intelligent idiot could possibly believe the deficit is too small.
Only a liberal could believe we have too little debt.
Related: Krugman is a dishonest liberal shill, just like most “Keynesians”.
Related: Keynesianism just means spending.

Some thoughts from Nassim Taleb, an intellectual I actually respect.

Thomas Sowell, another intellectual I respect, shreds Obama.

That is hilarious. How do some people function in society?

Remember, Southerners, Republicans, and conservatives are racist.

4% of Americans get a “free” cell phone from the government.

Oh, for when Britain was free. How far she has fallen.

There has been no warming since 1997.

The UN needs to go.

Walmart gets into banking. Could be a game-changer.

How libertarians and alt-righters feel about the election:

(H/T: Maggie’s Farm, Instapundit, SDA, the Captain, Save Capitalism, Mojo, Patriactionary, Dalrock, the Hunt, GLP)