On The Right to Self-Protection Blog
Think – Because Survival Isn't a Sport

Jul
15

 When asked what I do, I face almost constantly the quizzical look, trying to decipher what I meant by “teaching combatives”.  Then comes the inevitable clarifier, “oh, you teach martial arts?”  Well no.  Not even close.  At least not in the way that the VAST majority of people teach martial arts today, and what martial arts have become.  You see they have become a sport.  You can compete in today’s martial arts, and that is not what a “martial” art was about at all when it first evolved. 

When martial arts were first formed they were to train people to kill the opponent.  The structure of a sporting martial arts base came when most sides trained in similar arts and so competitions could be held because there are always counters to predictable sets.  This evolved from when Traditional Military Spartan Pankration, by many accounts the genesis of modern eastern arts, held competitions where status was conferred based on who died first.  Gradually we have seen the necessity of combat be restricted to military groups and the citizenry gradually declines to dependency on others to protect them be it feudal Japan or Europe or modern day reliance on 911.

The martial arts of today proclaim things like using the aggressor’s energy against him or develop self-defense that, according to a martial artist in an interview in the North Country Pennysaver, does not injure and other person – not even your attacker.  This is the kind of statement that makes me cringe and fills me with contempt for people who seek to teach people to defend themselves with material that can’t work because the intent isn’t there.  I do not know if this man has any field ventures other than his extensive teaching career, but as both an educator and someone with many years of experience in asocial environments, I would ask him to think back to any real life-and-death experiences he has had, consider them and ask how they ended.  Search your conscience as well because telling people they can stop criminal attack without hurting someone is, in my humble opinion, tantamount to setting them up for being murdered or beaten.

If you do not intend to hurt the person who is intent on hurting you, which by the way is the defining feature of an asocial attack, then you will be the victim.  You do not have to hate the person or even judge them as persons, but you do have to recognize the intent and respond in kind.  The only weapon that an assailant carries that is dangerous is their mind.  Only their mind can formulate intent and then cause the body to take action to make it happen.  Guns, knives and such are only effective as force amplifiers if the mind is in control of the body.

Watching the videos on the site of the instructor and his partner is to witness a non-fiction translation of Jim Carrey’s famous knife defense class on IN LIVING COLOR.  Predetermined responses to predetermined attacks that follow the rule of “you do this and I will do this and then….”  The reality is that virtually all martial arts train unrealistically for real life situations.  On the street you do not have the ability to ask your opponent to attack in the particular way which your best defense is suited to repel. 

The part that really scares me is people will believe this guy.  They will throw away time money and develop false ideas about what asocial violence and real trauma are about and then…then they will get hurt.  Or killed.  Or raped, abducted, car jacked, etc. 

The false sense of safety instilled by people who may have good intent in their teaching serves only to create victims because they are operating under false pretense.  It also makes their students tend towards lax situational awareness and instills in them a confidence to perhaps venture where they shouldn’t because they overestimate their skill level.  When an instructor gives out false or sport-based methodology to fight asocially violent attacks, that they might as well take their clients to a crack house, put a hundred in cash in their pocket, announce the fact to everyone there and shove them out the car while calling 911 to pick up the remains.  Misleading and misrepresenting what it takes to survive in a truly asocial event is reckless endangerment and perhaps more akin to manslaughter or second degree murder. 

This kind of teaching, to defend (reactive) rather than protect (proactive) guts the essence of what martial arts was intended to be and is in direct opposition to those people who teach real combatives.  If only criminals can inflict trauma then only criminals can survive an asocial encounter.  Teach the horrible reality of what asocial violence is so your clients never want to posture, or needlessly challenge another, or fight out of ego.  On the flip side they will not have to fear criminals, because they know what is required to survive.  Putting trauma with the intent to harm the person attacking is simple, direct and devastating but the mindset to choose to do that needs the truth of the issue to present itself so the decision becomes firmly rooted and instinctively accepted.

Jul
01

Since Adam and Eve stepped out of the Garden, the world has known death and disease, war and pestilence.  The shortages of food and fuel are chief reasons for us to war among nations and often among individuals in survival or disaster settings.  The sad fact of the matter is that all the platitudes we use to talk about peace and the pursuit of peace fall to recognize what history would seemingly prove to be the essential nature of man in his fallen state in this world of finite resources – we either fight for what we need as aggressor or as defender and the only ones who do not fight as those resigned to being either slaves or victims.

The corollary personal micros to the world macros is that as resources grow scarce in the areas in which we live, those with the ability to successfully take or successfully defend will be the ones who survive.  Viewed from another lens, this is exactly the nature of criminal asocial violence.  The criminals who are successful prey on those unwilling or unable to defend themselves or those they love.

I discuss this with many people and while many agree, many more think I am somewhat Boorish in my interpretation and obviously an uneducated lout.  When I am asked why I feel that defending oneself against violence must involve the use of violence, I point out the functional nature of asocial violence and the fact that discourse and acquiescence only embolden those who would prey upon you.  When we get to the point of training involving eye gouging, biting, and breaking the joints and structure of the body they are usually horrified and often take a while to get passed the mental blocks they have grown up being programmed with from a societal view point.  They often pshaw me and throw up the old Gandhi quote, “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”  I smile and say that is a very hope-filled state for us to aspire to and then point out in all the years of working in seedy places and environments where people were trying to do bad things to me I had never been randomly attacked or specifically targeted by a blind man.

This usually confirms me as Neanderthal to them or it awakens a horrible truth that polite society does tend to get round to – to stop violence directed at you, you need to shut off the source of that violence.  The gun or knife or club the person wields is not the source of the violence.  The source of the violence in asocial moments is that thing that forms, enervates and then translates the intent to do harm onto another into the action of doing harm onto another.  The instigator of all this?  The conscious brain and its’ ability to control the body’s action.  Without the brain’s ability to control and direct the actions of our would be attacker there would be no attack.  So the question is how do we shut it off.

The answer is simple; we shut the brain off or make the body act of its own volition outside conscious control – like putting it into reflex and breaking the pieces of the body it wants to move.  How do we do this?  First, we ACT.  More specifically, we act with enough force to cause trauma severe enough to trigger their body’s instinctive reflexes.  We have to act upon the assailant without reservation and without moral judgment.  Morals are the foundation of our civilization and the very last thing we need to consider in the event we are defending against an asocial attack.

Asocial attack means that the terms of the engagement are outside the social ties that bind us to our respective civilizations and therefore if we respond in an attempt to survive an asocial attack we will necessarily be responding outside the parameters of social mores.  This means that the moral judgment that we pronounce on behaviors not within socially acceptable limits are not applicable, they are ultra vires, and cannot be morally applied to the person responding to the force in the same manner as they are applied in the aftermath to the person who initiated the force.

This is a major stumbling block for those trying to develop the mindset to survive asocial violence.  They mistakenly assume the mantle of guilt that is societally demanded of them for acting in an asocial manner.  This occurs even though they acted that way out of necessity since any other course of action may have resulted in their death or serious injury since the clear goal of those using asocial violence as a tool to gain illicitly what is not theirs by right.

To add to the dilemma that most have when confronted with a survival setting, they are terribly prepared mentally to be able to switch gears into an asocial posture to protect themselves, let alone protect others.  This occurs primarily because they have not developed any practiced form of situational awareness.  They have no understanding of walking around in Cooper’s White or how to orient if they have observed anything, let alone how to decide on it and act.  Additionally, they fail to understand how their brain will function in the high-stress environment and what they must do to better their chances of survival.

Most people are unaware of the OODA loop, Cooper’s Color Codes or the role of the amygdale in stimulating the mid-brain response and how that affects cognitive processing during high-stress situations.  Until they posses at least a basic understanding of how they think under stress and how to give their brain both the input it needs prior to a high-stress event and the physical stress management tools that are required during an event to manage the incoming data flow and requirements for action immediately, they will always be in the reactive mode rather than the proactive mode.  This means that they are on the negative side of action beats reaction.

Cognitive understanding of your situation, or situational awareness, demands an alteration in how we think and see the world.  By planning for the worst we can often avoid it by recognizing the lay of the land and steering ourselves around potential threats.  As the Latin adage “si vi pacem, para bellum” attests, “if you want peace, prepare for war”.  By constantly red teaming ourselves and our environment we are able to see threats before they become imminent and we allow ourselves to plan and understand what we have to do to mitigate or proactively interfere with those who would act upon us.

Even if it nothing more than a quick visualization of “what if/then what” for each person we come across, we are building the files our brain needs to access once it hits high-stress function.  In this state it cannot process new information and relies on past experiences, be they real or simply mental rehearsal, to select patterns of response from.  The mind cannot tell the difference between mental rehearsal and actual experience; nor can it process new information and explore it cognitively during a high stress event when the mid-brain is controlling the survival thinking and forcing you to your training loop.  And so every time you run a situational awareness drill, you fill the filing cabinet that the mid-brain can access and giving it options to access quickly that can provide instruction on which actions to take rather than freezing into an empty training loop where it has no relevant action pattern.

Once people can start to program their minds to allow them to exercise their brains in this manner, it becomes an easy habit to facilitate and the skillsets required to program action become understood as simple tools that can provide the person with the knowledge to survive in mid-brain environments, rather than standing there agog because they have no frame of reference in which to operate.  Training people to survive is no more difficult than giving them a basic understanding of the truth of asocial violence, the physical and mental processes they will undergo if faced with it and the rehearsal, both mental and physical, that they need to survive it.  Like any parent who has faced the raising of children as a disciplinarian knows, people who seek to learn to defend themselves don’t need you to be their friend; they need you to tell them the truth be it good, bad or ugly.

Jan
11

The very first thing to know regarding the participation in an asocially violent encounter is that the amount of training that you do is of absolutely no concern IF you are not training asocially. This means that all the MMA/Reality-Based/Martial Arts training that you do has no impact on the outcome of a truly asocial event except insomuch as that training has brushed against the principles of combatives. Now, before everyone from the martial arts community gets their dander up, lets examine exactly what I mean by this.

The tools used in social and asocial violence are the same. Yes, practicing the use of those tools makes you better with them. At this time the two sides are striding along together but this is where it gets out of sync. While the sports paradigm of martial arts competes with the opponent it uses rules to provide safety and is not designed to inflict what I call “medical trauma” on another. “Medical trauma” is defined by the need of medical attention to repair or mitigate the injury. In fact the sports paradigm ends at a point that we would consider the beginning. If a UFC fighter got kicked in his testicles hard enough to rupture the testicular structure or rip off the scrotum, or if he had his eye gouged out and the Optic Nerve torn from the eyeball, the fight would be over instantly and medical personnel would swarm the cage. On the street, that is our starting point to the process of making our assailant a structurally non-viable threat.

So how do we get there? How do we become capable of doing that efficiently to another human being? How do we compensate for size, strength and training level disparities? What about guns, knives and other tools used in asocial attacks? All of these questions are solved in exactly the same manner; you eliminate ability. We are not talking about innate ability or skill, or physical prowess or anything else, simply eliminate the only ability that makes that individual a capable predator; you eliminate the ability to convert intent into action. You use reflex; specifically you use his reflex.

You eliminate his conscious control over his body by using the neural reflexes that God designed our bodies with to avoid suffering trauma to our physical structure. This is NOT pain compliance or pressure point compliance.

The body has five mechanically reflexive mechanisms and one spatial orientation reflex that have the ability to initiate an override on the conscious control of your body. Think hand onto stove top or sand in the eye. The reflex that occurs is not conscious and it is not pain driven. It is an overarching neural net that can detect trauma on the structure of the body and initiate a withdrawal of the body away from the trauma before sending the pain message on to your brain for further action. It moves you away from the burning surface of the stove, snapping your hand back and pivoting away to protect from further trauma before any pain stimulus is received by the brain. It is the sudden stretching of tendon and sinew that causes spontaneous withdrawal of the limb or shift of the structure in a direction that prevents further damage to that site. And it is physiologically hardwired into every human body.
If we put someone into this reflexive state by causing sufficient trauma, we start an interesting cycle of events that makes our goal of self-protection easier. Since each reflex has specific triggers and is physiologically oriented to protect the trauma site, we can predict the path of movement of the body by understanding body reaction (BR) plus the effect of the force vector (FV) we apply in initiating the trauma. So BR+FV= body placement.

The resulting body placement gives us a new sight picture to acquire the next place to initiate trauma into the person in order to maintain the reflexive state he is in. As long as we strike while he is in reflex, we never lose control over the scenario and we dictate the terms of the engagement deciding how much trauma we need to inflict to ensure our safety and his inability to engage.

Regardless of size, once the trauma threshold is broached, the reflexive mechanism engages and the size, strength, training advantages and intent of the individual you are engaging become moot. While “body conditioning” may allow a shortening of the reflexive override response, the response will still occur and your window to drive the pace and agenda of the conflict remain for as long as you continue to induce reflex-stimulating trauma. If you continue to break pieces of the individual it will eventually lead to the degradation of their structural capacity to function in a manner that allows them to translate intent into action and at that point the reflexive response is no longer necessary – they are effectively precluded from any offensive action by the compilation of injuries to the specific attack vectors you have employed in the proactive defense of self.

The reality is that training the physical aspects of combative engagement also have to recognize the mindset to develop a proactive outlook and modify the OODA process that Boyd’s cycle systematized into an ongoing mental rehearsal. That mental part of the package will be extended on in part 3.

Sep
18

The very essence of self-protection is the understanding of the parameters under which is to be implemented.  When most people think of violence they think most often of:

1.      ego-based bar fights where two or more people puff out their chests and try to defend against a perceived wrong or offence,

2.      someone trying to out-testosterone a competitor to be viewed favorably by a female they are looking to be with

3.      competitors in a boxing or MMA match or such trying to compete for bragging rights or

4.      persons who are looking to vent and make someone else feel less-then so they can feel better about themselves.

All of these have one thing in common; they are a type of violence that is socially-based and constrained, at some level, by social rules of interaction.  At some point in each of these events, there is a socially acceptable way of preventing violence from occurring.  Deferring to another to let him seem dominant, apologizing and leaving the scene when you are the source of a perceived wrong, finding another person of interest to focus attention on.  Each allows us to make a choice to engage in an act of violence or not.

And because we are social animals, we understand and accept the societal connotations of behavioral codes of conduct, believing that we are relatively safe as long as we follow the social constraints of the game.  Once we choose violence in a social setting it is conducted outside of the “proper” rules of social conduct and we venture in anti-social behavior.  This means that while we are going to engage in violence, that violence is more competitive in its nature, trying to ascertain the proper social status to be assigned to each participant as determined by the outcome of the contest.

But this is still in the realm of social violence.  Anti-social simply means the behavior is not preferred as a way of settling disputes but it is understood and assigned value by the members of the society who witness it.  The winner of the fight is assigned higher prestige and status than the guy who skulks off or is bested.

Now the nature of criminal asocial violence is that is cannot be understood in terms of social dynamics in the manner of establishing status.  It is not intended to do so.  Asocial criminal violence functions completely without regard for societal rules of any sort.  It uses these rules to hamstring the intended victim, making it easier to initiate force against them and succeed because most people want to talk or plead or avoid violence, and that is the edge the criminal or terrorist counts on.  While we are busy trying to go through the list of socially acceptable supplication rituals to avoid violence we are premium targets, getting beaten, stabbed, shot, raped, robbed or suffering whatever other fate the perpetrator intends to deliver unto us.

Violence for the asocial predator  is a tool used to gain a particular goal by the person employing it and it is not about competing with someone.  It is about inflicting enough damage to the person that has been targeted to render them incapable of resisting compliance with the demands of the perpetrator.  This is not about tapping out or making someone comply, it is about brutalizing them into abject submission.

There is no choice in the matter as to whether you will be part of an asocially violent event once you have been targeted – you will be.  The entirety of the nature of that event is that you will assume one of two roles – the person who did violence unto another and physically disabled them or you will be the person disabled by the violence.  You will be the victim or the perpetrator of violence.

The problem with the social programming is that because we understand criminal violence in terms of an anti-social behavior rather than an asocial event.  As I said before, while we are busy trying to go through the list of socially acceptable supplication rituals to avoid violence we being the perfect victims, receiving 100% of the physical damage during the event and being broken so we cannot resist or defend ourselves or our loved ones.  Our reaction to employ brutal, unyielding force on another human being carries a social stigma that many cannot overcome.  Most people look differently at someone they know has used true violence on another human being with the clear intent to cause debilitating harm, even if they used it in self-defense.  You should have called 911.  They wouldn’t hurt you if…, and the list goes on.  I have even seen a police officer chastise one of my former students for her attack on a man as he knocked her to the ground and tried to rape her.  She broke his ankle, ruptured his testicle which had to be surgically removed and broke his clavicles and jaw.  The officer was debating having her charged for excessive force because he felt she should have gotten to the emergency phone near her to call 911 rather than be a “vigilante”.  I am not kidding on this, you couldn’t make this kind of social idiocy up.  Needless to say the pending charge was over-ruled and the officer sent to another area by a senior officer on scene who saw the discussion unfold.

There are arguments about not sinking to the level of the criminal and other attempts by members of the social order to re-institute the supremacy of the social dictates on proper behavior and they are rooted, not in the welfare of the person who might have to or did survive an asocially violent event, but rather in making the other members of that social enclave feel better about avoiding the thought it could have been them.

Once we recognize that criminal asocial violence has a particular nature and that its nature places outside the constraints of societal functioning, we can begin to address how to protect ourselves.  The answer to that is so simple, once the social stigmas and doctrines are removed that it is amazing we can’t see it with crystalline clarity from the very outset – we must respond with asocial violence.

To respond to asocial events asocially is to choose to protect not defend.  Self-protection means to have fear of imminent threat upon your person and act proactively in asserting your right to not be a victim.  It means to decide to make the criminal a victim and not stop until you believe that you can leave that scene safely.  It means to be the giver of violence – 100% of the violence being inflicted is being done by you.  To defend means to try and stop the violence being delivered unto you – an untenable position if survival is your goal.  Eventually, if you are defensive, your capacity to defend will be eroded as your body absorbs punishment until you are no longer defensible.  And then it is simply you absorbing as much damage as he chooses to inflict upon you – up to and including the possibility of him killing you.

This is where the study of combatives comes in and the study of boxing, kickboxing, martial arts and mixed martial arts goes out.  Combatives is about delivering 100% of the damage to the target you have to engage – just as the criminal would do to you.  It is about inflicting serious damage not to compete with an assailant to see who is best but rather to structurally incapacitate that assailant so they can no longer function to present a viable threat.

IT IS NOT TO: “teach him a lesson” or “use his energy against him” or “submit him with pain compliance”.

IT IS TO: break joints, rupture organs, testicles and tear the scrotum off, to blind him, to cause structural damage that stops him from being able to move, and if necessary to crush the pericardial sac or windpipes, sever cervical ganglion and brainstem, or stomp on the skull until you rupture the skull’s protective framework and crush the brain.

We can ramp down as soon as the person cannot pose a threat to us again, but the reality is that in asocial violence if you aim to compete you are preparing for a role as victim.  Since there are only two roles, victim and victor, you must choose to make him a victim first.  It is ugly, and it is unpleasant.  You will hear noises and pleadings that are guttural and would break your heart in a social setting.  And if you are in an asocially violent encounter it is it the only way you can even the playing field and hope to survive.

Understand that if the event is asocial you have no choice.  If the event is asocial there is no guilt that can be assigned to you that is morally viable if society is cogent of the rights of an individual not to be victimized.  The twisted logic of those who would defend criminals is exactly that, twisted.  It is neither functional nor proper and the ethos of those who espouse it is to destroy individual rights and individual responsibility and replace it with social dependence, allowing individuals to be sacrificed to the asocial criminal elements so long as it structures society to keep them empowered through dependence on law devoid of justice.

The act of individual self-protection was a fundamental lynch-pin in the constructs of this nation.  We have convoluted the conditions under which we may claim the right to action in our own defense or in the defense of those we love so badly that we are at risk of losing it altogether if we do not assert it decisively and force the court and law enforcement systems to once again embrace it as a central tenet of our social structure.

Never feel guilty for defending yourself when you are given no other option than to become the victim.

Jul
28

One of the things I have noticed in the many years I worked personal protection and taught self-protection was the unflagging conviction that the vast majority of people had about criminal attacks and how it would affect them.  Almost without fail they believe that they travelled in circles that would not experience real criminal violence because they went to “good” parts of town, or the lived in “good” neighborhoods, or the shopped in “upscale” places that didn’t let “those kinds” of people in. 

 Now this isn’t surprising in and of itself, we see people hiding from reality in order to make themselves feel better all the time.  What is surprising is the fact that many of these people are intelligent, driven people willing to put themselves and their families at risk by denying the evidence which tells them they are in denial.  They do so primarily for one of two reasons; they do not recognize the daily news articles pointing out the increasing violence and the ease with which it can be inflicted upon someone, and secondly, the random nature of criminal attacks.  I guess there is a third probable option that we should also admit; they recognize these things and it simply scares them to name and recognize them openly because it makes it concrete for them. 

 When fear puts us at risk, it does so for a logical reason; we have forgotten how to rely on ourselves.  Thus any thought of having to physically protect of ourselves causes us to freeze in fear of failure or fear of stepping up and taking personal responsibility.  I suspect the latter is more often the root cause.  It takes its status as most likely culprit because it is the socially dominant message we receive when being taught how to deal with any kind of asocial attack, be it terrorist or criminal in nature.  We are always taught to call someone else, to phone the police or flee the scene, or surrender our premises to the invader.  This is how we are brought up.  It is the sum product of “civilizing” our social interaction without recognizing the need to inculcate self-protection into the creed by which we live.  Thus as we become more civilized we push people into becoming prey for those who live among us as predators.

 Lt. Col. Dave Grossman wrote a book classifying people into three categories; sheep, wolves and sheepdogs.  He astutely points out that given social programming of the kind we are actively promoting, we have created a society where most people are sheep; casually going through life while actively ignoring the dangers building around them until the wolves attack.  Then the sheep do what sheep have been programmed to do, they call for help and those caught by the wolves are ravaged and fed upon.  The sheepdog are those who protect us, circling around us, not trusted by the sheep because the nature of the sheepdog is to use the same violence as the wolves and the moral programming of the sheepdog is the only thing stopping them from turning on the sheep.  And so the sheep fear the sheepdog but they do not hesitate to expect protection from them when the attack occurs.

Usually the sheepdogs can drive off the wolves with a minimal loss of sheep.  Thus the sacrifice of one or a few allows many to continue on in blissful denial.  Just like the sheep who several months ago sat on a bus to Edmonton, Alberta.  These sheep, living in the land of non-violent Canadians (who have managed to deny that any real violence ever happens there with a skill at self-denial that borders on the insane) that watched a wolf among them cut the head of one of their flock without doing anything except escaping to another pasture.

 Again the question arises; what happens if the wolves attack the flock and find instead that they are all sheepdogs.  Well there would be a very bloody and mangled pile of wolves and the flock would be safer from future attacks because the law of predation says to pick the easiest victim and so the wolves left would seek another meal ticket.  They would be reminded, if each sheep chose to be sheepdog, of the old adage TANSTAAFL.  There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

 I don’t know if we will ever get rid of the anti-human agenda set up by those who wish to “civilize” us by destroying the individual and creating a “sheep” society.  The use of fear for our safety through the appointing of judges who allow violent felons free and laws that are pro-criminal keep the wolves among us.  That heightened sense of fear drives us into ever-greater divesting of individual reliance in favor of government providing policing, thus reducing our ability to defend society as a whole.  We need to adopt the Israeli model of citizenry.  Proactive response to criminals among us will cull these animals from among us.  When we see a criminal preparing to drive into a crowd, we shoot him.  Did anyone notice the effectiveness of this action in Jerusalem or the West Bank areas when terrorists (criminals) attacked?  Often no civilian casualties, just dead wolves.  What would happen if outlaws were treated as they chose to live, gang members who live outside the law have no rights because those rights are within the framework of society’s laws, and they expressly refuse to be part of those laws.  Okay by me, you’re a gang member, we shoot on sight.  Put them up on pike’s as a warning.  How many young kids would sit in front of MTV thinking “boy that gangsta rotting on that pole sure looks cool”.  I am guessing that youth gangs and adult ones would be far less attractive.

 I do know that if we continue to play by the rules, we hold law-abiding members of our society in a position akin to being staked as bait when criminal attack looms.  If we do this, we will surely continue to sacrifice our good members of society to those who are choosing to live among us but not with us.  If we do not recognize that asocial means outside of social order and people who choose to initiate asocial force should be dealt with in a manner logically consistent with their actions, then we protect those who would destroy and feed upon our goodness.  I will just keep hoping that the bleating of the sheep to be saved will be replaced with a rallying cry; that the sheep will find their moral compass and fortitude and help the sheepdogs kill the wolves.

Jul
05

As I celebrate the Fourth of July, 2010, I am given pause to wonder what kind of path we will walk and the kind of nation we will become for my children to inherit.  With the fear of those who consider themselves individualists/constitutionalists rising as the current administration, its appointees, and czars push a radical statist agenda that ignore the Constitution like Biden ignores grammar, it is becoming alarmingly evident that an even more damning agenda is being furthered and it is aimed at our children.  It threatens the entire citizenry of the United States, and it does so by targeting the largest and easiest demographic to be segmented and poisoned – those children being educated in the public school domain. 

 The agenda is not new; it has been played time and again through history, always with catastrophic results from the perspective of individual freedom and the concepts of civil liberty and freedom.  We have seen in fairly recent history during Stalinist Russia and the subsequent years of Eastern Bloc Communism, under the Hitler’s Socialist Party in Germany during the 1930’s and 1940’s, in China since the 1949 Communist Revolution and in all other countries like Cuba, Venezuela, et al., where thugs and elitists believe themselves better able to choose the thoughts a population should properly think.  The mantra is the disarming of their minds and programming them to think and act like victims and dependents.

 With rhetoric from people like Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton, Reid, Franks, and their ilk, we see an agenda that is eerily reminiscent of 1934 Germany and others who follow this thinking pattern.  This should not be surprising since most if not all of the political left tend to be mindless byproducts of an Alinsky-poisoned educational system.  When the central tenet of one’s epistemology is the communist vision of thuggery and gang organizing laid out by Marx in his pseudo-comedy manifesto, the results Alinsky, and those who followed him, should not surprise us and the stances and goals of those who wish to subvert our Constitution and co-opt the capitalism our founding fathers envisioned in order to re-establish a mercantile system of benefit to the elitists and those who control the Tammany Hall goons of the labor movement should be expected.  Community organizing was the ingenious term Alinsky used to describe his goon squad recruitment and indoctrinal processing.  The potential disarming and control over the economy that is being sought is staggering and it is aligned with what was established 75 years ago in Europe.  There are two very dangerous elements here.

 The first is the disarming of the citizenry.  An armed citizenry is essential to perform the actions we first see mentioned in our Declaration of Independence.  It reads that

“when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,  it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

 The surest way to enable a civilian capability to follow the guidance of our forefathers in this most sacred of duties is to have it remain armed, and this is also the best form of defense against any foreign threat to our nation.  In fact I would assert that a trained rifleman is the essence of each American’s duty to this nation and the very first requirement to assure its inherent sovereignty that should fall upon those who would come here to call this their home.  I pray that the current administration will be able to remember those words and govern in a way where we never have to contemplate the words of our forefathers as a call to arms.  I am not convinced at this point that the current group of self-appointed demagogues in Washington have even considered the will of the people to date in their push to destroy the current form of government and replace it with one that is more controllable and subjugated so they may rule rather than govern.

 We have seen a Global Poverty Tax contemplated, the socialization of a medical system despite the fact that all others who have tried this have been abject failures, of pro-union laws that denigrate individuals and subject them to economic slavery and the whims of the union goons, and a plundering of the country’s present and future income to benefit friends of the Obama realm including the borrowing of billions to give to other countries with whom his court jesters have economic interests.  This clearly illustrates his disregard for one of the primary abuses cited in The Declaration.  The King back at the crossroads of the issuance of the Declaration, was purported to have “…combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution” and make no mistake, the Obama proposed bill does exactly that, giving away a portion of our taxation directed to the unending waste of U.N. corrupt leadership and greedy leeches is a jurisdiction ENTIRELY foreign to our constitution. 

 All of this sets the stage for a socio-political situation that is terrifying and the immediate point of this article and our right to self-protection.  While we are being disarmed and made reliant upon government employment and handouts, the indoctrination of our youth continues in the heavily socialist halls of public education.  Here students are encouraged to see the “vision” of a leader who has not been vetted in any legitimate manner by a media that used to be an effective watchdog but has lost all integrity and intellectual legitimacy, while being taught to memorize rather than think independently and avoiding logical discussion that questions the hierarchy in any manner.  During the 2008 elections I was told by many students that they are called racist for thinking independently (i.e. not agreeing with the mainstream media and the majority of their teachers) and threatened in the hallways or embarrassed in the classroom. 

 This treatment of our children with systemic bullying and as unthinking automatons, creates illogical situations that allow our schools to be prime targets for those enemies who would attack us and the criminal bullies who feed on our youth without care.  It is the tolling bell of our doom as a society if we purport to want a society that indeed embraces the tradition of the American Revolutionary leaders.  The fact that our teachers push this agenda having children chant and praise the leader is eerily reminiscent of the Hitler youth training programs that neatly organized the next generation of soldiers and believers for Hitler.

 I have talked before about the use of Emergency 911 and teaching students to accept being bullied and hit rather than to stand up to bullies and fight back if required to defend themselves.  The trend is accelerating in schools as the “no-tolerance” positions have hardened into “no thought” positions.  If a kid is being bullied and we say to that child “do not fight back on pain of suspension” we are in fact saying “let the goons do what they want to you and be a good little victim.”  This is absurd.  This is programming our children to mindlessly accept any state authority as legitimate.  It is obscene and the greatest dereliction of responsibility we as parents, teachers and a society at large could commit.

 Much like those who wish to do away with gun ownership, it punishes only the law abiding.  It criminalizes those who would stand up and defend the values this country was founded on and rewards the bully, criminal, terrorist and sycophant.  Bullies and their ilk get what they want, a victim they can prey upon without fear of reprisal.  Schools are rarely going to call the authorities and have charges pressed if they can bury it themselves by suspending both kids so the bully gets a free victim, and time off from the place he hates to be and the good kid gets to have a beating and then get thrown out of school and have a mark on his academic record that might hurt his college application.  Oh yeah, and the tax payer gets to spend money sending a tutor home to the suspended kids, so they get a free round of victimization.  Wow, sounds swell, sign me up.

 If we teach our kids to continue to be victims, they will become like that later on.  They will pick up the phone and call 911 and wait for the rescue as people attack them.  Or if they grow into teachers they will know no better than to hide in a room and let themselves and their students become victims if the gunman enters the room, never even thinking about fighting back, just accepting their fate as a sheep being led to the slaughter.  Remember the long lines of those who waited for trains and betrayed neighbors and friends demonized by the state?  Sound like Germany in the 1930’s?  It should.  Mind your business and we will take care of everything.  Orwell was prophetic; he just missed the date in his title.

 By extension this should scare people because if we are a school of lemmings and manufactured victims who surrender at each turn, we have much to fear from either the government that would strip us into economic and social slavery and servitude or a terrorist who would enslave or convert us to their religious viewpoint.  Either way learned victimhood has only one logical outcome – servility or dhimmitude.  Slavery or servility whether it be to the re-establishment of either the structures of feudal serfdom of early Europe, the re-institution of the oppression of censored life under socialist/communist rule, or the theocratic intolerance of the Caliphates of Islam.

 And the criminals will be those who hold office and those complicit who stood by and watched or encouraged the sacrificing of the essence of the greatest country on earth as it is destroyed on their watch to the social parasites who would feed upon the able and just.

May
28

The repeated defiance of the world’s leadership to recognize and name the current fight against totalitarian theocracy is endangering people in every nation that has any place for freedom in its belief structures.  Training individuals, specialists and groups in hand to hand combat survival is my forte and passion.  It requires me to recognize all aspects of the situational arena in which one lives to instruct effectively.  The mindset and ethos required to defend against asocial violence must possess an understanding of the philosophical principles that form the social context people try to maintain to prevent the chaos of an amoral society.  The reason for this need to understand the functioning reasons behind social constraints is to recognize when the contract is being breeched and thus the constraints to asocial response removed.

The very first principle to be successful in defending oneself in any kind of asocial attack is to recognize that there is an attack underway.  This is the quintessential act which precedes all others.  If you don’t know you are being attacked you are going to be the unwitting victim.  In many instances, this would be like the barrister in England who refused to recognize the asocial nature of the attack when, giving the two criminals his watch, wallet and everything else of value was repeatedly stabbed and died asking why they were doing this since he had complied with their demands.  He did not recognize the attack as something to ACT against, rather he still thought of the exchange as a social event to be dealt with on a social level, through discourse.  As Ayn Rand would advise, recognize that A is A.  You cannot change fact or truth by wishing or rhetorical device.

The second is to realize that it was a course chosen actively by the person who is acting, with complete disregard for the value structure, moral and ethical code you have chosen to live your life by.  They seek only to impose their will by use of force without moral consideration.  Criminals, terrorists, theocrats, union goons, politicians who see bureaucracy as a self-fulfilling and self-vindicating institution which may use overt force to compel their citizenry; all are examples of groups who chose at some level to function amorally.  And because they have chosen to step outside the bounds of the social doctrine and use violence to inflict trauma and their will upon others, they have given up the right to insist on being treated with the rights and privileges of citizenry and can be acted upon by their intended victim without that victim having to worry about guilt or social condemnation for their actions.  Only active, intent response can counter an intent initiative of action.  A is A.

This is the crux of self-defense on a personal level.

I submit that it is no different on a national level or cultural level.  We are in a conflict of cultures that has been actively pursued for roughly 1400 years.  Many of our ancestors faced this very threat and have twice repelled the massive military onslaughts against the religious and social constructs of any nation who did not submit to their demands.  The reason for their success was simple, they recognized the attacks as attacks and responded in order to defeat them using all such measures as was necessary in a force on force setting.  They did not talk nor concern themselves with anything other than the reality of the moment; this culture seeks to kill us, our culture must kill them.  Just like street violence, one wins and asserts their will, one loses and submits to the trauma, either dying or surviving in dhimmitude.

We are not fighting a branch of Islam, we are fighting the cultural reality of what Islam and its jurisprudence are; a system of world government that compels through force the compliance of its membership, the systemic destruction of any other competing social hierarchy and killing of all who would actively oppose it through whatever means necessary.  It consists of the theocratic guidance of the Qu’ran, the social interaction dictates of the Shari’ah, and the indoctrinal expectations of the Hadiths. 

Islam is not a religion in the sense that the western hemisphere recognizes a religion.  There can be no separation of church and state under Islam, to do so would directly counter the jurisprudence of the Islamic tenets and understanding of what Islam is.  The state is for all intents and purposes Allah and his expression on earth of Islam is compliance to and of the state to the principles laid out by the warlord Mohammed when he began constructing his doctrinal writings after achieving military victory over contended trade routes.

Until we recognize and name this fact as something that this is EXACTLY what our leaders say it is not, a cultural battle that can have only one survivor where Islam and another belief system/culture intersect, we will continue to enable those who see us as less than. 

We cannot co-exist with those who are doctrinally correct in their Islamic faith.  The “moderate Muslims” we are told are around us may not support the drive of expansion and destruction of all non-Islamic cultures, but they are moderates only insofar as they choose to disregard the instruction of the Islamic tenets. The Qu’ran specifically admonishes Muslims to never regard any non-Muslim as friend and to use the Qu’ran to lie to enemies if the goal is in fact to spread Islam and further the goals of establishing Islamic hegemony throughout the world as one Islamic nation.  Times where violence has not been ongoing are dictated by the Qur’an itself; when the Islamic forces are weak and in disarray they may seek peace to regroup, of a period not more than 10 years in length, but they may never seek peace in a time of military superiority.  Since each act of jihad is considered an act of war for the expansion of Islam, regardless of the location of the violence, it does not take too much effort to trace the doctrinal adherence to this policy.

The naming of the “Western Mecca” as some are calling the new mosque to be built on the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York City is a statement of staggering proportions on multiple levels.  First, the date of attack being the anniversary of the breaking of the Siege of Vienna and the dedication of the mosque scheduled for this date are brazen statements to the Islamic faithful.  It tells them that Islam is again on the expansion to claim all of the earth for Allah after the terrible defeat and retraction suffered post 1638 ADand the first efforts of the Umayyad Caliphate defeated by the Christian Carolingian Franks Martel at the Battle of Tours  in 732 AD (also known as the Battle of Poitiers or to Muslims as the Battle of Court of the Martyrs).  Secondly, and most disturbing from the perspective of societal survival, is the compliance and ignorance of the western world population and its leadership in this current trend.  The Islamic world will see this as a willingness to be subjugated, and with subjugation, acceptance of the reality that either a state of dhimmitude will exist until our culture is completely erased, or the purging through slaughter as was and is seen in the majority of the caliphate expansionism of Islam.

 We need to name this cultural nemesis.  We need to recognize the big picture in this and how its 1400 years drive to become the world dominant force can and is being harnessed by another country which sees itself as doctrinally committed to actively pursuing an asymmetrical war against the United States; China.  We need to fight it with the understanding it will show us no quarter if given the chance to gain military and numerical superiority in the west.  We need to see this for what it is; a direct and intended threat to our very survival.  To do otherwise is to actively commit societal and cultural suicide.  A is A.

Feb
18

The current situation we find ourselves in is the “gun culture” or more aptly the “gun dependency culture”. It is a culture that emphasizes reliance upon the use of a tool such as a gun or knife to defend oneself. Now in many instances this is a sound choice. When confronted by an armed thug it is nice to have the option to deploy a tool to counter that threat if we have time, distance and capability. The problem for most people is that they do not have the proper training to use that tool successfully in a high-stress physical conflict. This applies to everyone; police, security, civilians, anyone who faces a close quarters threat. It is one thing to draw and shoot at a paper target where you are not under threat and another to have someone putting rounds into your area of operation or rushing at your from a distance close enough to lay hands on you before you draw and orient your weapon.

Please understand I am not discouraging that people seek out training from credible sources to learn combative firearms training. I think that is a good and timely thing. The problem is that where most conflict takes place, especially for security and LEOs, at 10 feet or less, you realistically won’t have the chance to draw and use what you view as your weapon. And if you can’t draw the tool you have become reliant upon, and you have not learned the essentials of hand to hand combatives (read not sports or “reality-based” martial arts, but an actual combative that works on anyone, every time) you stand a very good chance of becoming the victim. Not to mention that in many places you cannot carry your firearm/knife/stun gun/other tool of choice. You can take your body and mind anywhere you go.

The thing that makes anyone truly dangerous is the conscious thought to do violence unto another. Period, full stop. If you do not have intent to cause trauma to someone when you engage in protecting from an asocial criminal attack, you have already lost, it is just a matter of time. If you are going to “counter” or “submit” a criminal you have made the decision, perhaps unwittingly, to become a victim by not seizing control of a situation and directing the terms of the engagement. After all, in criminal violence, there are only two possible roles, the person delivering the trauma into someone or the person having trauma inflicted on them.

Think about what I have just said for a moment. What does that imply? Why can’t you submit or counter the persons actions? Well to counter is to be defensive and to be defensive against someone whose goal is to get what they want by successfully using violence upon you and who is willing to do to you whatever is required to gain that, it means you will let them set the agenda and eventually cause a trauma that will render you the person having damage done to them. To submit relies on better skills, strength, speed or a combination thereof coupled with one other essential criterion – the person you are trying to submit must be attacking you within a sporting framework of rules of engagement. If this last criterion is not there then, as you are going for your arm bar and he drives his thumb into you eye socket and ruptures your eyeball, you will be in an induced reaction letting go of the arm bar and he will continue inflicting trauma on you until he chooses to finish.
Unless our officers and people in general can begin to get past he reliance on tools such as firearms, tasers, mace and the like, they will not take the time to learn the physical responses that they will most likely have success with in close quarters terminal combat settings. From 0’-10’ the ability to counter an attacker with only the use of your body is imperative. The body can be a fearsome tool if the weapon of the mind is intent on its’ survival.

There are other concerns besides the depth and breadth of training to deploy effectively one’s firearms. The environment comes to mind. Are there women and children around? Do you have a clear line of fire to engage prior to him delivering trauma unto you? Do you risk penetration of rounds into civilians? All these things can weigh heavily on an event in which a firearm is discharged regardless of the merits of the decision to use it form a self-protection point of view. What happens if the round penetrates the perpetrator and kills an infant or pregnant woman? Or any individual caught in the wrong place at the wrong time? What happens legally then? What happens to your own sense of judgment and conscience? What if, instead of pulling your firearm you simply shut off the attacker’s brain and, using a combative system broke him into a non-functional state with your body instead?

We need to get past the MMA/sporting mindset when we train for survival and the focus on firearms and other tools as necessary for keeping us safe. Firearms and other tools have their place and useful functions; they are a great skill set to develop to be well-rounded in self-protection for all ranges. But for extreme close quarters threat mitigation and termination, knowing how to use our body to carry out our intent is something we overlook at our peril.

Feb
15

September 11, 2001 marked a day in which our lives changed for the foreseeable future. Gone was the insular nature that had allowed us to see from afar the acts of terror that had been going on in the Islamic spread dating back to Mohammed’s slaughter of innocents after being exiled in the early 600’s A.D. We stood face to face with an enemy who few knew and who many misunderstand through either a lack of information, a plethora of misinformation or a desire to ignore that which they find unpleasant.

Like any common criminal thug, the Islamic fundamentalists who attacked the World Trade Center that day had no regard for human life including their own. They continued a tradition dating back to the executions committed by Mohammed of all who stood in the way of his world view of tyranny under the guidelines of the theocratic world government outlined in the Qur’an, Shari’ah and Hadith.

These three books specifically outline a strategy that falls outside our concept of human interrelation. They advise using the Qur’an to lie to enemies as long as the greater goal means the spread of Islam, to kill those who will not submit (yes I know the Verses of the Pen say otherwise, but they are superseded and abrogated in moral authority by the Verses of The Sword which were written after them since the Qur’an is a book to be read chronologically rather than form front to back), and to recognize only two states of existence in the world; the state of Islam or the state of war to prepare for Islam.

The use of child bombers is abhorrent to us but not to the terrorists who view this as a holy war and the only way to true salvation lies in dying in jihad efforts. They believe, as the jurisprudence of the Islamic system of belief dictates, that they have to conquer the world, as Malcolm X would say “by any means necessary”. Killing kids is perfectly acceptable targeting for these terrorists and that is what makes their list of new target focus so scary. It applies to the next set of targets they have begun actively encouraging their supporters to strike among us; malls, random assassination of those who dare question or oppose them, and perhaps most heinously, our schools.

The fact is that they encourage massive hostage taking for the sole purpose of slaughtering them in a “terrifying” way. The fact is they have outlined in a series of manuals that provide specific information on how to attack such targets to inflict maximum casualties. This should cause us to fear for our children as never before, and recognize that our current model of lockdown/hide-in-place is the worst possible strategy since it incorporates no proactive strategy and provides no tactical training for the staff in case of a terrorist attack.

It can be safely assumed that the “terrifying” manner is consistent with what we have seen followers of Mohammad use before, emulating Mohammad’s own techniques outlined in the Hadith for inducing terror, beheading kneeling victims with a small sword or knife. This means that by piling our kids into several small holding cells (classrooms) and gathering them together we simplify their attack strategy and make it easier to kill our kids and the staff in our schools.
We cannot rely on the police or the military to protect soft targets; it is impossible both from an economic and manpower perspecitve . We must look for ways that are capable of fitting into the lockdown/shelter-in-place model of school response planning we see already occurring.

The fact is that first responders are always there AFTER something happens. How many kids do we have to sacrifice before we drop the bean-counters worry about litigious criminals/terrorists who might be hurt by training our teachers to learn to protect themselves and the children they are charged with caring for. We already have legislation that forces teachers to report suspected parental violence towards kids, why do they not have a focused classroom defense protocol? Surely, if you asked the victims of any school shooting be it in West Virginia, or Columbine, in the United States, Beslan in Russia or Finland, I am sure everyone would have thought it impossible to happen there.  Yet it did, and it will happen elsewhere.  Do we simply hope that we never live elsewhere?

While currently there is only an extremely limited number of trainings that can interface with active shooter response by our active shooter communities, they do exist.  Imminent Threat Defense Systems LLC offers the TEACHSAFE™: Educator Emergency Violence Response Training, an addendum course that dovetails with the educational lockdown/shelter-in-place model as well as LEO/first responder interface planning and all of this for FAR less than the cost of a monitoring system or therapy after an incident takes many innocent lives.

There are training options out there. We implore the educational professionals, their unions and the legislators responsible in the both the federal and state levels to start looking at this before the terrorist launch an attack. Please for the sake of our kids get proactive and do not wait to train our teachers until after an attack occurs.

Feb
12

This is a piece I wrote some time ago that I am revisiting due to a conversation I had not long ago with an educator discussing the zero tolerance rules for adjudicating student behavior.

With the fear of gun owners rising at the reality of the democrat controlled house and senate there is an even more damning agenda being furthered that threatens the entire citizenry of the United States, particularly the children being educated in the public school domain. It is not the next blatant end run around the Constitution that seems to be a new sport for presidents and political leaders of both parties. Rather, this is the disarming of the mind and programming individuals to think and act like victims and dependents.

While Obama and the democrats have had their first major political victory in some time, the whiplash effect we see building may be far stronger than we anticipate. With rhetoric from people like Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton, Reid, Franks, and their ilk, we see an agenda that is eerily reminiscent of 1934 Germany. It is also the same plea made by the political extremes of the right regarding individuals who are non-statist although the courses of action to achieve their goals are markedly divergent. The potential disarming and control over the economy that is being sought is staggering and it is aligned with what was established 75 years ago in Europe. There are two very dangerous elements here.

The first is the disarming of the citizenry. An armed citizenry is essential to perform the actions we first see mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. It reads that

“when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The surest way to enable a civilian capability to follow the guidance of our forefathers in this most sacred of duties is to have it remain armed, and this is also the best form of defense against any foreign threat to our nation. In fact I would assert that a trained rifleman and an individual capable of self-protection is the essence of each American’s duty to this nation and the very first requirement to assure its inherent sovereignty. I pray that our political elite will be able to remember and govern in a way where we never have to contemplate the words of our forefathers as a call to arms. I pray that this country will rally and give guidance to them to find a centrist voice to avoid pursuing the course that the vitriole and rhetoric of the rabid left and right-wing radicals espouse.
Along with the continuation of socializing our economy as the Bush administration seems intent on doing, this is not a good indicator of centrist politics.

All of this sets the stage for a socio-political situation that is terrifying and the immediate point of this article and our right to self-protection. While we are being disarmed and made reliant upon government employment and handouts, the indoctrination of our youth continues in the heavily socialist halls of public education. Here students are encouraged to see the “vision” of a leader who has not been vetted in any legitimate manner by a media that used to be an effective watchdog but has lost all integrity and intellectual legitimacy, while being taught to memorize rather than think independently and avoiding logical discussion that questions the hierarchy in any manner. During the past elections I was told by many students that they are called racist for thinking independently and threatened in the hallways or embarrassed in the classroom.

This treatment of our children with systemic bullying and as unthinking automatons, creates illogical situations that allow our schools to be prime targets for those enemies who would attack us and the criminal bullies who feed on our youth without care. It is taught that the tolling bell of our doom as a society lies in our purporting to want a society that indeed embraces the tradition of the American Revolutionary leaders.

I have talked before about the use of 911 and teaching students to accept being bullied and hit rather than to stand up to bullies and fight back if required to defend themselves. The trend is accelerating in schools as the “no-tolerance” positions have hardened into “no thought” positions. If a kid is being bullied and we say to that child “do not fight back on pain of suspension” we are in fact saying “let the goons do what they want to you and be a good little victim.” This is absurd.

Much like those who wish to do away with gun ownership, it punishes only the law abiding. It criminalizes those who would stand up and defend the values this country was founded on and rewards the bully, criminal, terrorist and sycophant. Bullies and their ilk get what they want, a victim they can prey upon without fear of reprisal. Schools are rarely going to call the authorities and have charges pressed if they can bury it themselves by suspending both kids so the bully gets a free victim, and time off from the place he hates to be and the good kid gets to have a beating and then get thrown out of school and have a mark on his academic record that might hurt his college application. Oh yeah, and the tax payer gets to spend money sending a tutor home to the suspended kids, so they get a free round of victimization. Wow, sounds swell, sign me up.

If we teach our kids to continue to be victims, they will become like that later on. They will pick up the phone and call 911 and wait for the rescue as people attack them. Or if they grow into teachers they will know no better than to hide in a room and let themselves and their students become victims if the gunman enters the room, never even thinking about fighting back, just accepting their fate as a sheep being led to the slaughter. Sound like Germany in the 1930’s? Mind your business and we will take care of everything. Orwell was prophetic; he just missed the date in his title.

By extension this should scare people because if we are a school of lemmings and manufactured victims who surrender at each turn, we have much to fear from either a government that would strip us into economic and metal servitude or a terrorist who would enslave or convert us to their religious viewpoint. Either way learned victimhood has only one logical outcome – servility. Servility whether it be to the re-establishment of either the structures of feudal serfdom of early Europe, the re-institution of the oppression of censored life under socialist/communist rule, or the theocratic intolerance of the Caliphates of Islam.

And the criminals will be those who hold office and those complicit who stood by and watched or encouraged the sacrificing of the essence of the greatest country on earth as it is destroyed on their watch to the social parasites who would feed upon the able and just.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.