Violence and Conflict 4/29/10 Revision

4/29/10

Conflict can occur on many different "planes"; physical violence is only one. Finance can be attacked. Relationships can be attacked. Reputations, happiness, reasoning can be attacked. Those who are strong in one "plane of conflict" are often weak in others. Self defense often can be accomplished by shifting the conflict to a "plane" the adversary is weak in.

Original Text

Violence exists. We all know this. It gives power, real power, immediate, dramatic, unquestionable power over others. It creates fear in others. It can also remove people from being able to influence your reality by making them dead.

It exists.

Most people agree that violence is a bad thing, though most of us also agree that it's sometimes necessary.

Why not be pacifistic? Why not renounce violence, and demand your country do the same? Why not assume that people can be civilized and not need violence?

In an otherwise non-violent world, some people will not be satisfied. Perhaps they are poor, or an "oppressed minority", or ruthlessly ambitious, or delusional, or any number of other things which make them dissatisfied. Many of these will be big, strong men and other natural fighters. Some will use violence to express their dissatisfaction.

To neutralize the evil acts of those who would do violence, we need to use violence of our own or have someone else do it for us. Realistically, you can't do it alone against organized opposition unless you're a backwoods hermit; or you need a tribe, or a gang, etc. who will kill people who try to use violence against you if needed. Or, you need police and a military.

Violence is sadly necessary to challenge violence. It is a case that does not follow the old rule that "two wrongs don't make a right". World War II is the archetypical example that sometimes violence must be met with violence in order to help contain it and stop it.

What about Costa Rica? They have had no military since 1949!

The former President, Rafael Calderón, had refused to give up power when voted out in 1948 and kept trying to retake the "throne" militarily with the help of Communists and...the Costa Rican Army which had been "disbanded"!

How did Costa Rica emerge victorious from this? Well, a man named José Figueres Ferrer eventually took power violently before disbanding the military, setting up the government and then abdicating (he was apparently a truly good man who wanted to help his country, like George Washington). Then, when Calderón kept trying to invade, he was repelled by militia using hunting rifles. There's some violence, but no army.

However, these hunting rifle toting militia were being supported by high tech fighter/bombers donated by the USA!

In addition, additional weapons had been confiscated from the Carribean Legion who were in Costa Rica, and might be returned if politics allowed the Legion to support Costa Rica...violently. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the USA also donated small arms, mortars, etc. but I can't find that reference.

In any case, Costa Rica is able to go without an army because they have a militia that is able to serve the same purpose due to international support (from both Castro and the USA as well as others in the Legion!)

Nonviolence can succeed, but only if the opposition is not ruthless enough. Nonviolent resistance would probably have done little good for the Jews and disabled people in Nazi Germany, for instance.

I think most people are naive about violence. Many show disrespect to the police, the military, and the National Rifle Association. These people don't deserve that simply because they are the ones who commit the violence we need in order to not have to do it ourselves.

Read One Tribe at a Time by Steven Pressfield to get an idea of what it's like to live without police and a national army:

http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/2009/10/one-tribe-at-a-time-4-the-full-document-at-last/

EDIT - 3/26/10

My analysis of a very short MMA fight (Seth Petruzelli vs Kimbo Slice). Careful examination of the techniques used provide insight into fighting someone big who rushes you in (fairly large) enclosed spaces as a striker. Here's the fight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkcDks1kLl4

My analysis:

Petrozelli led with a left leg forward stance. As Slice rushed in on him he shuffled back a half step and gave a light front kick to Slice's ribs as Kimbo reached and leaned forward to grab or punch. Petrozelli extended his arms with elbows only slightly bent to catch Kinbo's arms, sort of a two arms equals one leg in distance thing - neat trick. He pushed Kimbo's outstretched arms down and then lifted his right arm and popped Kimbo with a quick right hook to the face followed by a fast skip step backwards to gain space. He keeps skipping back until he's on the ropes, rope-a-dope style. As he hits the ropes he lifts that right leg again but lowers it as Kimbo throws a heavy right. Petrozelli pushes the right arm down like he did before, lowering his leg as he does so, but since Kimbo's left arm isn't up this time, that snappy little right hook (or is it a traditional corkscrew punch? It didn't come from the hip chamber) comes out much faster, popping Kimbo in the face again with an audible, artificial sounding smack. Kimbo goes down and Petrozelli begins to pound him in the head from behind with his fists until Kimbo submits. That first hammerfist to the base of the skull was brutal! Is that right? Kimbo should have grabbed the leg I think. I know from my Tae Kwon Do training how vulnerable a kicker is with his leg up like that. They just...prohibit people from doing realistic stuff in Tae Kwon Do so they can have fun with the fancy kicks.

First posted by me at

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=10141

Another instructive fight for a striker facing potential grapplers - Seth Petruzelli vs Bernard Rutherford

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCBhGl-x3j4

A thought provoking joke at 9:00 in this Richard Pryor stand up (Here and Now):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNIzirdflJA

A thought provoking quote from a youtube video of Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue":

"Don't keep your head down. Look so you know where to return fire".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wxhuy-GS28

It is my belief that the "unrealistic" deep stances and short range punches used in old Tae Kwon Do forms (poomse?) and, in the case of Horse Stance, for practicing, are designed to fight grapplers. The traditional hard blocks, also considered "unrealistic" are not used for basic hand to hand duels but rather for opportunistically damaging and hopefully breaking whatever hard, brittle object is being used to strike with, whether it be a shin bone or a wooden pole being used as a club. Breaking boards and bricks is not just for show in my opinion, despite Bruce Lee's sarcastic comments. A scene in the Sopranos, while fictional, gives some insight into these ideas. It's the scene where a character becomes a massage therapist and gets into an argument and then a fight with his Korean boss. While it is fictional it does not seem unrealistic to block a long wooden club with a high block, assuming you can "channel your ki" properly (scientifically, I think this means invoking adrenaline and other hormones while tensing up muscles, subtly angling the arm etc)

When boxing a southpaw, move to your left and try to keep your left foot outside his right.

Commenter on Floyd Mayweather vs Reggie Sanders, paraphrased
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwQQEHpkt1k&feature=PlayList&p=82505AA9C45808BE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1