Tag: Guest Article

Do You Choose Situational Blindness? – Mark Hatmaker

“The only fights you truly win are the ones you don’t have.”-Lee Child

Keeping the above quote in mind, along with the fact that crime is a product of opportunity, we go a long way towards being “masters of self-defense” if we simply remove as many opportunities as possible from our behavior.

With that said, let me point to a bit of advice from former CIA operative Jason Hanson, who says that the number one tip he can offer to making anyone and everyone a bit more like Jason Bourne in the modern world, is simply this “always be aware of your surroundings.”

Easier said than done, right? Well, he goes a bit further by offering what he considers the number one concrete tactic to becoming aware of your surroundings-don’t use a smartphone. That’s it.

He says spy craft prohibits the use of smartphones not simply because of the tracking potential but because it encourages absorption, a retreat from where you are to someplace else that is not here.

He points to the numerous instances of car crashes related to smartphone use, but says that observation does not go far enough. He has catalogued an impressive battery of incidences where victims were chosen simply because they were the unaware animals at the watering hole with their heads down blind to their surroundings.

Lest anyone think that the use of the word blind goes too far, he backs up this contention with copious examples of security camera footage of people simply blindsided in all sorts of public surroundings simply because their eyes were glued to the screen.

Two astonishing examples come to mind-the first a bar is robbed at gunpoint, the predator actually stands next to our smartphone user during the robbery. The smartphone user moves down a seat as if in courtesy giving the man next to him room. He never looks up from the screen. When the police arrive after the robbery, the smartphone user has nothing to offer in assistance, he had no idea the robbery even took place.

The second example sent to me some time back, a man boards a bus in San Francisco the camera shows EVERY other passenger with their faces glued to screens. The newest rider pulls a gun and brandishes it, no one notices it. The predator looks confused, puts the gun away, seems to think for a moment and then pulls it again, this time he uses it-the precious window of reaction to avert a tragedy has been lost.

If (if) we think “Well, I’m not that way, I’m perfectly aware of my surroundings even while I use this marvel of technology” your self-judgment goes against all the science of the brain’s executive function. We simply do not multi-task well.

In a recent study of “time loss perception” smartphone users were monitored while they periodically checked their phones in a casual dining experience. They were being timed by observers on the scene unbeknownst to them.

When approached and asked how long they thought their interaction with the phone had lasted, they unanimously underestimated the phone interaction by 80%. That is, they (we) have no idea how long our attention is actually lost, how long we are blind.

Blind to our dinner companions is one thing, blind to predators with a gun is another.

Since even highly trained spy personnel are told to drop the smartphone, do you think we the lesser-trained citizens of the world will be any less resistant to its temptations?

I offer a drill, for those brave enough to survive electronically-teatless for a day, dock the phone and be awake in the day. Be aware.

Shoot for a week, particularly if you found the exercise uncomfortable.

I will say, it is an oddity of the power of these devices that often when I offer some clients drills such as complete 500 burpees in the course of a single day or some other such physically taxing challenge, more often than not people step-up. They do it.

When this “wean yourself from the electronic teat drill” is offered the failure rate is far, far higher.

In short, we can’t have it both ways, we can’t be prepared operators in the world who claim to give value to awareness and self-protection and at the same time be checking every ping and chime that sounds in that electronic leash.

Aware animals, operational professionals don’t text, and don’t surf the web outside of the home. It’s either no-phone or a flip-top phone that is, well, a phone.

So, ask yourself, are you aware? If you’re reading this on your phone and you are not at home Mr. Hanson and I both would say you most definitely are not.

www.extremeselfprotection.com

 

Why Doesn’t the Kick to the Groin Always Work? – Mirav Tarkka

You know the scene…

Girl walking down the street, a bad guy or more try to grab her, she has her high heels on, a mini skirt and no self-defense knowledge whatsoever, but she manages with a knee or kick in the groin to get him or all of them down on their knees begging for mercy.

While this scenario may work in a Hollywood blockbuster, reality is not exactly like that.

Although most people believe that a kick to the groin is enough to “do the job,” that’s not actually the case. While a man’s testicles might be the most important part of his body as they contain the “jewels of the family,” they are definitely not the most fragile. Made of spongy material, the testicles typically absorb the shock without much damage, and Mother Nature was smarter than that and covered the testicles with layers of tough material protecting the tissue inside.

Although it depends on the surface and tools used against the testicles—for example, a metal nail vs. a leather shoe—to crush a testicle you need to apply a force of 110 pounds (50 kg) per 1 square centimeter (advantages to all “big balls” out there 😀 )! By comparison, it is much easier and more effective to tear off an ear, for example, where you need only 8 pounds (4 kg)!

While a “crushed testicle” will create some pain and a bit of distraction, assuming that you did it right, , a torn ear will cause disorientation, loss of blood, probably loss of consciousness, and a huge mental shock.

Some guys reading this article will be cringing at the thought of being kicked in the testicles—if not already vomiting at my vivid descriptions J—because for a “normal” person a kick to the groin causes a lot of pain, but are all men “normal” in this sense? What are the reasons that a man may not feel that much pain or may even feel pleasure when kicked in the groin?

(To make things easier to understand and imagine, we will call the guy who is potentially kicked in the groin, Mr. Bad. J)

  1. Bad wasn’t just standing there waiting for you to kick him in the groin, he wasn’t in a “gym position”; he might have closed his legs, turned sideways, or maybe is simply too tall
  2. Bad is wearing baggy pants or strong jeans and your kick didn’t reach the right spot.
  3. Bad is wearing a good groin guard—some aggressors come to fight totally prepared!
  4. Bad is an MMA fighter and uses the “bending down” instinct to grab your legs, throw you on the ground, restrain you and whatever else he feels like doing.
  5. Bad has been training for a long time and now has “testicles immunity”—there are actually quite a few men like this!—so doesn’t feel as much pain as a “normal guy” would. I have interviewed a guy who gets kicked in his groin thousands of times full force as part of his job! He is an actor in a show that includes such scenes. Although his testicles are full of scar tissues and he can’t get an erection easily, he doesn’t feel almost any pain when kicked and actually makes money out of it! And yes, he can still have children.
  6. Bad is under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both and feels no pain, plus is “powered” by the chemicals and by adrenalin. This is VERY COMMON these days.
  7. You haven’t kicked correctly or strongly enough. For example, kicking front to back—aka “jingle bells”—creates almost no damage. Squeezing is actually pleasurable to a surprising number of men. The testicles should be hit in a certain direction to cause debilitating pain, namely upwards in order to push the testicles against the pelvic bone. This way it can cause a TESTICULAR RUPTURE and is much more serious damage than just “blue balls.” It will take surgery to repair the damage, and Mr. Bad will have learnt his lesson!
  8. Bad actually likes it J I have interviewed a guy who admitted proudly that he gets sexually aroused when hit in the testicles, especially with heels. And he is not the only one!

To sum up, my advice is as follows:

  1. Don’t focus your strategy on the kick to the groin. Focus on the face! Much more fragile, efficient, reachable in most situations, and less complicated.

Watch the video clip about 4 factors you should focus on when attacking (link below)

  1. If you kick to the groin, kick correctly. Flex your foot, kick with your shin from bottom to up (towards the pelvic bone)

Watch my video about how to train groin kicks (coming up soon) and why doesn’t the groin kick always work (link below)

Keep safe, smart and strong,

www.miravselfdefense.com

 

The Working Woman’s Self-defense Express Course, eBook – Mirav Tarkka

https://miravselfdefense.com/product/the-working-womans-express-self-defense-course/

In this succinct guide for women with little, if any, self-defense experience, dynamic trainer Mirav Tarkka, a former Sergeant in the Israeli Army, covers all the key points for survival in the concrete jungle, from mental attitudes to martial pressure points.

Israeli-born Mirav is a world-renowned self-defense expert, specializing in Krav Maga (Israeli Contact Combat).  With over seventeen years of  experience as a trainer, Mirav founded Defense Tactics™ (International Combat Training) and Recharge™ (Alternative Functional Fitness) and has now set a goal to inspire, train and help empower individuals and groups at all levels, focusing on the mindset and mental training (as well as the physical aspect) and creating  online courses especially for women all around the world, regardless of their physical abilities, age or culture.  

Mirav studied, trained and served with the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) at the Wingate Institute (Israel), then completed and instructed many international training courses.  She holds university degrees in Psychology and Criminology and a diploma in Physical Education.  With appearances on television, features in magazines and newspapers throughout Europe, Mirav is often invited to demonstrate her work at many international workshops and seminars covering self-defense related topics.

Recently Mirav became a mother of two and says:

“Having my daughters has emphasized even more, for me, how important my role in life is. I need to be able to protect them, at all times, I can’t trust anyone to do that ‘for me’. I need to be strong, extra-assertive, powerful, to be capable of defending them and myself, and to set an example of the independent women I want them both to be. The love of a mother for her children is the greatest force  that exists – that is my underlying drive and that will be what protects them, combined with my knowledge and experience. I would truly wish for all women in the world (and men) to realize their true power, whether they are mothers or not, their true responsibility to themselves and their loved ones, and to take full control of their lives. No one should have power over you.”

https://miravselfdefense.com/

Low-Tech Terrorism: An Old Paradigm for Modern Times – Michael Gonzales

Summer is upon us, and we find ourselves spending more time with our kids, families, and loved ones outside of work. In the United States, thousands of us will attend large events, such as concerts, air shows, festivals, sports games, and outside gatherings. This is what we do, it’s who we are, and it’s the season we do it. Given the recent spate of terroristic attacks and violent incidents in the West, there is a threat environment we should also be considering and concerning ourselves with. We are now seeing more attacks conducted by person(s) simply utilizing a large vehicle to drive over people in crowded streets and mass gatherings.

These low-tech attacks are not only deadly, but hard to identify beforehand. They do not require a lot of training and can be carried out with common and everyday equipment or tools, such as vehicles or knives. The use of knives is becoming more common in conjunction with vehicular attacks. Knives, unlike guns, are easily accessible, do not require ammunition, do not need to be reloaded, and never jam. However, they are only effective at close range, and this type of attack requires a good amount of effort.

Vehicles are easy to come by as well. They don’t typically require a background check and there is always someone selling one for cash on Craigslist — no questions asked. But most importantly, they do not bring unwanted attention to us. They blend in with the other thousand vehicles on the road. A vehicle can be a means for transportation one day, and a deadly weapon the next, depending on who the operator is and what their intent is. The use of vehicles to kill civilians is not only explained, but it’s highly encouraged in terrorist propaganda such as Dabiq and Inspire magazine (Al Qaeda & ISIS publications).

What does that mean for us, and what are we supposed to watch out for? Well, I would venture to say this: These attacks are not just “attacks.” They should be looked at as “plots and attacks.” Every single one of them has been plotted out before it was carried out. Even if it was down to the last minute before the attacker made his/her decision to go forward with it. I consider the hour leading up to the attack still in the “plotting” phase. The attacker may have to conduct one more surveillance run to see if security has increased or decreased at their target. Maybe certain roads have been blocked or changed.

There are a multitude of reasons for him/her to change the plan up until the final moments. If you are already at one of these events, the plotting phase will be one of the few moments to spot someone out of place. Someone fidgeting, sweating, mumbling to themselves, or saying prayers in a low tone. Look for individuals carrying large bags that seem out of place, or long jackets or outerwear that is not seasonally normal.

What about vehicular attacks? These are becoming more common, as I said, so what’s our defense plan? If we look at the Nice and two London bridge attacks, we notice that all three vehicles were lorries (the equivalent to a medium size U-Haul truck). These trucks are not the most quick or agile vehicles; they are top heavy and have a poor turning radius. But if they have some weight in them, gain speed, and there is not much between you and them — your options are limited. In all three attacks, all three lorries drove in a zig zag pattern to cover as much ground and accumulate the most kills as possible, making it difficult for the victims to avoid being injured.

Removing yourself from the line of attack is of the utmost importance. Look for a “door.” During a threat protection course in 2014, we were taught to always look for avenues of escape and evasion. These areas are called “doors.” The term “doors” refers to a defining point of escape or evasion that would make it very difficult for a threat to follow you. This concept was taught to us as an anti-ambush/anti-kidnap defense method, but the context is still relevant even if it’s a terrorist attack. Movement is paramount here. Run towards the strongest object if possible: barriers, walls, bollards, parked cars. Get something in between you and the attack. Running into stores and restaurants is great, but just remember, if the driver wants to follow you there is a good chance the truck can make it through the front with the force and weight behind it. Small alleyways or areas that vehicles cannot make it through are all doors. “For more tips and ideas, look for my second article in this series about situational awareness and trusting your gut.

Michael served in the United States Marine Corps and is a veteran of the Iraq war. After leaving the Marines he worked in Gavin DeBecker’s firm has an executive protection agent. After many years service, Michael branched out and created his own company, and currently serves as Executive Manager of Security in a large Texas based firm.

The Crime Triangle and Self Defense Training – Nathan Wager

Complex ideas and situations can be simplified into manageable chunks with the aid of models, and violent crime is no different. One such model, known as the Crime Triangle, has gone through various iterations in criminology circles and filtered down in its various versions through law enforcement as well.

In a more mature form of the model, we see that crime is a positive interplay of three core components combined with a negative, or lack, of three corresponding components:

A violent crime happens when a (1) motivated offender and (2) attractive target converge within a (3) suitable location, in the absence of corresponding capable controllers.1

If any one of these components does not form part of the core structure of the Triangle, then the crime does not happen. This seems almost tautological at first, as though it doesn’t say anything that isn’t self-evident. “A bad guy and a good guy meet in a place with nobody to intervene. How revolutionary.” And yet I would argue that it is deceptively simple, and understanding these core components of the model can be very helpful in organizing your own self defense training, as well as guiding further research.

The world is a complex adaptive system, as is the violence that takes place within it, and one aspect of these more chaotic systems is that small changes in initial conditions can have drastic effects later on. Jeff Goldblum’s character discussed this phenomenon in Jurassic Park, for anyone that remembers that stellar scene of nerd knowledge being dropped. Small changes in these core components of the Crime Triangle can result in radically different understandings of a violent event and how it occurs.

Simple, Not Simplistic

Originally, the Crime Triangle only referred to third parties that could intervene specifically on behalf of the victim and stop the crime as “capable guardians.” Eventually, all third parties during a violent event were referred to collectively as “controllers,” that were then subdivided based on what they controlled. The controller that can intervene on behalf of the victim, for instance, is referred to as a “guardian.” The seemingly innocuous addition of the word “capable” to the concept of controllers has very large implications on the ground.2

This is because whether a guardian is present is not enough, since a guardian may not be “capable” in the sense of being able or willing to intervene. Your loved one such as your wife or grandmother is a potential guardian, but are they capable? Any lack in presence or capability is something that must be compensated for with any number of means, whether communication methods such as a phone and a predetermined plan of action, or possibly a legally possessed weapon.

A handler, or the controller with a connection to the offender, may only be as capable as he or she is willing to stop the violence; some may actually encourage it. There is a large amount of research on how the presence of third parties connected to the attacker can affect a violent act, but how many instructors have seriously looked into it? The Triangle can help identify this deficiency.

Going further, territoriality and the sense of ownership or personal investment that a controller has in getting involved to stop the altercation can depend on whether the property is public or privately owned, the ability of the neighborhood to assert their territoriality over criminals, etc. A place manager such as a cashier in a large chain store is often less likely to risk her neck personally by intervening in an attempted assault in front of the store. The place manager in this large store has no personal investment, and this isn’t even her neighborhood, so why get involved? Why not call the cops instead? This delay can have lethal consequences for you.

The idea of a “motivated offender” was developed as opposed to a likely offender in the original triangle, since it was recognized that the mere presence of a criminal wasn’t enough for a crime to happen, even if the offender was a career criminal. One could hypothetically place a couple people next to each other and wait for the magic to happen, but that wouldn’t ensure that violence emerges.

There needed to be a triggering template involving how attractive the victim was from a vulnerability standpoint as well as other factors such as external “precipitators.” This is a list of up to 16 types of triggers ranging from arousal-stimulating sensory situations such as that found in the club with loud noises and crowding, to more personal ones in the form of a provocation or insult.3

When one considers how such a small change in the wording used by a model can have such large effects on how we look at the way violence happens, hopefully it is easier to appreciate how a precise yet simple model does not automatically mean simplistic. If your own model of examining violence can be haphazardly changed without any noticeable effect, than you haven’t identified the most fundamental elements for your model.

Applying the Model

To give a practical example of approaching your own self defense training in light of the Triangle, consider body language. Many instructors are rightfully starting to incorporate nonverbal aspects such as anxiety cues to detect potentially violent behavior prior to an attack. This fits the mantra of “awareness” that many self defense systems preach.

This is all well and good, but if we take the simple concepts of the Crime Triangle, it becomes clear that simple “awareness” is insufficient. Awareness of what? Many approaches are heavily threat-focused, and yet this misses a large chunk of the necessary components. You may find yourself in the position of recognizing a threat, and yet what if you are in a neighborhood where not only will nobody intervene, but some may actively join in the attack? Looking into the crystal ball only to see your own inevitable ass-kicking isn’t exactly going to inspire confidence in your method.

A more structured approach to nonverbal cues would look at reading the crowd through expanded eyes. Who are the controllers of a situation? Is their posture dominant or submissive? If they do get involved are they physically capable of altering the outcome or would it be better to verbally instruct them to get help? Is the potential threat’s handler actively engaged or is his body language disengaged from the offender’s attempted action toward you?

Who are the players on the chessboard, and what are their roles?

This is just one example of using the Triangle to assess your training in the area of body language, but there are many more. What I would suggest is to take this simple model, perhaps even develop one of your own, and start brainstorming and critiquing your own approach to self defense. Have you thought of all the angles? You may be surprised by what you discover.

1              Marie Tillyer and John Eck, “ Getting a handle on crime: A further extension of routine activities theory,”  Security Journal  24, no. 2, (June 2010): 179–193, accessed July 2, 2017,  doi: 10.1057/sj.2010.2.

2             For an in-depth discussion of how different variations in wording affected research, see Marcus Felson, “Routine Activity Approach,” in Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis, ed. Richard Wortley and Lorraine Mazerolle (Portland: Willan Publishing, 2008), 70-77.

3              Richard Wortley, “Situational Precipitators of Crime,” ibid., 48-69.

Nathan Wagar is the founder of Borderland Strategic Performance Institute. He served two combat deployments to northern Iraq with the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne, as part of a task force formed for kill or capture raids of high value targets.

He currently coaches boxing and personal protection to civilians in New Mexico, as well as closed course CQB and active shooter programs to the US Secret Service assigned to the Albuquerque field department.

www.borderlandstrategic.com

Self-Defense and the Helping Professions Part II – Alan Jensen

The Different Mindset between Social Work and Self-Defense.

Clinicians and self-defense practitioners have a very different mind frame and changing between the two can be difficult without training and real world experience.  Most individuals in the helping professions have a mind frame of providing assistance in different forms.  Whether it is therapy, substance use, case management, or meeting basic needs, the idea is that people are inherently good and we can help and because of that, we are safe.  This leads to two false beliefs: the person served will respect and reflect the work that the clinician is trying to do and that the clinician will most likely not be assaulted.  They may be “difficult” or “resistant to treatment” but engaging nonetheless.  An example of this is the clinician working in an area known to have gang activity engaging on their own terms (i.e. in gang neighborhoods).  The assumption is that the clinician is safe because they are trying to help.  This can be a big mistake.

The self-defense practitioner has a different frame of mind.  He, or she, understands and knows, sometimes too well, of the issues facing us today and is training to face it.  It may not be the best training, or the most realistic, but it is something.  In an assault, some individuals freeze, the best advice is to do something, anything.  If you’ve been training, hopefully it will come out when you need it most.

I’m not saying that clinicians or substance abuse counselors are not aware, it’s quite the contrary with multiple systems in place.  When doing outreach they go out in pairs, when doing home visits, they are available via phone, and when in clinics they have methods for addressing emergencies.  Clinicians know to be aware of their surroundings and assess for safety.  But many times, clinicians do not trust their gut or are told to continue working with an individual even after voicing their concerns.  Recently, I expressed concern when working with an ex-convict with PTSD who was sweating and becoming increasingly agitated mid-session.  When discussing his anger and my safety concerns, I was told that they could be “intimidating” and to continue my work.  My work did not continue as he was arrested less than a week later.

At this point I want to address therapeutic counseling and the inherent potential danger and why I, and others, do what we do.  We are here to help in any way, shape, or form.  We believe that humans, by nature, are good, and that sometimes people express emotions in different ways and sometimes in violent ways.  However, these instances are slim, but very real.  According to mentalhealth.gov, most people with mental health issues are more likely to be victims than aggressors and that is why we need to do what we do.

This brings us to the crux of the topic.  What is the difference and what are the concerns?  Why does clinical work not mix with self-defense?  One reasons can be illustrated in a training of skills to use when physical aggression occurs.  The instructor says, “How many of you have taken self-defense or martial arts classes?”  A few people raise their hands.  “Okay, that’s good, but this is different.  We don’t fight back.”  What I am about to write is going to anger many, but to write it simply: fight back!  I do not care how good you are at blocking, or getting out of the way or trying to remove yourself from the situation.  Something is going to fail and your life is now at risk.  I would rather be alive and lose my job than to lose my life or end up in the hospital.  These situations are made even worse when you have no training or have training that provides a false sense of security.

My last point comes from a situation I had a few years ago.  I was working as a street outreach worker.  I came back to our hub/program to do documentation and any other tasks.  A young adult present asked me about studying psychology at a local community college.  Naturally, I engaged her in conversation.  While talking, a homeless youth runs out the door, stating that he is late for work.  He comes back in the building, gets a drink of water, and pulls a knife.  Why he did this, I do not know.  Was he trying to prove something?  Intimidation?  Maybe he was happy that he had a knife?  Or needed it for protection in a shelter?  We will never know, mainly because I don’t remember what happened next.  All I know is that I got that knife in my hands.  I may have blacked out.

My point is this: all of your trainings and understanding on why people hurt or why they express themselves through violence goes out the window when facing a life or death situation.  Compassion or empathy will not save you.  Your primate and mammalian brain is likely to shut down. Your survival drive takes over, and hopefully what training you have kicks in.  Even if I had a knife, a gun or any tactical gear, it would not have helped.  I was at the mercy of this individual.  Sometimes weapons do not help (a subject for another article), but your training does.  My brain went from clinical work to self-preservation in an instant.  Can other clinicians do the same?  Can they shut off the need to help others and protect themselves?  Can the clinician who brushed my arm at a training and profusely apologized for “assaulting” me do the same?  I know that when I train, I have to shut off that caring aspect, such that some people either do not know or do not see how I could be a clinician.

We need to be able to make that switch from helping others to protecting ourselves.  This means a shift in paradigms.  We will continue to help, regardless of the situation, we will be there to celebrate when things are good and to help you when you fall.  We will support you in your choices, even if we do not agree with them.  But, also that we are realistic and ready for when things become unsafe.

I hope that I have not increased the stigma of mental illness in this article.  I am painting with a small brush, capturing specific instances of aggression in my ten plus years.  We need to address mental illness and substance abuse as we do with any physical illness.  Mental illness and substance abuse is a serious concern with suicide being the 10th leading cause of death in the US.

Alan Jensen, MSW, LICSW

Youtube Video of the week – Tacticalisthenics with Master Ken

Take AIM at those love handles by giving this new KILLER workout your best SHOT! Tacticalisthenics helps TARGET body fat while improving a wide RANGE of skills! Forget those fitness MAGAZINES and set your SIGHTS on the ultimate in TACTICAL cardio training!

Learn more about Master Ken here: ameridote.com

You Won’t Like Who’s Ready – Mark Hatmaker

“You can map out a fight plan or a life plan, but when the action starts, it may not go the way you’ve planned, and you’re down to your reflexes-that means your [preparation]. That’s where your roadwork shows. If you’ve cheated on that in the dark of the morning, well, you’re going to find that out now, under the bright lights.”-Joe Frazier

The great champion Joe Frazier is referring both to boxing and life in general, and his lesson is mighty powerful. Perhaps more powerful than he ever realized. I’m going to drive home just how powerful his advice is with an example from some horrifically evil people, but first, let’s take a sojourn through some Paleolithic anthropology and then a 16th-century observation on warfare before we bring it back to the 21-st century.

You are the weakest human being that has ever walked the planet since this species inception.

Don’t take that personally, I’m weak, too, and so is your neighbor, and your CrossFit coach down the road. The 21st century human is a pale copy of better versions of ourselves that colonized this planet up till about 10,000 years ago.

This weak estimation I have just rendered is not me talking-that’s the science.

“There is some evidence that the size of the average Sapiens brain has actually decreased since the age of foraging. Survival in that era required superb mental abilities from everyone. When agriculture and industry came along people could increasingly rely on the skills of others for survival, and new ‘niches for imbeciles’ were opened up. You could survive and pass your unremarkable genes to the next generation by working as a water carrier or an assembly-line worker.

“Foragers mastered not only the surrounding world of animals, plants and objects, but also the internal world of their own bodies and senses. They listened to the slightest movement in the grass to learn whether a snake might be lurking there. They carefully observed the foliage of trees in order to discover fruits, beehives and bird nests. They moved with a minimum of effort and noise, and knew how to sit, walk and run in the most agile and efficient manner. Varied and constant use of their bodies made them as fit as marathon runners. They had the physical dexterity that people today are unable to achieve even after years of practicing yoga or t’ai chi.”-Yuval Noah Harari Sapien: A Brief History of Humankind.

A little depressing, huh? Before we get too down on our weaker and dumber selves let’s not forget that we win when it comes to technological luxuries. But then again…

“Don’t talk about ‘progress’ in terms of longevity, safety, or comfort before comparing zoo animals to those in the wilderness.”-Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Your call if you dig the idea of being a domesticated animal.

You can strive to be either more like the wolf, or more like the golden retriever. Both fine animals, but…

The next stop on our journey, the16th-century Frenchman Michel Montaigne. Rather than quote from the lengthy section I have excised this idea, I will paraphrase in prose far less elegant than his.

Montaigne, while musing on warfare of the past up to his present-day remarks that each succeeding general or army would fare well or better than preceding champions.

For example, Alexander would easily dominate opposition that preceded him by a century, whereas Caesar coming after Alexander would handle Alexander and his armies easily, and that a French militia of Montaigne’s period would handle a legion of Caesar’s handily.

Nice, huh? Puts we gradually weaker humans back in the driver’s seat.

Not so fast.

Montaigne points out that these successive victories would only be possible because each succeeding army enjoys greater technology (i.e., better forged steel for Caesar vs. Alexander, early firearms for the French dragoons vs. Caesar). He then goes on to say that if we level the playing field by making each fighting force compete mano y mano, or with the preceding generations technology then the victory goes hands down to the earlier version of ourselves. Montaigne makes this assertion by observing that each generation of man seems to do less and less, and to be capable of less and less. Keep in mind he was making this observation in the 1500’s-I wonder what he would conclude after observing today’s texters, and tweeters, and gamers.

And now back to the 21st-century. I will quote from an exercise video available online. I will not provide a source for the video, I will not offer the name of the “instructor” as, well, because the video producers and instructors are scum.

The video is an outreach for potential ISIS converts on how to stay fit for battle.

I quote from the video: “This video is dedicated to the mujahedeen in Syria, and to others who plan on coming here.”

Our quite fit “instructor” then offers tips on how to get fit and stay fit for battle with no gym equipment. And, I will say, having been in this business for some time, his advice, unfortunately, is quite sound.

This video reminds us of the fact that the scum who perpetrated the atrocities in the offices of Charlie Hebdo and what followed, also met regularly for fitness sessions.

Which brings me to the point of this journey, what are we doing right now to be

Are we content to assume that our “protectors” somewhere out there in Washington, or wherever are the only preparation we need to make?

If we make this assumption how do we resolve this with the fact that most such attacks are not battlefield attacks, they are civilized world attacks-this puts us into Montaigne’s example where we have to ask ourselves how would we do against an enemy when we lack our technology which we use to bolster our weakness?

Would we be ready if we had to be ready?

Are we preparing to any degree whatsoever as Joe Frazier suggests versus a foe that takes such advice to heart?

We either makes ourselves weak, or we make ourselves strong. The amount of time dedicated to either is the same.

What are you going to do while some villain out there is doing what needs to be done?

Garry here, now please visit Mark’s website

http://www.extremeselfprotection.com

 

The Importance of Reputation – James Hall

Many CM readers will have seen the media coverage of a recent incident in China, in which MMA fighter Xu Xiaodong soundly defeated “Thunder style” Tai Chi master Wei Lei in a challenge match arranged by Xu to show that “traditional” Chinese martial arts styles are ineffective. The New York Times’ article covering the match can be seen here: https://goo.gl/mGT56B [1].

The fight itself has already been the subject of much analysis and comment. What I would like to talk about is the aftermath of the fight, particularly its reported consequences for Xu Xiaodong, and the lessons which can be learned from Xu’s experience which are relevant to self-protection.

As the NY Times reports, Xu may have proved his point by winning the fight, but he has faced a powerful backlash from the Chinese media, public and martial arts community, including a statement from the Chinese Wushu Association saying that the fight “violates the morals of martial arts”. The backlash has been so severe that Xu has been forced into hiding, and has reportedly posted statements online saying that his career is in ruins and he has “lost everything”, seemingly baffled as to how things could have worked out so badly for him.

The moral outrage surrounding Xu’s actions can be understood by reference to the “Moral Foundations Theory” put forward by Jonathan Haidt and Craig Joseph. This theory is explored in detail in Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind” [2], and a summary can be found at http://www.moralfoundations.org. In brief, Moral Foundations Theory proposes that there are five “foundations” to our instinctive sense of what is morally right or wrong:

Care/Harm;
Fairness/Cheating;
Loyalty/Betrayal;
Authority/Subversion;
and Sanctity/Degradation.

A sixth foundation, Liberty/Oppression, was added to the model later. Caring actions are likely to be viewed as moral, harmful actions as immoral, and so on. Haidt also proposes that in society, there are two distinct groups of people: those whose moral sense is dominated by the Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating foundations, and those for whom all six foundations count more equally.

It seems clear that Xu is in the former category. He has publicly stated that the purpose of his challenge to the traditional martial arts community was to “fight fraudulence”, or to expose the ineffectiveness of traditional systems. This shows clear Care and Fairness motivations – in his mind, the traditional schools are cheating people by taking their money but teaching them ineffective systems, so by exposing their ineffectiveness he is protecting the public from being harmed in this way, which is a good and righteous thing to do. It also seems plausible to suggest that Xu may have been motivated by concerns of Liberty, perhaps in “freeing” would-be martial artists from a perceived oppression by the traditional schools. However, Xu has failed to realise how his actions would be perceived by people in the latter category. The depth with which the traditional martial arts are ingrained in Chinese culture means that his challenge appears disloyal to his heritage, subversive of the authority of the traditional schools in society, and degrading of traditions which are viewed by many as sacred. It is this interpretation of his actions which triggered the outrage that has made him a virtual outcast.

The relevance of this to conflict management and self-protection can be understood by assessing Xu’s actions against another model, this time the model of “winning” put forward by Martin Cooper [3]. In Cooper’s model, to achieve complete victory a person must “win” on four levels:

overcome adrenaline and fear to be able to perform;
overcome your opponent;
overcome criminal charges to preserve your liberty;
and overcome civil charges to preserve your resources.

Marc MacYoung has proposed a fifth level: survive retribution from the person you defeated [4]. If we examine Xu’s actions against this model, we can see that he won at the first level, since he was clearly able to perform in the fight; he won at the second level, easily overcoming his opponent; since the fight was consensual, criminal and civil legal consequences were not an issue, so the third and fourth levels are irrelevant; and as far as we know, the repercussions that Xu has experienced have not come directly from his defeated opponent. Therefore Cooper’s model, with MacYoung’s extension, can’t explain why Xu “lost everything” in the way that he did.

To explain the repercussions, we need to add a sixth level to the model: Protect your reputation and good name. Xu “lost” by failing to appreciate the effects that his actions would have on his reputation.

Reputation is key to all our social relationships. Our professional reputation affects our ability to find work. Our personal reputation affects our ability to form and maintain friendships and relationships. Reputation can constitute upwards of 40% of the value of corporations, who invest billions in developing and protecting it [5]. A person with a bad reputation can quickly find themselves isolated and penniless, which even if you’ve prevailed in a confrontation, been exonerated of criminal charges, escaped civil litigation and protected yourself against direct repercussions, is not a good place to be. Xu’s example illustrates that preserving our reputation and good name must form part of a comprehensive self-protection strategy.

The first step in developing a reputational protection strategy is to consider how our actions could give rise to a moral backlash. We can do this using the framework offered by Moral Foundations Theory: how might our actions be considered harmful, unfair, disloyal, subversive of authority, degrading of something sacred, or oppressive? The second step is to consider from whom the moral backlash may come. In Xu’s case, this should have been obvious – he openly challenged a highly respected institution of society, so of course the institution in question and its many supporters would rally to its defence. In self-protection, or protection of others, it will depend very much on the individual’s particular situation. For a law enforcement or security professional, the backlash may come from community groups, for example, and may have a political as well as moral motivation. For a private individual not employed in a profession where the use of force is routine, the backlash is more likely to come from friends and colleagues who can’t cope with the reality of an act of violence, however lawful, by someone they know. Thirdly, we need to consider the form that the backlash may take, and what its adverse effects might be on a social, professional and personal level. For law enforcement & security professionals, a backlash may be overt and very public, possibly in the media; for individuals, it may be more subtle, perhaps a quiet withdrawal of social contact as people seek to distance themselves. Particular consideration should be given to our online reputation via the internet and social media. A good introductory guide to online reputation management can be found at https://goo.gl/XZ4eUJ [6] – it’s aimed at corporate executives but its principles apply equally to individuals. Finally, we need to consider how we can take pre-emptive action to strengthen our reputation and good name within our professional and social circles so as to be more resilient to any future risk to our reputation, and what reactive actions we could take to repair any damage which our reputation may suffer.

Everyone’s individual situation is different, so the purpose of this article is not to prescribe solutions, but rather to raise the issue and get the thought process started. Including reputation management in our planning and strategies should help to ensure that if the worst happens, we can come out of it still able to function in society – not ostracised, baffled and broke with no idea of how we got there.

References

[1] Tatlow, Didi Kirsten (2017, May 10). MMA fighter’s pummelling of Tai Chi master rattles China. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/world/asia/mma-martial-arts-china-tai-chi.html

[2] Haidt, Jonathan (2013). The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Penguin Books, London.

[3] Cooper, Martin. Quoted in MacYoung, Marc “Animal” & MacYoung, Dianna Gordon. Training goals, assumptions and screwups. No Nonsense Self Defense. Retrieved from http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/traininggoals.htm

[4] MacYoung, Marc “Animal” & MacYoung, Dianna Gordon. The cost of winning. No Nonsense Self Defense. Retrieved from http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/repercussions.htm

[5] Brigham, Alexander F. & Linssen, Stefan (2010, Feb 01). Your brand reputational value is irreplaceable. Protect it! Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/01/brand-reputation-value-leadership-managing-ethisphere.html

[6] Protecting company & executive reputation (2016, March 23). Ignyte. Retrieved from https://www.igniyte.com/en/resources/guides/protecting-company-executive-reputation/

Contact

hall.jp@gmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/james.hall.902819