Over the years I’ve had many conversations with people who tell me that they don’t believe in violence, and that they don’t believe in the use of physical force etc. Usually these statements are said is a self-congratulatory and judgmental tone that suggests the person purporting these views has somehow come to a higher level of understanding, about how various conflicts and confrontations can be solved, and that there is never a need for a physical solution. I respect everybody’s views and conclusions on all subject matters, however I feel the level of education that such individuals have around real world violence is so poor, unrealistic and out of touch, that they would do well to reconsider their viewpoint and entertain the possibility that there are times when physical force and violence is necessary.
If you were to see an animal repeatedly being kicked by someone, would you say something? If after saying what you did the individual kept assaulting it, would you walk away, keep trying to talk to them, or recognize that the only way to stop the animal from experiencing further pain was to intervene physically? Replace the animal, with a baby. At what point would you give up protecting either creature’s right to enjoy a life without being physically punished, and experiencing pain. If you believe that you can argue, debate and convince the individuals that carry out such acts, to change their ways, you have little experience of dealing with entitled predators who act without conscience, and a very elevated view of your own set off negotiation and conflict resolution skills. Don’t think that because you are good at resolving disputes at home and in the workplace that these skills naturally transfer to real-life violent situations; I’ll tell you now that they don’t, what works in the boardroom/office does not work on the streets – these are two very different environments with very different characters.
I remember during my academic studies, reading about a sexual predator who would create wounds in small babies and then rape the wound. At the time I couldn’t think of a more violent act (unfortunately I can now, and there is little limit to the methods of causing pain and torment, that I can imagine – and that’s one of the depressing elements about studying violence), however I know that many people who believe that violence can be dealt with through non-physical means, aren’t thinking about and imagining such extreme acts. If such people were to be in the same environment where such a barbarous act was taking place, would they really not forcefully intervene, would they really believe that a good talking to would suffice? I find this very hard to believe, and would question their humanity, if they would stick to a non-physical approach because enacting physical force against another human being is wrong.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not talking about individuals who feel they should intervene on another person’s behalf but don’t feel they have the ability to do so. I am not taking a harsh stance against those who would like to be able to defend themselves against others but are scared and lack the way withal to do this. I am talking about those individuals who believe that fighting, in all its forms, is wrong, that there is never a time when it is justified to use physical force (and I’m excluding lethal force for the sake of this argument) against another.
Violence and survival is in our blood. I truly don’t believe we are beings that exist upon a higher plane, where we have dispensed with our animal instincts and have somehow evolved to a higher existence – neither do I believe that there are an elite few who have. We are animals plain and simple, albeit animals who have the ability to understand, make sense of and articulate our emotional state etc. and survival is in our blood. If someone was to hold your head underwater you would naturally fight to try and gain air, because every cell in your body would want you to get air and survive – you might give up sooner than others if you felt resigned to your fate, but your initial response would be to fight for air. It surprises me that those who feel they are somehow above fighting an attacker, who wants to cause them or somebody else harm, doesn’t acknowledge that in this instance they would fight to survive, but if faced with an armed assailant wishing to kill them (or others) would claim that it is wrong to fight. There is a big difference between being scared and not wanting to fight, and trying to claim that somehow we have moved beyond our animal instincts to fight, and to survive.
The Nazis killed 5-6 million of my people in a systematic and calculated fashion. The Nazi regime was ended not by negotiation or be compromise or by talking but by force, and extreme violence. Was any of this pleasant, nice or easy? Of course not, but there was no other way. If various parties had not decided to use violence, there would be no Jewish people. There are situations where violence is acceptable, necessary and justified. Will ISIS change its ways because of debate, reasoning and rationale? Only a fool would think so. An ideology that crucifies children, is not operating rationally or intellectually but emotionally. Whilst there may be many ways to prevent, deter and convince individuals not to join the ranks of ISIS, there is only one way to actually finish such an entity, and that is by extreme violence.
Just because I believe that there are situations where a violent response is necessary doesn’t mean that I teach or promote this course/route as a first response. Anyone who has trained with me, read my book, watched my videos, read this blog etc. will know how much stock I put in the prediction, prevention and avoidance of violence, how I stress disengagement and acquiescence where appropriate etc. However when it comes to survival, not ego (put your Tapout T-Shirt away), of myself or those I care about, there is only one response and that is extreme violence. If somebody has a response that exists on a higher moral plain than the one I exist on, and believes I am wrong, you are welcome to that opinion, but your DNA will end, and mine will go on, because that is how the survival of the fittest ultimately works. Your arguments and views may exist for this moment but ultimately they are not pervasive.