Understanding Violence: an Indicator for Trust
Remaining comfortable in the face of force is a trait of only free trustworthy men
In response to a both a background in martial arts, and having recently finished a review of the book “When Violence is the Answer” a discussion of the topic seemed necessary. It is necessary to discuss full contact skilled executions of violence in the context of martial discipline and mindset. Sometimes referred to as “effective”, “combative”, or “full-contact” forms of study. Proper combative artforms require discipline, study and persistence. Importantly, it requires a tolerance (or enthusiasm) for both receiving and delivering physical offense.
A conversation with a colleague led us down an interesting intellectual rabbit hole. An intellectual rabbit hole that helps to justify one of my favorite high-brow logical fallacies: the appeal to physiognomy. An appeal that appears to be increasingly accurate in the era of AI. Entertainingly an appeal that is functionally the perfect inversion of the progressivist fallacy that all peoples are equal when they clearly aren’t.
Humans subconsciously note when some one has a facial structure and emotive affectation, of being focused and disciplined. A trained martial artist or athletic expert will also generally be able to note muscle structure and identify whether or not physical training has taken place. Sometimes it’s possible to identify a specific combat sport. BJJ (Brazilian Jiujitsu) is an example. It is not uncommon for specialists to consistently identify their fellows by look and body language.
Subconscious physical identifiers include a number of features. Sparring reveals in addition psychological features. In this way it is with relative ease that a person can be identified politically. Leftwing or right wing. Cowardly or brave. Resilient or fragile. Undisciplined or controlled.
Those trained in combative martial arts almost always display resilience, bravery, and discipline in the rest of their lives. This is a concept parents are sold to send their children to learn soft/safe childish martial arts like Karate and such. Of course, soft/safe martial arts hardly have the same effect on personality, much less physiology. There are a lot of fat karate teachers and fencers, but no fat MMA coaches.
With that in mind as a background: it has become self-evident that those uncomfortable with violence are generally left aligned. Simultaneously, those uncomfortable with violence are fundamentally untrustworthy. It is a fools errand to bestow trust upon a man unable to defend himself physically.
[Exception for those comfortable with violence but unable to fight due to physical disfigurement]
The Political Left
Woke progressivism itself is a method of utilizing a proxy for authority due to weakness. Emotional weakness seeks to use the state as a proxy parent figure to silence those unwilling to play make-believe with you. Physical weakness seeks to use the state as a proxy figure to deliver violence on ones behalf. Intellectual weakness seeks to use the state as a proxy figure to ensure equity between groups.
The woke progressive caters to fragile and weak people. Not just physically fragile, but intellectually and emotionally fragile as well. That is why the majority of hardline progressives express some type of significant mental illness. Progressivism is kept propped up only by strong conservatives willing to act on behalf of the political left for pay. That will last only as long as it’s possible to pay off the mercenaries that hold the rest of the nation hostage. Without some form of immediate method to compensate its protectors, the ideology of progressivism dies.
Trust
Those uncomfortable with violence are fundamentally untrustworthy because, to them, truth is whatever the man with the ability to execute violence says. Those who are uncomfortable defending themselves physically are almost always similarly unable to defend themselves intellectually. Always such people default to the nearest safe majority-opinion.
Not all people comfortable with violence should be trusted, but those uncomfortable with violence fundamentally can’t be trusted. Those unwilling to commit to violence, are always, always at the mercy of those who are willing to commit violence. Thus in them there is no honor or truth. There is only the majority opinion or (worse) the opinion of those who currently hold power.
Discipline is a major reason real martial artists tend to be right-wing while fake arm-chair-masters tend to be left-wing. The left-wing provides the fake martial artists with cover. Often taking the form of tournament-rules-lawyering or magical thinking (chi and ‘I would kill you if I showed you’ nonsense). Fortunately, things like ultimate fighting and video evidence have helped a great deal to weed fake martial artists out of the discipline in most areas of the world.
Those uncomfortable with violence will turn on you the moment that their own physical comfort or security is at risk. It also indicates weakness to interrogation, the threat of social shaming, or something as trivial as mockery. Those uncomfortable with violence are fundamentally unable to act in a fashion that is counter to the prevailing narrative unless an alternative coercive threat is provided.
Currently, the political Left holds the majority of the coercive force in the West via the legal and social systems (hopefully that will change soon). Until that changes, however, those that are conceptually uncomfortable with violence remain liabilities. This is one reason why sparring some one in a proper combative martial art is an excellent method to judge trustworthiness.
Those uncomfortable at the mere notion of “Let’s put on some boxing gloves and go a round” cannot be trusted. Those willing to fight but unable to remain disciplined or take their hits are potential liabilities due to temperament. Still useful, but should be managed carefully.
[To those of you who are trained martial artists, this doesn’t mean “be a dick and beat them up” it means test them as you would any other new guy in your boxing ring or on your jits floor.]
The people you can speak with honestly are those that can take their hits, deliver a few, and remain willing to have a beer after to comment on successes or failures in the bout. This doesn’t mean that every martial artist is a trustworthy right-wing dissident. However, combatives can be used as an excellent judge of character.
The honor culture emergent in martial arts gyms stands as a solid bulwark against woke politics. Capacity is honored, those that are weak are given chance to improve. Those who are willing to stand and fight in simulacra are willing to fight for what they believe in. They’re also going to defend their friends and family, even if society or the government tells them they shouldn’t. Honoring our own families and people are what this cultural combat is all about.
When judging a new member of your friend group, clique, or political organization, a challenge to boxing or jiujitsu might be a good move. To that end, it is recommended to have enough gear for 2 people, and be sufficiently trained yourself to be able to safely spar a new guy. Reading some one from combat requires a lot of experience on your end as well, and showing up to a martial arts class once or twice a week is good for a lot of reasons.
So train: BJJ, MMA, HEMA… and I hear there are other active-clubs across the country. Even better, let’s see if we can bring back mutual combat and duels. The radical cultural changes that would have could only be for the better. Expect a future article advocating for the resurgence of honor-combat and duels.
As a slight counterpoint, when I did martial arts in College about twenty years back, every instructor save one was a complete shitlib. This wasn't a full MMA gym, but still a pretty hard contact Tang Soo Do dojo. That being said, leftism twenty years ago is far different than modern leftism.
One of my strongest memories was when we were practicing stick fighting, and one of the black-belts, who was going through a messy divorce, lost his temper and went nuts on his opponent, going so far as braking the stick. The opponent, enraged, walked out of the ring and screamed at his ill-tempered colleague, who could only hang his head in shame. Not only was it dangerous, but it murdered the implicit trust the black-belts had that they could keep their cool when things got messy. It was a betrayal.
My mother always said, "Never turn your back on a pacifist" meaning, in case it's not clear, to keep your eye on them as they are likely to attack you from behind.