The Martialist: The Magazine For Those Who Fight Unfairly

The Martialist Q & A
by Phil Elmore, Publisher

Questions? Feedback? Click here to contact us.

I've read your introduction to The Martialist. You say that "society is full of predators." On what do you base this assumption? This idea that predators wait for us under every rock and behind every tree isn't realistic.

It isn't? Think about that for a moment. Stating plainly that society is full of predators isn't a paranoid assertion, emotional hyperbole, or a marketing ploy. It's a fact. If you can look around and honestly state that you don't believe our society (I am American and speak only about the United States) contains a significant criminal element that preys on our citizens with regularity, you're living in denial. You don't believe the news reports of shootings, stabbings, rapes, burglaries, and robberies that appear every day in the media. You don't believe the tales of your friends, relatives, and fellow citizens who all seem to know someone who's been robbed or assaulted or found themselves in an extremely threatening situation for which they felt unprepared.

When you disbelieve in this manner you are evading reality – refusing to see something you don't wish to see. This is understandable – for the reality in which we find ourselves, the reality of violence and of the potential threats that exist within society, is unpleasant. It is not a nice thing to think about and it does not make us happy. We do not get to choose to believe only those things we want to believe, however.

News reports and personal stories of violence are "anecdotal evidence." They don't support your assertion. The media is known to sensationalize things. "If it bleeds, it leads," right? Things aren't as you're painting them.

One could choose to ignore all these pieces of evidence, yes. One could choose to ignore the statistics for the murder rate in one's city and for national rates of violent crime. One could proclaim the data of one's senses and the accumulated crime figures for an entire country to be media sensationalism and illogical, hysterical interpretation of events far less harmful than our fearful assessment indicates.

One would be irrational to do so.

Check your premises, as Ayn Rand was fond of urging. Ask yourself if you would leave your child unsupervised in the food court of the average shopping mall. Ask yourself if you would leave the doors of your home unlocked at night. Ask yourself if you would feel ill at ease walking through a parking garage shrouded in darkness. Ask yourself if you would roll down your windows and chat with a homeless man if he approached your car when you were stopped at a light.

If you answered "no" to any of those questions, I have just one more:

Why?

Recognizing that there are people who will prey on you if given the opportunity – and that there are people who seek to make those opportunities – is not paranoid hysteria. It is merely realistic. Preparing to meet emergencies that have not yet occurred is not paranoid or mentally unbalanced. It is prudent.

Have you ever purchased life insurance? You don't actually think you're going to die soon, do you? Have you ever purchased a handgun and obtained a license to carry it? You don't actually think there are home invaders hiding in your shrubbery right now, do you? I tell you now that it is very possible you'll get through your entire life never being confronted by someone who means you harm or who seeks to take what you have earned. I hope you do. Unfortunately, the possibility that you won't is also real. It is measurable. You should not expect to face rampaging barbarian hordes the second you leave the relative safety of your home – but neither should you think, "It can't happen to me." The list of martial artists and others who have lost fights and had their lives forever changed because they were naïve enough to assume this is a long one.

Those who understand the risks life entails also understand that they must hedge their bets and be prepared for possible dangers. They do not stockpile illegal weapons. They do not dig foxholes in their flowerbeds. They do not sit at home sweating bullets and aiming firearms at passing cars from beneath ghillie suits knitted from their living-room curtains. They do, however, think carrying firearms or other weapons suitable for personal protection is a reasonable action. They understand that a society increasingly hostile to individual self-defense, regardless of whatever lip service that society pays to recognizing your right to preserve your life, may indeed punish them should they make the choice to use force – no matter how justified they might believe themselves to be.

No one said these people don't exist or that you shouldn't take precautions. It's not realistic to think you could be attacked at any moment or that you're always in danger.

No, it isn't. The problem is that you have no way of knowing, beyond the most general of speculation, when you truly are in danger. Very few assaults are scheduled ahead of time. Very few home invaders call ahead. You're not in constant danger, no – but the fact that danger exists is a constant one. Societal predators adhere to no fixed schedules and recognize no restrictions on their depredations beyond those imposed by force or its threat.

Does the staff of The Martialist urge you to assume everyone you meet is going to try to kill you? Of course not. Rather, we state quite plainly that among the handful, dozens, or scores of people whose paths you cross on any given day as you go through your life could be individuals who represent a threat – and you won't know ahead of time who they are. As a result you must maintain a perceivable level of alertness when you are out and about. You may choose to take this a step further and seek out the training and the tools – including legally possessed weapons – that give you an advantage should an altercation occur.

A lot of "combat" instructors, who preach the doctrine of overwhelming force in the face of the attack, are telling their students to do things that would send them to jail! Your opinions are no different and you seem to side with exponents of the killer mindset philosophy. Are you encouraging illegal actions?

No. I am not and could not encourage anyone to take specific actions – because I cannot live any other person's life for him or for her. The attitude of martialism, among other things, is based on respect for individual sovereignty – the idea that you as a person are inviolable unless you choose to violate someone else's sovereignty. I see my fellow citizens' freedom of action as a benefit, not a threat – but for this reason I believe individual responsibility for individual action begins and ends with that individual. No one can take decisions for you. No one can take responsibility for those decisions but you. I am encouraging you to think and to do what you believe to be the right thing based on all the factors – legal, social, moral, spiritual... personal.

I hope you never have to fight anyone for any reason. But if you must defend yourself – if you find yourself faced with force that cannot or should not be avoided and you choose to preserve your well-being or the well-being of others – I hope every such fight is unfair. I hope you are so prepared that there is no question who will win and who will lose if you must use force against an aggressive foe. That is what it means to "fight unfairly," to "cheat" when engaged in the gamble that is life. Hedge your bets through education and training. Stack the deck by being more prepared than those who would hurt you.

I also hope you recognize the risks. I hope you understand: society often demands that you assume the risk – that you let the attacker dictate the encounter and use no more force than the force he employs. You may find this morally objectionable. You may believe that because he has chosen to attack you, he assumes the risk of whatever you might do to defend yourself in dealing with a situation he created.

The choice is yours – and the consequences are yours to suffer.

The contributors to The Martialist hope to empower you with information that helps you be prepared, avoid problems, and deal with aggression if you must – but this e-zine is not legal advice and cannot take the place of your own judgment. Only you can decide what you must do and what consequences you are willing to accept. Can you live with hurting someone? Can you live with going to jail for doing it? Would you rather suffer injury yourself before risking the horrors of prison, of societal censure? That choice, too, is yours to make.

Most people assume their instructors are giving them "correct" information. If you side with these black-clad combat types, how are you not simply encouraging people do break the law without realizing the full extent of their actions?

As adults, we are responsible for what we do and what we believe. The martial arts world is rife with instructors who take advantage of their students – people who rape them, defraud them, bully them, brainwash them, teach them poor techniques or questionable principles. Countless discussions online have been devoted to these abuses. Simply because you meet someone who claims to be a teacher, who imparts information to you, who earns (or otherwise acquires) your respect and your admiration, does not mean you can disengage your brain and let that teacher think for you.

You must strive, at all times, to have an active mind. Take no one's word for what is legal, for what is moral, for what is right. Instead, approach the issues as logically, as rationally, as you can. Do your homework. Think. If what you are learning in class strikes you as incorrect, as dangerous, as useless, or as otherwise questionable, say so. If the answers you receive do not stand up to logical analysis, walk away. Make your own decisions in life based on the available information.

We who write for The Martialist hope the information we provide will interest you and also entertain you. We do not, however, expect you to simply turn off your minds and believe everything we tell you. You are a sovereign individual and you must think for yourself.

Some of the instructors you defend are teaching preemptive strikes – "self-offense as the best defense," and so forth. That's going to get you killed in court!

Yes, it very well could. It could send you to prison for a very long time. Those same instructors will tell you that the opposite – allowing the attacker to dominate the altercation, to take the initiative – will get you killed physically. That's the choice you make, the choice that makes violent confrontations such a wrenching dilemma to many living in contemporary society. You are damned if you do and damned if you do not. The choice you must make is, what do you believe to be right? Do you believe you and your attacker are morally equivalent? Do you believe you deserve to assume the physical risk of the confrontation?

You're creating a false moral imperative to justify actions of which society does not approve. How dare you encourage people to flout society's conventions?

I am encouraging people to do nothing except think for themselves. You are born into a social contract consisting of a single clause: you must obey society's laws to remain within it. We at The Martialist do not encourage you to oppose societal conventions or to break the law – far from it. However, we do not believe that society is always right simply because it is society. Do you honestly believe the opinions of the majority are immutable and never to be questioned?

That's the same logic used by criminals to rationalize their actions. They claim society doesn't understand them or approve of them but they are justified in doing what they did.

It's also the same logic used by the Founding Fathers of the United States in signing the Declaration of Independence. It's the same logic used by Harriet Tubman, who smuggled slaves to freedom. It's the same logic used by civil rights protestors in the 1960s who resisted prejudice and institutionalized racism and wrought incredible change in society by so doing. Who was Rosa Parks to encourage others to flout society's conventions, after all?

My point is that a belief is not automatically correct or incorrect, moral or immoral, simply because societal convention holds it to be so. You cannot say, "I am morally right simply for standing up to society, with which I disagree" any more than you can say, "I am morally right because I am taking the brave stand of agreeing with societal conventions."

The morality of an act must be determined objectively and within context. Predators who try to justify evil using morality or some great crusade (against a society that supposedly marginalizes them) invariably rely on illogical thought processes to make their cases. No amount of believing themselves to be justified alters the objective analysis of their actions. Moral judgments can be difficult, but this does not make them impossible. All rational adults possess the ability to make them if they choose to do so.

If you judge incorrectly – if you are in error – you will pay for your mistakes. That, too, is inescapable. More profoundly, others will pay for your errors in moral judgment. That is yet another factor you must take into consideration when choosing to use force and deciding the degree of force you will employ.

The choice, again, remains yours to make. Choose wisely.

You can't suggest an individual has the moral authority to defy society, though. That's irresponsible. Who determines "moral authority?"

Suggesting that societal conventions are immutable is what I would consider irresponsible. If society can never be wrong, no societal ills can be challenged, no unjust laws resisted – for the challengers will be shouted down as immoral for daring to dissent.

Moral authority, for that matter, isn't granted by some agency from whom we must petition it. Moral authority is a function of reality – of logic applied to that reality. A person who initiates force against you is violating objective moral principles and thus surrendering his or her sovereignty through that violation.

I've read posts online by people who don't like you or who say you shouldn't be taken seriously.

I'm not surprised. Why would you take them seriously? One of my favorite critics used to be a particularly sad, anonymous devotee of the S.C.A.R.S. combat system who seemed to have profoundly low self-esteem. A few others include people whose systems I've publicly panned, like the "Hikuta" practitioners, as well as various vulgar children, brittle ninja, neckless mixed martial arts (MMA) freaks, the cast of countless trolls at Bullshido, and other pretenders. Every time someone like that criticizes me online, I know I'm doing something right – because anyone who would side with these kung-fools is going to get what he deserves, ultimately.

You express a lot of opinions, but you're not a member of the military, a law enforcement officer, or anybody of consequence. You know nothing about these things, so how can you talk about them?

Yes, how dare I have an opinion? Lots of people think you've got to have an impressive resume to have an opinion. Still more think you've got to be a member of some select club – say, the club of instructors, or the club of military veterans, or the club of law enforcement officers. I say that anyone can express a logical opinion and substantiate it using reason. Every argument can stand or fall on its own merits. Every concerned citizen has a right to his opinions and may express them as he or she sees fit. I'm simply better at expressing my opinions than many – and I have a very good platform from which to do so. That platform exists because my contributors and I took the time to build it.

You're reading an online magazine – an e-zine – published, edited, and written (at least in part) by a mere civilian. I'm a writer, not a fighter. I'm a citizen, not a soldier. I'm an average guy, not a superhero. I'm an everyman, not an athlete. In the time I've studied the martial arts and self-defense I've managed to learn concepts and make conclusions about things that I think are worth passing on to other average citizens – in the context of sharing them as such. I don't try to pretend to be anything I'm not and I don't expect anyone to be impressed by anything I say simply because I say they should be or because of whatever credentials I'd like to have and don't.

I can't wave around a black belt certificate, a veteran's record, a police officer's badge, or any other claim to authority as a way to support my arguments, because I don't possess any such thing. What I do have is an active mind, a respect for logic, and ability to reason, and more than a decade and a half spent pursuing success in self-defense through varying avenues of study (including commercial and non-commercial martial arts).

To this I also bring my ability to write clearly, effectively, and in an engaging and entertaining style, which I like to think is what makes The Martialist worthwhile. When I write an article, I don't simply pontificate on topics about which I know nothing – even if, frankly, I haven't "been there and done that." I apply the data of my senses, my own research, material produced by others, and everything else available to me, supporting my arguments as best as I am able. The reader is free to draw conclusions on that basis and to criticize what I write accordingly.

What I'll never do, however, is tell you that I'm some sort of expert and that you should agree with me because I'm Phil Elmore. That's an attitude I won't accept in others and I would never presume to disrespect my readers by indulging in it. I believe everyone has something to contribute and every human being has the inalienable right to self-defense. That means the opinions and the life of a "mere mortal" – a private citizen, a civilian, a subject – are just as worth considering when supported reasonably as those of any other person.

There are plenty of sites, books, and training materials produced by self-appointed experts and hard-traveled veterans of all manner of hardship and horror. You're free to purchase their wares – just as I do – but you needn't confine your studies solely to them. If you're an interested private citizen like me (or even a military or law enforcement operative interested in what private citizens think), this publication can be of great value to you. I presume no particular superiority to anyone reading this, but neither do I diminish what I think I can offer.

That's the respect I have for you, the reader.

All right, then, let's talk about credibility. How many people have these combat instructors killed? How many real self-defense altercations have they had? How many people have YOU fought, Phil Elmore? What credibility do you think you have?

I can't address the personal experiences of anyone else, but this query speaks to logically fallacious thinking. The validity of a given statement or opinion (unless that opinion specifically invokes the authority of the person stating it as reason to find the opinion compelling) is found entirely within the substance of the opinion. To attack the person offering that opinion is the logical fallacy of ad hominem – specifically, "attack on the man."

Examine each opinion critically. Ask yourself to what degree that opinion corresponds to reality. If you lack the information to make that determination, reserve judgment. Do not, however, attack people when you should be dealing substantively with their ideas.

If you believe only those who've maimed or even killed other people have the "credibility" to express opinions about self-defense and the use of force, you are free to ignore or dismiss anyone who hasn't. Be careful, however, in offering speculation as to how few "real" experiences someone else may have. Those who've actually used force in real life outside of environments in which it is socially sanctioned (such as war and the enforcement of law) will be reluctant to speak of it publicly – and for good reason. Don't ever mistake the refusal to speak of something as the admission that the person refusing does not understand and has not experienced it.

Of course, don't be taken in by affected thousand-yard stares and world-weary protestations, either. There are plenty of Virtual Tough Guys who use reverse psychology to bolster their egos. No matter what you are told, you can't know personal information that another person won't share. You can assume if you wish. Sometimes you'll be right. Other times you'll just look petty and foolish.

If the traditionalists reading this wish to look down their noses at the "reality" fighting crowd, sniffing that such people are posturing loose cannons who have no real fighting experience, they should be sure to include the hundreds or thousands of traditional and contemporary martial arts instructors churning out deluded students today. Far too many schools in the martial arts world – commercial strip-mall dojos, traditional sport-oriented training halls, individual teachers who've traveled abroad and fancy themselves enlightened through this exposure – are producing individuals who think they're going to control any encounter, doling out compassionate and harmonious self-defense while dancing their way through trouble, quoting lines of Japanese or Chinese poetry the entire time.

Making someone believe his sport is a means of defending himself is as offensive as the condescending and often ignorant pronouncements of practitioners of these "martial" sports. If what you practice is not a martial art at all, your complaints about those who are teaching self-defense may or may not be the product of ignorance. Examine your opinions critically.

Now, where I am concerned, personally, I will tell you right now that I will not answer the question, "How many people have you fought?" No good ever comes of it. If I've been in documented altercations, these would be a matter of public record. If I've been in undocumented altercations, I'd be a fool to admit it. If I say I've been in no confrontations, this will be taken by some as license to dismiss what I say – without actually examining the content of those opinions.

If you wish, then, to take my refusal to answer the question as some sort of admission of a lack of experience, you may. If you wish to see some unflattering motive in refusing to answer the question, you certainly can. I have never pretended to be anyone I am not and I have never claimed to be an expert or an authority.

What I am is a concerned individual who believes strongly in what he does and in the information he shares.

What you think of that, and what you do with it, is up to you.