RSS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN8Cb5kISio
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
JUNE 8 2017
Alarming new footage shows commentator Andrew Bolt being assaulted on the streets of Melbourne in what he says is an example of how dangerous the city has become for conservatives.
The video, posted on social media on Thursday morning, shows a hooded man approaching Bolt from behind and throwing a substance at his head, initiating a brawl in broad daylight on busy Lygon Street.
The ensuing scuffle sees Bolt pushed into a pole and then falling over chairs and tables outside a restaurant. He fights back fiercely, kicking and punching his two assailants in the face and groin before they give up and start to walk away. …
Melbourne Antifa, a loose collection of left-wing activists united behind “anti-fascist action”, appeared to claim a role in the incident, posting on Facebook that “some of our family in solidarity were attacked by Andrew Bolt while they were protesting today”.
The group argued Bolt should be imprisoned for his “violent, horrendous language”.
Bolt told Fairfax Media the attack was the latest in a long line of threats to the safety of himself, his family and other conservatives in his home city.
“I am sick of people trying to intimidate me, trying to threaten me,” he said. “I’m sick of the threats on my life and my reputation. I’m sick of being sued and bullied and I’m not going to take it. I’m just not going to take it.
“We should be free to have a debate and to walk down the street without fear of being attacked.
“The right to free speech has to be better protected – everywhere but particularly in Melbourne.”
https://youtu.be/GekgHgk7QGE
When I saw the photo you posted, the expression from the good book came to mind: Who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_Boys
I think Mr Bolt used to work as a bouncer in his young years.
Amazing he wasn’t charged with assault or “common affray” under Australia’s shit legal system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmohao7jXnc
Notice that the attackers have a video camera and they really don't fight back much considering they outnumber him. It looks like they instigated a fight but set him up to throw the punches, filmed him, then ran off.
Dude! They have Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds!
Another is that he is a new Greener superhero: Captain Bait Shop (for the worms on his haid).
I've also heard that they are Olympia's new roller derby team: the Evergreen Garden Sluggers (reference to that apartment complex).
But I don't like jokes that deride banana slugs, who actually work for a living and don't cause trouble. :D
Amazing he wasn't charged with assault or "common affray" under Australia's shit legal system.
Actually, I don’t think he’s out of the woods yet. In this alternate video, it looks like he was set up.
Notice that the attackers have a video camera and they really don’t fight back much considering they outnumber him. It looks like they instigated a fight but set him up to throw the punches, filmed him, then ran off.
Bolt is employed by the Murdoch press, which hasn't covered this story seriously, unlike the despised Sydney Morning Herald.
Expect Murdoch to give Bolt the flick if he is charged.
Maybe. Alot of these libturds see how the justice system turns a blind eye to what they do, they probably assume (with some justification) that they could just walk up and gang assault a man who's old enough to have an AARP card, film themselves doing it, post it online, and just bask in the praise of other useful idiots like themselves without repercussions, because he's -gasp- conservative!
Good to see he fought back. These little sh*ts tend to curl up and wither away when they get as good as they give out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmohao7jXnc
Notice that the attackers have a video camera and they really don't fight back much considering they outnumber him. It looks like they instigated a fight but set him up to throw the punches, filmed him, then ran off.
Instead of “Defends Himself Manfully” it could be titled “Defends Himself Hotheadedly”. Best to remember the old Sicilian proverb “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”
Yes the professor could have just stood there and took the blows and be totally dependent on the mercy of his attackers that they won't kill or cripple him. But it's a bad bet which only encourages these predators.
And when you do fight back anti-fa wimps out, in the U.S. they curled up and died when that skank at a anti-fa rally tangled with a red neck and got knocked on her ass. All those years of feminist and marxist studies didn't prepare her or those other freaks about what happens when the prey fights back.
Ok, so how is he going to identify the masked attackers in order to obtain revenge? What would revenge consist of? And how, as a token conservative in the leftist MSM, is he going to get anything accomplished against them using his position?
No, if anything he went soft on them. It's hard to know if they had weapons, but it sure would feel good if in that situation to close the distance and use any of the nearby hard surfaces to inflict greater damage.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/manfully
The college “Desperate for Dick Club”. You know those bats have psychological significance.
What’s with the little bust of Muhammad in the lower-right corner of the affray video?
Grandpa is a fighter.
But how come this got filmed. That clip must be form the antifa side, right?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/dutch-treat-in-lygon-street-directors-cut/news-story/f088f5ec16b0770f9aea5188f97bfa4e
Steve, thanks. I’ve written several comments the last few weeks speculating that violence and threats of violence likely do a lot to mold public thought. Simply put, contrary opinions or questioning of the Zeitgeist are put down by beat-down a lot more often than is assumed.
My local newspaper ran an editorial condemning violence against journalists, to which I replied, and the following is an excerpt:
“Having done a bit of smalltime investigatory writing, I grok what the editorial writer is saying. I suspect there are untold journalists who’ve been subject to violence and threats of violence, intimidation by aggressive shadowing, and efforts to squelch stories by bribery and extortion, blackmail, official disinformation and false testimony, and plenty more.”
“Journalists ought to think about getting armed and getting that concealed carry permit when faced with tough assignments. A meaningful First Amendment will be better safeguarded when the Fourth Estate robustly embraces the Second Amendment.”
Two questions come to mind. One, what are the odds that this is a setup and a false flag, meant to make the guy look good?
And two, are a lot of other media picking this story up a lot, or not? It seems like whenever an athlete or coach anywhere in the world throws even a single ineffective punch in the general direction of a journalist, tons of other journalists write stories about how horrible that was and make a big important deal out of it. I wonder if this kind of pro-journalism bias is strong enough to extend to cases where the (supposed) progressives come out looking like totally ineffective losers.
Funny how the so-called “antifa” revile the KKK, yet today it’s the phony “antifa” who wear hoods and masks.
Last night’s D.C. truck attack is not getting much coverage. Was it a message of love from the religion of peace? Aloha snackbar.
https://twitter.com/ZacAdwell/status/873026680389902336
Here is a fair-use excerpt from today's story in the WaPo:
It appears as if he got those guys pretty good. Well done.
The problem is that this right no longer exists, I am not even talking about not being able to make money because one is hounded out of everything by endless boycotts if one says the wrong thing, I am talking about how “hate speech” laws are now universally in place as a convenient method to halt free speech.
Thank you for putting “antifa” in quotes, where it belongs. Using that word (or neologism) without irony is equivalent to ceding substantial ground to the enemy.
Language controls thought, which controls action. Does everyone really want to be known as fascists? Even if you are not troubled by it in theory, the simple fact is that it conjures the worst possible imagery in the minds of the masses.
You may wish it were otherwise, but we have to live in the real world, with actual reality, and we don’t get to define all of it, so long as the other side has the megaphone. Don’t give ammo to the enemy. Don’t let them control your language.
Thank you: you are the first person to notice those richly apt quotes. "Antifa" are anti-fascist as much as Hitler was a Judeophile.
When I saw the photo you posted, the expression from the good book came to mind: Who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
“…some of our family in solidarity were attacked by Andrew Bolt while they were protesting today.”
Vox Day has it right: Social Justice Warriors always lie. Even when there is a video posted online proving them to be liars, they still have the chutzpah to lie in the face of plain fact. Amazing.
The time has clearly come, alas, when the Law won’t defend the innocent. All those who would secure “the blessings of Liberty” for themselves and their posterity must now literally fight for their right to live in a free society.
“Bolt” is the perfect name for a warrior; maybe the anti-Antifas could use a truncated lightning bolt as a logo. Who cares what the Antifa thugs think?
Antifa and other left wing degenerates receive their trusted news from TV comedians.
Their crying-bullying behavior is a common trait of all victim cult freaks.
Antifa is comprised of typical victim cultists, such as feminist, queers, blacks, Jewish, Muslims, Latinos, illegal aliens, and national socialist.
President Kennedy made Winston Churchill an honorary US citizen for helping the US beat the Nazis.
President Trump should make this guy an honorary US citizen for giving a beat-down to the Nazis.
I often say Churchill was the great hero of the twentieth century. Imagine how much more he might have been, if he had been all American.
Note that I never say his when in England.
Some background on Bolt for the benefit of Steve’s readers:
Bolt is one of Australia’s best-known conservative commentators, and the most prominent in Melbourne. No other commentator is excoriated as much by the SJW left and its MSM enablers. It is therefore no surprise that leftist thugs would want to target him in particular.
A few years ago, Bolt was sued under a notorious law (section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which operates much like section 13 did in Canada until Mark Steyn succeeded in getting it repealed) for two newspaper columns he wrote. In them he exposed the racket whereby middle-class individuals with small amounts of Aboriginal ancestry manage to win large numbers of government grants and jobs reserved for Aboriginal people, supposedly to compensate for their entrenched poverty and disadvantage.
Bolt lost the case due largely to the judge, a creature of the leftist political machine in this city, who perversely interpreted Bolt’s comments in a way that enabled them to be found in breach of section 18C.
While Bolt is understandably bitter about the case, he hasn’t slowed in his efforts to expose the hypocrisies and lies of the left, and champion conservative values. He is particularly concerned about the Muslim and African influx which has led to instances of terrorism and an endless wave of serious crime.
I long knew of his moral courage, but the physical courage he showed in the face of this attack on a Melbourne street is a revelation.
Yes, the exposure of rigged-up, undue enrichment will earn a writer big-time, long lasting enmity. Thanks.
The craziest thing about the current leftist fad for taking violent action is that they run the risk of people on the right – who are often strongly support and exercise their 2nd amendment rights – deciding it’s time to apply force in response. This won’t end well at all, but the media will portray it as being the fault of conservatives, rather than leftist administrators and professors egging on gullible college students to take risks they never would themselves.
Unfortunately, the same is pretty much true in ultra-leftist American cities like New York, D.C., and San Francisco.
Places where Second Amendment rights are ironclad (e.g., West Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona) don't have any antifa problems whatsoever.
In the book Defying Hitler, Sebastian Haffner talks about his utter disappointment with how quickly the left folded in the face of Nazi violence. I certainly don't care to have a Nazi takeover, so I'm hoping the leftist violence is quashed before that happens.
https://twitter.com/ZacAdwell/status/873026680389902336
The story of the two bicycle cops made the early-morning TV news here. It was “tragic traffic mishap, motives unknown.”
Here is a fair-use excerpt from today’s story in the WaPo:
BRILLIANT BOLT FIGHTS BACK AGAINST ANTI-FREE SPEECH DIM BULBs
Andrew Bolt’s masterful counter-attack starting at 40 seconds into the video must be taught as a fighting method. The Bolt Method was great. Bolt first pushed the first masked anti-free speech scumbag out of the way while preparing to deal with the other. This created the necessary torque in the torso to deliver a straight jab right to the face of the second masked anti-free speech scumbag.
Antipodean Andrew Bolt has had enough of the anti-free speech dirtbags. Bolt has made all Australia proud. I don’t know nothing of Bolt nor his politics, I don’t care. Bolt was sneakily attacked while his back was turned by masked anti-free speech rats. Andrew Bolt fought back brilliantly.
Bolt now begins the pushback period for Western Civilization. The masked anti-free speech rats have gone too far. Boltism in Australia is now combining with Based Stick Manism in the United States to form a new resistance to anti-free speech tyranny.
YOU SHALL NOT SILENCE US DAMMIT!
57 channels and nothings on? Springsteen sang that. Andrew Bolt is 57 and he made those anti-free speech thugs see 57 stars.
Andrew Bolt Says BASTA to the anti-free speech thugs.
I say BRAVO to Andrew Bolt!
Australians are great. “Sympathy is for losers.”
I remember my now legendary Australian brother-in-law, the WWII veteran fighter pilot, getting into a bar fight in Seal Beach with some British sailors half his age who were on shore leave there. They had said something insulting to Australians, or he had said something insulting to the pommy bastards.
He came out with a black eye, and steam coming out his ears.
Who took the video of the attack on Andrew Bolt? It opens with Bolt being attacked from behind, then shows him brawling with the masked men, successfully fighting back, one-against-two. Then a bystander shows up, and the assailants run down the sidewalk.
An accomplice must have filmed the incident, then posted the video on Facebook. But it sure paints Bolt as brave and effective, while his two (three) attackers start off by looking cowardly, and then graduate to weak.
Presumably this is antifa virtue signalling (“some of our family in solidarity were attacked by Andrew Bolt while they were protesting today”). They must see things somewhat differently than an outsider like me.
PS I happened upon a youtube video called Spartan martial art or something. For once it appears genuinely doable for someone not very strong but active faced with some Antifa type clown.
1) Distract with a blow to eyes or throat.
2) Come in quick, bend, grab his thighs, flip him over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb5kt9nBWQk&list=PLUijExNmAOXtLIiKLyyrjkIVeYuqZPkw3&index=2
The Brownshirts saw themselves as victims, too, free to beat up those whose ideology differed.
We saw something similar at Trump rallies - the left attacked and the media swung into action to highlight the violence with the clear implication that Trump supporters were the cause of the problem, not the target.
The winners get to write the history.
There is no Second Amendment in Australia, or most other Western Countries… the Left controls the governments and self-defense is a crime in many jurisdictions, so the Left owns the streets.
Unfortunately, the same is pretty much true in ultra-leftist American cities like New York, D.C., and San Francisco.
Places where Second Amendment rights are ironclad (e.g., West Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona) don’t have any antifa problems whatsoever.
White men in Oklahoma (with the exception of a few hipster and yuppie enclaves in Tulsa and OKC) are still a pretty rough bunch. Nothing like the effete pansies I see portrayed in virtually every tv program or commercial I see.
Unfortunately, the same is pretty much true in ultra-leftist American cities like New York, D.C., and San Francisco.
Places where Second Amendment rights are ironclad (e.g., West Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona) don’t have any antifa problems whatsoever.
Yesterday, the Governor of FL signed into law a stronger "Stand Your Ground Law." Under the FL "Stand Your Ground" law, a person that has come under attack has no duty to retreat. Prior to yesterday, if a person was arrested after protecting himself and planned to use a defense under "Stand Your Ground," that person would need to prove to a judge's satisfaction at a pretrial hearing that "Stand Your Ground" is an acceptable defense at trial. Now it's the prosecutor's burden to prove that "Stand Your Ground" doesn't apply.
The regular legal-theory of "Self Defense" still applies and is different from but similar to "Stand Your Ground." Again, under "Stand Your Ground," a victim does not have a duty to retreat.
And, of course, the "Castle Doctrine" is different from but similar to "Self Defense" and "Stand Your Ground."
Also, in FL, about five years ago, Florida authorized tough sanctions against any FL municipality that tried, even in the slightest, to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights, even including financial penalties against individual local officials. In effect, local municipalities are prohibited from making any gun law; all gun laws are made by the State.
Here is a fair-use excerpt from today's story in the WaPo:
So it sounds like a BLM-style protest.
The old cuckish Right couldn’t stand up to these Thugs.
Now the Right is getting a testosterone boost. One punch in self-defense and these clowns scatter.
sounds like the Post is trying to signal that they’re white
I like how they make it look like Bolt was the aggressor. It would be one thing if Bolt attacked a guy holding up a sign in protest. But this so-called protest involved a violation of Bolt’s body. To use obama’s word, the audacity of antifa is something to behold.
Most of these antifas are built as though the hardest work they’ve ever done is licking envelopes for the DNC. But in groups they can still be dangerous.
I wonder why they are tolerated given the terrible optics for the left, but maybe the idea is provocation. Their antics over time are sure to set off some mentally unstable people, like the Odinist in Portland who stabbed the people who confronted him over offensive speech (pro tip: never confront people who are aggressively ranting about killing people in public). Violence really does beget more violence, like a contagion.
Brett Weinstein is very much of the left, just not the baseball bat wing.
Rather than confront the far left, and get into a messy progressive civil war, the moderate left stands back and hopes most of the far left's hostility is directed towards the right. This strategy works well at the local level, but at the national level it will drive moderate voters towards the right.
Having the footage taken so conveniently makes me wonder: Was this real or did he stage it as a publicity stunt?
I wonder why they are tolerated given the terrible optics for the left, but maybe the idea is provocation. Their antics over time are sure to set off some mentally unstable people, like the Odinist in Portland who stabbed the people who confronted him over offensive speech (pro tip: never confront people who are aggressively ranting about killing people in public). Violence really does beget more violence, like a contagion.
There’s not a Czar of leftism. The antifas look terrible for the left, but that doesn’t mean there’s someone on the left with the power to shut them up.
Given that white people who so much as verbally threaten blacks get up to 20 years in the slammer, you'd think the antifas who routinely violate people's civil rights with actual criminal violence could at least spend a couple years behind bars, but it doesn't happen. It's obvious that Democrats have neither any interest in nor desire for prosecution if the victims are not clearly on their side.
As part of third-worldization, bodyguards regain popularity.
Unfortunately, the same is pretty much true in ultra-leftist American cities like New York, D.C., and San Francisco.
Places where Second Amendment rights are ironclad (e.g., West Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona) don't have any antifa problems whatsoever.
You are correct, sir. I live in rural Oklahoma and almost every person I know is armed. When a white police officer in Tulsa was recently acquitted after killing a black man there was some whining, but no street violence.
White men in Oklahoma (with the exception of a few hipster and yuppie enclaves in Tulsa and OKC) are still a pretty rough bunch. Nothing like the effete pansies I see portrayed in virtually every tv program or commercial I see.
-Robert A. Heinlein
I wonder why they are tolerated given the terrible optics for the left, but maybe the idea is provocation. Their antics over time are sure to set off some mentally unstable people, like the Odinist in Portland who stabbed the people who confronted him over offensive speech (pro tip: never confront people who are aggressively ranting about killing people in public). Violence really does beget more violence, like a contagion.
For now you go with the shock troops you’re given.
I wonder why they are tolerated given the terrible optics for the left, but maybe the idea is provocation. Their antics over time are sure to set off some mentally unstable people, like the Odinist in Portland who stabbed the people who confronted him over offensive speech (pro tip: never confront people who are aggressively ranting about killing people in public). Violence really does beget more violence, like a contagion.
What makes you think they’re any more afraid of anybody on the left? The group who have been going crazy at Berkeley, (Protect Affirmative Action, at some point they got rid of the first part, doesn’t make them sound as hardcore) By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) is regularly denounced by others on the left for being completely insane and a cult. You think these people aren’t all crazed bullies that normal people end up hating given any time in contact with them? These guys have a self-identity of being violent revolutionary activists who would be fully indifferent to any criticism from anyone that they are being too harsh, they believe they are delivering a more justice world.
Brett Weinstein is very much of the left, just not the baseball bat wing.
I wonder if he isn't one of those leftists who think the left are the warm and fuzzy party?
Of course, watching the various Battles of Berkeley should have served as a warning to be prepared for violence if he didn't knuckle under.
But somehow I don't think he was expecting things to get so bad.
"Surely they know I'm a nice leftist too and will treat me politely" might be what he was thinking.
My same thought. Civilization gets cranked down another half notch. This really is getting annoying.
The video was obviously taken by a third anti-fa to be used as a warning to dissidents and a morale boosters for the comrades. It didn’t turn out looking so well for them but they were too addled to see that and released it anyway.
Leftist commentators are as silent about this sort of attack as Muslim ‘moderates’ about Islamic terrorism, and for the same weasely-ass reasons.
If so, the antifas get an F in propaganda 101. Also,they managed to lose a fight where they jumped a 50-something dude at 2:1 odds, probably with a couple attackers in their 20s, so they get an F in fighting, too.
Which one is Harley Quinn?
Vox Day has it right: Social Justice Warriors always lie. Even when there is a video posted online proving them to be liars, they still have the chutzpah to lie in the face of plain fact. Amazing.
The time has clearly come, alas, when the Law won't defend the innocent. All those who would secure "the blessings of Liberty" for themselves and their posterity must now literally fight for their right to live in a free society.
"Bolt" is the perfect name for a warrior; maybe the anti-Antifas could use a truncated lightning bolt as a logo. Who cares what the Antifa thugs think?
No, it’s just that they think that your speech is violence, and their violence is speech. In that perverted paradigm, the above statement makes sense.
An accomplice must have filmed the incident, then posted the video on Facebook. But it sure paints Bolt as brave and effective, while his two (three) attackers start off by looking cowardly, and then graduate to weak.
Presumably this is antifa virtue signalling (“some of our family in solidarity were attacked by Andrew Bolt while they were protesting today”). They must see things somewhat differently than an outsider like me.
Normal procedure for these tw*ts to film themselves. If a tree falls in the forest and no-one etc…
PS I happened upon a youtube video called Spartan martial art or something. For once it appears genuinely doable for someone not very strong but active faced with some Antifa type clown.
1) Distract with a blow to eyes or throat.
2) Come in quick, bend, grab his thighs, flip him over.
The video for the simple anti-Antifa move is, hopefully, this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb5kt9nBWQk&t=29s
If it doesn't work go on youtube to:
2 Second Fight Ender ANYONE Can Learn!!
Yeah, Wiemar didn’t end well for the Bolshies, did it?
NY Times: Attack on Alt-Right Leader Has Internet Asking: Is It O.K. to Punch a Nazi?
Nothing new.
I wonder why they are tolerated given the terrible optics for the left, but maybe the idea is provocation. Their antics over time are sure to set off some mentally unstable people, like the Odinist in Portland who stabbed the people who confronted him over offensive speech (pro tip: never confront people who are aggressively ranting about killing people in public). Violence really does beget more violence, like a contagion.
Some Odinist he is…
Deja vu.
Am I the only one who has noticed the similarities between all these modern day street attacks and the Clodius and Milo street riots that led to the end of the Roman Republic?
Clodius ( Publius Clodius Pulcher) was a patrician politician who became what we would today probably consider a leftist demagogue. He changed his name from Claudius (the patrician version) to Clodius (the plebian version). For example he instituted the first permanent grain doles to the masses.
His great enemy was Milo (Titus Annius Milo Papianus ). Both were leaders of gangs which fought frequent battles in the streets of Rome in the first century BC. Milo was by birth a plebe but he supported the Optimates (the best people). One day by happenstance the two factions met outside Rome and the gang of Milo killed Clodius. Pompey and Caesar were drawn into the conflict. Cicero defended Milo in court and the Roman Republic which had been in existence for centuries crumbled in civil war.
The American Founding Fathers who devised our constitution were well aware of this history. They feared political street fighting. They would probably see the parallels between how Rome lost its republican form of government and the street violence in Berkeley involving our own Milo.
This is tantamount to the last days of the Roman Republic, when tribunes and Senators were intimidated, threatened and even knifed in the street, and orators like Cicero cowered under the watchful eyes of legionaries while representing clients in court. The machinery of the State cannot cope with the wanton disrespect, the willful abuse, and the deceitful manipulation. It’s no wonder we hail Trump as our God-Emperor, our own 21st Century Augustus.
Pretty sure I was referring to the same court case with Cicero as you....
https://youtu.be/tczdRDuomCk
President Trump should make this guy an honorary US citizen for giving a beat-down to the Nazis.
Of course Winston Churchill didn’t need to be made an honorary American because he was already half American. His mother was American.
I often say Churchill was the great hero of the twentieth century. Imagine how much more he might have been, if he had been all American.
Note that I never say his when in England.
I often say Churchill was the great hero of the twentieth century. Imagine how much more he might have been, if he had been all American.
Note that I never say his when in England.
He wasn’t a hero. Largely responsible for putting the “world” into WW1. Launched starvation blockade of Germany (750k dead). Set up the current Middle East (what a success). Ran a fascist extermination gulag in India. Burned half of Ireland to the ground. Architect of Dresden. But yeah, he was such an inspiration with those speeches wasn’t he. Such nauseating neocon bullshit.
Of course someone could crack down on them, and do so effectively. I’m from Seattle, and for years I watched these guys get away with all sorts of crimes. The only lefties who get treated with a rough hand are those who actually threaten the institutions that provide these cities with money and power. For example, a few leftist environmentalists sabotaged a biotech lab at the University of Washington about 15 years ago, and they got hammered. Every single one of them was picked up and prosecuted. One is still in prison, and another suffocated himself while in federal detention. This happened because the UW is Seatttle’s single largest employer and the largest recipient of tax funds in the state of Washington. If these guys had simply rioted and smashed up a bunch of franchises run by small businessmen the city would have looked the other way.
Given that white people who so much as verbally threaten blacks get up to 20 years in the slammer, you’d think the antifas who routinely violate people’s civil rights with actual criminal violence could at least spend a couple years behind bars, but it doesn’t happen. It’s obvious that Democrats have neither any interest in nor desire for prosecution if the victims are not clearly on their side.
The mere existence of them is a bad societal sign. Really. It signals the collapse of the two party system, peaceful society and the end of free expression.
Just look at the Democratic party, before the election you could find many of them willing to say 'get rid of the 1st amendment' and I suspect a high percentage want it dead and gone even now. Look how insane they became after Trump won, they felt entitled to the presidency.
This isn't a political party, it's a cult/mob run by power mad crooks.
Probably the Antifa version of Pepe.
You’re the one talking bullshit pal.
The Churchill Worship Industry is sort of like the Holocaust Industry.
White men in Oklahoma (with the exception of a few hipster and yuppie enclaves in Tulsa and OKC) are still a pretty rough bunch. Nothing like the effete pansies I see portrayed in virtually every tv program or commercial I see.
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
-Robert A. Heinlein
Well, they eventually got communist East Germany but it took a few years.
Incidentally, this seems to show why MMA skills are very poor for the real world. You can’t “go to ground” if someone else has a buddy who can stab you – you’re best trying to keep on your footing and use striking attacks.
It's barely relevant, but I took some Karate classes years ago and began to think that some kind of street fighting class would be a better investment -- that and a concealed carry permit.
I'm sure some martial arts skills do apply to real fighting, but does going whole hog and collecting colored belts?
Mark Steyn on Andrew Bolt:
From what I have seen the best basic streetfighting combo seems to be some basic boxing and a bit of judo. You should know how to move, how to throw a good punch, how to trip or throw someone to the ground and how to stop from being thrown.
PS I happened upon a youtube video called Spartan martial art or something. For once it appears genuinely doable for someone not very strong but active faced with some Antifa type clown.
1) Distract with a blow to eyes or throat.
2) Come in quick, bend, grab his thighs, flip him over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb5kt9nBWQk&list=PLUijExNmAOXtLIiKLyyrjkIVeYuqZPkw3&index=2
Sorry I don’t know what happened there.
The video for the simple anti-Antifa move is, hopefully, this:
If it doesn’t work go on youtube to:
2 Second Fight Ender ANYONE Can Learn!!
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/green-beret-vs-peruvian-special-forces/
An interviewer once asked Bruce Lee what technique he would teach someone if that person knew he was going to have to fight for his life within 10 minutes. Lee's answer: The eye jab.
Some of them look like the ate Harley Quinn.
I read today’s NY Times about Comey and Trump, and these people are absolutely delusional. Do they really believe what they are writing?
In my locale in the UK this election cycle Conservative banners and posters were routinely vandalised, in large enough numbers to make the local news. I haven’t seen any vandalised lefty (Lib Dem, Labour) signs of course. Part of what you expect really. Rather than focusing on how violent lefty types are (often because they’re young), I’d rather complain about how flaccid and impotent conservatives are…
Clever retort. For an Australian, that’s positively Shakespearean.
Ground is a very bad place to be for an older person in a fight.
http://www.jhandtherapy.org/article/S0894-1130(15)00212-4/fulltext
I hope I’m not insulting anybody, but I just wonder a little bit, just a little bit, if martial arts are overrated. Yes, they are an art, one that requires self-discipline and long training, but might they be lacking when someone who doesn’t follow rules wants to hurt you outside the dojo?
It’s barely relevant, but I took some Karate classes years ago and began to think that some kind of street fighting class would be a better investment — that and a concealed carry permit.
I’m sure some martial arts skills do apply to real fighting, but does going whole hog and collecting colored belts?
https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Violence-Comparison-Martial-Training/dp/1594391181
OSS trainer, WW2: "I teach what is called 'gutter fighting'. There's no fair play, no rules except one: Kill or be killed."
Billy Martin, for example, beat up Reggie Jackson in his prime and made him cry, because Martin worked out on a speedbag every day. Martin was well into middle age at the time. The first player to beat Martin in a fight (when Martin was 57) was a martial arts student.
But like any exercise if you don't use it you lose it.
It's barely relevant, but I took some Karate classes years ago and began to think that some kind of street fighting class would be a better investment -- that and a concealed carry permit.
I'm sure some martial arts skills do apply to real fighting, but does going whole hog and collecting colored belts?
Recommended reading:
https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Violence-Comparison-Martial-Training/dp/1594391181
YES. This is a portion of a comment I posted on June 2 at Chateau Heartiste, regarding the dustup on the floor of the Texas House:
This is tantamount to the last days of the Roman Republic, when tribunes and Senators were intimidated, threatened and even knifed in the street, and orators like Cicero cowered under the watchful eyes of legionaries while representing clients in court. The machinery of the State cannot cope with the wanton disrespect, the willful abuse, and the deceitful manipulation. It’s no wonder we hail Trump as our God-Emperor, our own 21st Century Augustus.
Pretty sure I was referring to the same court case with Cicero as you….
Glass jaw – check.
Or he could do what any red blooded high IQ intellectual would do and is let himself be attacked then post snarky comments on a blog spouting to the effect violence never solves anything.
Yes the professor could have just stood there and took the blows and be totally dependent on the mercy of his attackers that they won’t kill or cripple him. But it’s a bad bet which only encourages these predators.
And when you do fight back anti-fa wimps out, in the U.S. they curled up and died when that skank at a anti-fa rally tangled with a red neck and got knocked on her ass. All those years of feminist and marxist studies didn’t prepare her or those other freaks about what happens when the prey fights back.
(1) The newspaper article Steve posted says Bolt was attacked from behind. This is incorrect. You can clearly see in the two videos above that the "attackers" come from the front.
(2) The "attack" consisted of a man throwing paint on Bolt and then immediately backing away and assuming a defensive posture.
(3) When Bolt starts punching the man who has taken a defensive posture (literally, punching down), the "attackers" push Bolt away, but they don't punch back. They push with open hands--no closed fist punching.
(4) After Bolt knocks one of them down and kicks him, that man gets up and may punch back (his actions are obscured in the video). If he did, this is the only punch thrown by the "attackers" during the scuffle.
(5) That man also gives a half-hearted kick at that point, but it's hard to believe it was meant to cause damage. The "attackers" are keeping distance at this point, and it looks like the kick is intended more to keep Bolt away than to attack him.
There is no point during this episode at which Bolt looks like he is in actual danger of serious injury from the "attackers". Assuming this was not a false flag event set up by Bolt (I doubt it), I suspect it felt to him in the middle of things like he was in danger, but an objective viewing of the videos shows him to be acting out of fight-or-flight not actually defending himself from an attack.
Since Bolt goes after the man who has backed away from him, I wouldn't be surprised at all if law enforcement could interpret this as an assault committed by Bolt. I strongly suspect this is what the men intended to happen. If they were really trying to beat him up, they wouldn't have filmed it.
And if they were trying to set Bolt up, they succeeded. Why? Because he didn't keep his cool when they came at him!
People who are from cultures that are actually more conflict prone place a higher value on politeness and on the personal characteristic of keeping one's cool. If you can't, you are more likely to end up losing in the long run. Hence, the Sicilian proverb, which is quite correct.
Vox Day has it right: Social Justice Warriors always lie. Even when there is a video posted online proving them to be liars, they still have the chutzpah to lie in the face of plain fact. Amazing.
The time has clearly come, alas, when the Law won't defend the innocent. All those who would secure "the blessings of Liberty" for themselves and their posterity must now literally fight for their right to live in a free society.
"Bolt" is the perfect name for a warrior; maybe the anti-Antifas could use a truncated lightning bolt as a logo. Who cares what the Antifa thugs think?
They were telling the truth, from their perspective. Punching people is a form of protest when they do it, and counterattacks are a kind of attack.
It's barely relevant, but I took some Karate classes years ago and began to think that some kind of street fighting class would be a better investment -- that and a concealed carry permit.
I'm sure some martial arts skills do apply to real fighting, but does going whole hog and collecting colored belts?
Most martial arts are overrated. This is doubly so of McDojos in the United States. You can’t learn how to deal with full contact dangers from highly ritualized spars.
I often say Churchill was the great hero of the twentieth century. Imagine how much more he might have been, if he had been all American.
Note that I never say his when in England.
By his own criteria Chruchill was a disaster, he was very much a supporter of the British Empire and would have wanted to keep it as much as possible. He was directly responsible for its demise.
This is tantamount to the last days of the Roman Republic, when tribunes and Senators were intimidated, threatened and even knifed in the street, and orators like Cicero cowered under the watchful eyes of legionaries while representing clients in court. The machinery of the State cannot cope with the wanton disrespect, the willful abuse, and the deceitful manipulation. It’s no wonder we hail Trump as our God-Emperor, our own 21st Century Augustus.
Pretty sure I was referring to the same court case with Cicero as you....
I would personally prefer if we were in last days of Roman Empire where the likes of Alaric or Odovacer exist, people that can deliver the death blow to an empire that was so rotten that whatever comes after will ultimately be better than what came before.
It's barely relevant, but I took some Karate classes years ago and began to think that some kind of street fighting class would be a better investment -- that and a concealed carry permit.
I'm sure some martial arts skills do apply to real fighting, but does going whole hog and collecting colored belts?
Karate and TKD in particular are BS.
One simple, but unexpected strike the instructor showed me, though he was told not to, saved my life five years later.
Given that white people who so much as verbally threaten blacks get up to 20 years in the slammer, you'd think the antifas who routinely violate people's civil rights with actual criminal violence could at least spend a couple years behind bars, but it doesn't happen. It's obvious that Democrats have neither any interest in nor desire for prosecution if the victims are not clearly on their side.
Anti-fa is the Democratic party goon squad as such they are given a blank check by the mayor and DA.
The mere existence of them is a bad societal sign. Really. It signals the collapse of the two party system, peaceful society and the end of free expression.
Just look at the Democratic party, before the election you could find many of them willing to say ‘get rid of the 1st amendment’ and I suspect a high percentage want it dead and gone even now. Look how insane they became after Trump won, they felt entitled to the presidency.
This isn’t a political party, it’s a cult/mob run by power mad crooks.
I agree. Street fights are extremely dangerous. You could be pushed to the ground hit your head on the curb and sustain a fatal injury. Any defense needs to be over very quickly. Escape is preferable if possible. Movement, counter strike, foot sweep and I would add a head stomp to keep him down. Then escape.
My dear Mika-Non: BINGO!
Thank you: you are the first person to notice those richly apt quotes. “Antifa” are anti-fascist as much as Hitler was a Judeophile.
Weapons are the highest martial art. If you don’t carry a gun, carry a knife. If you don’t carry a knife, or if you get disarmed, pick up the nearest thing you can use as a weapon.
They can’t really teach this stuff in sporting schools (e.g., MMA), because it isn’t a sport.
Unarmed combat as something other than a sport is mostly silly (it’s good to learn, but people waaaay overprioritize).
You are much more likely to need to know how to use your fists than to stab or shoot someone. What is more common in the civilian world, brawls or gun battles? Unless you live in an active war zone the answer is overwhelmingly the former. There is a lot of silliness in the martial arts community but there is also serious and effective stuff as well. Actually, since the mainstreaming of MMA there is probably considerably less silliness these days.
Where would Andrew Bolt be right now had he picked up a steak knife and stabbed these goons that attacked him? I am not familiar with Australian law but despite the "disparity of force", it is unlikely that he could justify killing them. And a handgun is not even a legal option for him. Also keep in mind he is a public figure that was being recorded by multiple individuals.
It is often the gun nuts that way overprioritize their weapons. Many of them are utterly helpless without them. And I say this as a former firearms instructor, martial artist and someone that carries a legally concealed pistol. Unarmed fighting skills are a fundamental part of being prepared for self defense. Too many gun people treat the weapon as a proverbial hammer and every problem is a nail, at least in theory. There is a great deal of cult like behavior in the gun world as well. It's just human nature, I suppose.
When it comes to delusional beliefs, I think there are a significant number of martial artists with more realistic understanding of their capabilities and limitations under stress than there are gun people, most of whom have little or no real training at all besides standing still and carefully shooting at stationary pieces of paper. And if nothing else, martial arts training tends to be a more active endeavor. Many gun people are in more danger of dying from cardiovascular disease than from criminal violence. Even a regular boxing gym can teach you a lot more about real violence than a concealed carry course. At least a boxer has actually been seriously hit in the face at some point by a real opponent, unlike most gun nuts.
All that being said, when you really need a gun, there is no acceptable substitute. Learning to use firearms in defense is not something that should be taken lightly, and there is more to it than just getting a permit. I’m sure you’re well aware of all this despite the rather cavalier attitude in your comments.
Disagree. If one is targeted for any kind of physical attack, and contact is unavoidable, it’s best to try to immediately incapacitate at least one of the attackers (pending arrival of the police). Deliberately letting them escape sets the victim up for an attack by the same individuals in the future. In this case the above is especially true. It was a coordinated, planned attack by multiple individuals, some masked. That’s serious criminal activity. What if instead of shaving cream and glitter they threw acid?
Seems like that rather should be a Teutonic proverb.
Lame.
You need to read Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II by Madhusree Mukerjee (2011).
The Churchill Worship Industry is sort of like the Holocaust Industry.
Yep, delusional is the word.
You should check out Twitter. Rich angry lefties are in total denial.
Even WaPo, amid all the gnashing of teeth, had a good piece on how Trump’s actions weren’t obstruction.
Basically, the left’s MO is to always interpret the words of the democratically-elected PotUS in as sinister a way as possible. The weird part is how they think that everyone shares this delusion. They seem to think that because they don’t like the PotUS, he doesn’t get to express his hope that the Flynn investigation exonerates Flynn. The way it played out in context (in Comey’s words, mind you) is that PotUS was simply saying that he hopes that the process exonerates Flynn, because he’s a good guy. PotUS isn’t allowed to root for anyone, because Trump.
PotUS isn’t allowed to say he expects loyalty from his employees, because lefties can read minds and know that coming from Trump, that’s code for “criminal loyalty.” Never mind that PotUS finished by saying “honest loyalty.” In lefty minds, that means “honestly criminal loyalty.”
Never mind that, as even the WaPo piece I alluded to states, every federal employee is a representative of the PotUS, and all power of the Executive is vested in the PotUS (lefties should have thought about that before doing all they did to expand the power of that branch, lo these many years).
Rich, angry, leftist celebs are all in an uproar over this stuff, but the rest of America isn’t buying.
Just based on his prepared remarks, Comey comes out looking horrible. I haven’t even parsed his actual statements yet.
I really liked Hinderaker’s evisceration of Comey at Powerline (“James Comey, Novelist”).
Given the risk to almost any conservative “celebrity”, I don’t think it wise for any of them to be out and about without a least a small canister of pepper spray.
Heck I’m from the San Francisco Bay area and I never ride BART without it.
I see attacks by multiple attackers as attempted murder, plan to treat any as such.
A lot, not a little. People really take this stuff more seriously than they should. Even the people who originated these arts knew they were mostly about getting a warrior back to his weapons. But at some point these traditions left the battlefield, and became sports, cults, etc. There’s a lot of cult-like behavior on display. The connection to real fighting has mostly been severed, but a lot of these people blur the lines between their sport and actual self-defense in a way that borders on the criminal, IMO.
And I don’t mind insulting them. A lot of them need to be insulted. You’d be amazed at how delusional some of these people get over this stuff.
I was hoping for a Paul Hogan “Call that a knife?” moment.
Unfortunately, the same is pretty much true in ultra-leftist American cities like New York, D.C., and San Francisco.
Places where Second Amendment rights are ironclad (e.g., West Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona) don't have any antifa problems whatsoever.
Where I live in Indiana (Bloomington, home of Indiana University’s main campus) I could certainly see some of our local college SJW nincompoops trying their hand at the “violent antifa gang” thing, but perhaps the reason that it doesn’t seem to have actually happened may indeed be that they know their would-be victims may be armed.
https://youtu.be/GekgHgk7QGE
That’s actually one of the jokes circulating down yonder.
Another is that he is a new Greener superhero: Captain Bait Shop (for the worms on his haid).
I’ve also heard that they are Olympia’s new roller derby team: the Evergreen Garden Sluggers (reference to that apartment complex).
But I don’t like jokes that deride banana slugs, who actually work for a living and don’t cause trouble.
I often say Churchill was the great hero of the twentieth century. Imagine how much more he might have been, if he had been all American.
Note that I never say his when in England.
Ignore the trolls leaping to declare Churchill a non-hero or worse. They’re like the Democratic Party – sore losers and unable to give credit to the Great Man.
Basically, everything he cared about except beating the Nazis. But since the Nazis are our civilization's perpetual Emmanuel Goldstein, he's a hero.
Instead of “Defends Himself Manfully” it could be titled “Defends Himself Hotheadedly”. Best to remember the old Sicilian proverb “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”
Ok, so how is he going to identify the masked attackers in order to obtain revenge? What would revenge consist of? And how, as a token conservative in the leftist MSM, is he going to get anything accomplished against them using his position?
No, if anything he went soft on them. It’s hard to know if they had weapons, but it sure would feel good if in that situation to close the distance and use any of the nearby hard surfaces to inflict greater damage.
The point of the proverb is not about revenge, it's about not acting hotheadedly, which sets you up to fail. In modern society, you're likely to get yourself into legal trouble by "not going soft".
There is no free speech in Australia thanks to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
Good grief the eeyore has consumed you.
Thank you: you are the first person to notice those richly apt quotes. "Antifa" are anti-fascist as much as Hitler was a Judeophile.
It lets you know just how benighted our ‘movement’ is that we continue to permit our enemies to define the terms. Just as so many let it slide when the MSM calls that clown Richard Spencer the “leader” and “founder” and “frontman” of the Alt-Right, which the NYT calls “a racist, far-right fringe movement that is anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and anti-feminist.”
The MSM, and the forces behind them, are delighted to have Spencer as a punching bag (both literal and figurative), and Spencer happily plays right into their hands at every opportunity. Sadly, so do many of us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmohao7jXnc
Notice that the attackers have a video camera and they really don't fight back much considering they outnumber him. It looks like they instigated a fight but set him up to throw the punches, filmed him, then ran off.
Of course not. They did not expect him to fight back. They are used to people on the Right trying desperately to be nice and to be liked.
Feel free to mount a competent and relevant defence anytime you’re so inclined. No one’s stopping you.
I wonder why they are tolerated given the terrible optics for the left, but maybe the idea is provocation. Their antics over time are sure to set off some mentally unstable people, like the Odinist in Portland who stabbed the people who confronted him over offensive speech (pro tip: never confront people who are aggressively ranting about killing people in public). Violence really does beget more violence, like a contagion.
The moderate left fears the violent and mentally unstable far left. Most moderate leftists are relatively mild mannered individuals who dislike confrontation. The far left is also highly geographically concentrated, even more so than the moderate left. Hence they can cause a lot of trouble in certain areas, like college campuses and the inner suburbs of big cities.
Rather than confront the far left, and get into a messy progressive civil war, the moderate left stands back and hopes most of the far left’s hostility is directed towards the right. This strategy works well at the local level, but at the national level it will drive moderate voters towards the right.
Okay, not all of them. But those in the know. Clinton, for instance, made BLM a major part of her campaign up to and including when they were going on violent rampages and assassinating public officials.
Indiana’s a great gun state and a great self-defense state… it even has a law allowing you to defend yourself against a cop if he is engaged in illegal or felonious activity.
It's barely relevant, but I took some Karate classes years ago and began to think that some kind of street fighting class would be a better investment -- that and a concealed carry permit.
I'm sure some martial arts skills do apply to real fighting, but does going whole hog and collecting colored belts?
It’s generally a good idea to look at the hands first. Hands carry weapons. If he has a blade or a club, you need to create distance, flee or arm yourself if possible. In general, creating space and assessing is a good idea. You might still decide to run then. I love this video. It demonstrates the concept. As a bonus these guys look like some great fungible human capital that would fit in anywhere in the Western world, just plug and play.
I think the component skills of MMA are useful – boxing, wrestling/judo, BJJ. All give you the experience of tussling with a resisting opponent and how you fare in that environment. All will teach you that size, strength, power, speed and will are all factors in a fight – real life is not a CGI movie where something small and feminine with “attitude” is going to be a badass. A few years in your teens or twenties is all you need before diminishing returns set in, and good for fitness too.
How you should handle such a situation will depend on how good a fighter you naturally are. If you are small and weak, you should avoid such situations, flee if they arise, or plan on having or using a weapon. Or you can go full short-man syndrome and spend a lifetime on MMA-related skills, it’s your choice.
If you are 6’3″, athletic with quick reaction times, you have a lot more options.
I think it’s useful in general for a man to have a basic understanding of the useful combat skills in life. Then you will have a better understanding and some trained reflexes as to how to handle such situations. Not just for antifa, it helps when anyone tries to intimidate you in life. People can sense fear. If you look prepared and unflappable you will nip a lot of intimidation attempts in the bud.
Didn’t Clodius dress in drag and profane a women’s only party?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmohao7jXnc
Notice that the attackers have a video camera and they really don't fight back much considering they outnumber him. It looks like they instigated a fight but set him up to throw the punches, filmed him, then ran off.
You might be right.
Bolt is employed by the Murdoch press, which hasn’t covered this story seriously, unlike the despised Sydney Morning Herald.
Expect Murdoch to give Bolt the flick if he is charged.
Thank you: you are the first person to notice those richly apt quotes. "Antifa" are anti-fascist as much as Hitler was a Judeophile.
“Anti-fa” are anti-white thugs.
But how come this got filmed. That clip must be form the antifa side, right?
That’s the CCTV. The Antifa video is here:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/dutch-treat-in-lygon-street-directors-cut/news-story/f088f5ec16b0770f9aea5188f97bfa4e
Hysteria repeats itself ; first time as a tragedy – second time as a farce:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_Boys
Brett Weinstein is very much of the left, just not the baseball bat wing.
Hold up, chief.
By who? Certainly not by anyone on CNN or MSNBC. All I’ve seen is a little feeble criticism in a couple of newspaper editorials. The truth is that those “others” on the left are more than happy to remain silent as Antifas engage in violence – so long as they’re not on the receiving end of it. I saw journalists describe such individuals as “liberal protesters” and portray them as the victims of white supremacist bullying, despite the fact that they cover their faces and bring explosives and other weapons to demonstrations. Note that the media depicted Rose Nauert (“Moldylocks”) strictly as a damsel in distress and not as someone who came out that day to beat people up.
It was only after black bloc types got uppity and started attacking leftist academics that a few liberals got a bit concerned. Quite frankly, I think a little blowback is a good thing.
This is exactly how the Brownshirts arose in Germany before it was Nazi Germany. Leftists thugs beating peopleon the street CAUSED the rise of the “fascists” that the current AntiFa seem to think they’re fighting. The State wouldn’t defend middle class or right-wing people against attack by the Left, so eventually the right got organized. And when they did, they weren’t half-assed about it like the left.
In the book Defying Hitler, Sebastian Haffner talks about his utter disappointment with how quickly the left folded in the face of Nazi violence. I certainly don’t care to have a Nazi takeover, so I’m hoping the leftist violence is quashed before that happens.
(All of main characters behind these subversive plots were... ahem... God's Chosen People, which explains National Socialism's animosity toward the Tribe).
I think we've got quite a way to go before we reach the stage Wiemar was at, but the Left is intemperate and irrational, and who knows... could happen yet.
Brownshirts came into existence in the first place because of exactly what you see here. Leftists. Leftists never change. Leftists are always the same.
You should check out Twitter. Rich angry lefties are in total denial.
Even WaPo, amid all the gnashing of teeth, had a good piece on how Trump's actions weren't obstruction.
Basically, the left's MO is to always interpret the words of the democratically-elected PotUS in as sinister a way as possible. The weird part is how they think that everyone shares this delusion. They seem to think that because they don't like the PotUS, he doesn't get to express his hope that the Flynn investigation exonerates Flynn. The way it played out in context (in Comey's words, mind you) is that PotUS was simply saying that he hopes that the process exonerates Flynn, because he's a good guy. PotUS isn't allowed to root for anyone, because Trump.
PotUS isn't allowed to say he expects loyalty from his employees, because lefties can read minds and know that coming from Trump, that's code for "criminal loyalty." Never mind that PotUS finished by saying "honest loyalty." In lefty minds, that means "honestly criminal loyalty."
Never mind that, as even the WaPo piece I alluded to states, every federal employee is a representative of the PotUS, and all power of the Executive is vested in the PotUS (lefties should have thought about that before doing all they did to expand the power of that branch, lo these many years).
Rich, angry, leftist celebs are all in an uproar over this stuff, but the rest of America isn't buying.
Just based on his prepared remarks, Comey comes out looking horrible. I haven't even parsed his actual statements yet.
I really liked Hinderaker's evisceration of Comey at Powerline ("James Comey, Novelist").
Hinderaker writes with impressive clarity, and what seems to me increasing verve.
Had about ten TKD lessons one on one 35 years ago. The organisation [Rhee] forbade instructors from teaching effective streetfighting techniques to novices.
One simple, but unexpected strike the instructor showed me, though he was told not to, saved my life five years later.
TKD is Japanese karate that the Koreans learned badly from the Japanese during the occupation. Japanese karate is Okinawan karate that the Japanese learned badly from Okinawans. Okinawan karate is Chinese kung fu that the Okinawans learned badly from the Chinese.
The proof of the BS is that in karate and TKD, any competition sparing or self-defense taught bears absolutely no relationship to the kata forms that the martial art is supposedly based on.
For example, in this video where the karate guy gets his ass handed to him by the wing chun guy, the karate guy is just doing very incompetent kick-boxing--there's no kara-te (Chinese hand) in his karate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f7td8Hc-V4
What many people do not know is that Andrew Bolt grew up in Darwin.
That means he is a real modern and understands evolution and selection, unlike all the morons who ‘fucking love science!’
Growing up amongst Aborigines with arms like rake handles, rock hard hands, and little or no inhibition against violence, would sort the wheat from the chaff.
And two, are a lot of other media picking this story up a lot, or not? It seems like whenever an athlete or coach anywhere in the world throws even a single ineffective punch in the general direction of a journalist, tons of other journalists write stories about how horrible that was and make a big important deal out of it. I wonder if this kind of pro-journalism bias is strong enough to extend to cases where the (supposed) progressives come out looking like totally ineffective losers.
What’s the Frequency , Kenneth ?
Third Worlders are Way Better than Natives in Downhill :
This Human Hypothalamus Slurping Piece of Shia’ sudenly gets all timidly apologetic, just like a lost piglet on Teheran Bazaar:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/06/09/cnn-drops-reza-aslan-series-vulgar-anti-trump-tweets/
Reza’s Universal Walletues got hurt.
The “law” is simply a bunch of words on a piece of paper; it’s the jury that gives it it’s power.
All citizens on a jury have the power, Jury Nullification, to tell the political-judical complex that creates this “law” to go fish. I encourage all pro-gun people to spread the word about their inherent power.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/dean-weingarten/jury-nullification-a-tool-for-advancing-gun-rights/
Enemy of the State | Tommy Robinson and Stefan Molyneux
The video for the simple anti-Antifa move is, hopefully, this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb5kt9nBWQk&t=29s
If it doesn't work go on youtube to:
2 Second Fight Ender ANYONE Can Learn!!
You could also send in the squatting Slav to go against Antifa:
Shows how discombobulated "Anti-Fa" types get being questioned by someone who looks too dangerous to fight!
The blatent provable lies of the lunatic left continue to amaze , not at all.
The video for the simple anti-Antifa move is, hopefully, this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb5kt9nBWQk&t=29s
If it doesn't work go on youtube to:
2 Second Fight Ender ANYONE Can Learn!!
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap:
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/green-beret-vs-peruvian-special-forces/
An interviewer once asked Bruce Lee what technique he would teach someone if that person knew he was going to have to fight for his life within 10 minutes. Lee’s answer: The eye jab.
In real street/bar fights by ordinary people I've noticed that uneducated punching simply does not work well at all. Most people don't have the upper body strength to do enough quick damage.
Looking back at the London Bridge fight I wonder that more men did not group together to fight them off.
Easier said than done in situations were many people's minds dissolve and when all mainline advice revolves around running away.
(The attackers had fake suicide belts on also.)
But in the bars there are stools and chairs and bottles to use as shields or weapons.
I think infidels are going to have to get used to thinking about supporting each other.
The point about these attacks is to instill fear. Flocks of shrieking infidels running away is honey to the Muslims.
(Again I repeat easier said than done in reality but...)
If he is 6'3" and 240lbs of muscle my advice is "improvise". These sort of people usually don't ask that question though.
Are those the chix that just got slid through Ranger School?
http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2015/08/20/9a2b8fd2-f7d2-4230-870d-e962a8beb4b4/resize/620x/6a3c51c47922134e7bd87deb21786a4b/females2-women-to-pass-army-ranger-school.jpg#
Yes the professor could have just stood there and took the blows and be totally dependent on the mercy of his attackers that they won't kill or cripple him. But it's a bad bet which only encourages these predators.
And when you do fight back anti-fa wimps out, in the U.S. they curled up and died when that skank at a anti-fa rally tangled with a red neck and got knocked on her ass. All those years of feminist and marxist studies didn't prepare her or those other freaks about what happens when the prey fights back.
Apparently, you (and I suspect other readers of this blog) didn’t actually watch the videos above. Here’s some info:
(1) The newspaper article Steve posted says Bolt was attacked from behind. This is incorrect. You can clearly see in the two videos above that the “attackers” come from the front.
(2) The “attack” consisted of a man throwing paint on Bolt and then immediately backing away and assuming a defensive posture.
(3) When Bolt starts punching the man who has taken a defensive posture (literally, punching down), the “attackers” push Bolt away, but they don’t punch back. They push with open hands–no closed fist punching.
(4) After Bolt knocks one of them down and kicks him, that man gets up and may punch back (his actions are obscured in the video). If he did, this is the only punch thrown by the “attackers” during the scuffle.
(5) That man also gives a half-hearted kick at that point, but it’s hard to believe it was meant to cause damage. The “attackers” are keeping distance at this point, and it looks like the kick is intended more to keep Bolt away than to attack him.
There is no point during this episode at which Bolt looks like he is in actual danger of serious injury from the “attackers”. Assuming this was not a false flag event set up by Bolt (I doubt it), I suspect it felt to him in the middle of things like he was in danger, but an objective viewing of the videos shows him to be acting out of fight-or-flight not actually defending himself from an attack.
Since Bolt goes after the man who has backed away from him, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if law enforcement could interpret this as an assault committed by Bolt. I strongly suspect this is what the men intended to happen. If they were really trying to beat him up, they wouldn’t have filmed it.
And if they were trying to set Bolt up, they succeeded. Why? Because he didn’t keep his cool when they came at him!
People who are from cultures that are actually more conflict prone place a higher value on politeness and on the personal characteristic of keeping one’s cool. If you can’t, you are more likely to end up losing in the long run. Hence, the Sicilian proverb, which is quite correct.
But Bolt certainly didn't hesitate a nanosecond before hitting back.
Greatly enjoyed seeing someone attacking the insufferable SJWs!
In summary, if a gang of men in hoodies and bandanas, which is what muggers and gas station robbers wear, charge up to you and throw powder in your face to blind you, a reasonable person would believe he is in danger of harm. If he or a bystander pulled a gun on the punks I would vote for aquittal.
The best quality videos I found of the Andrew Bolt punching incedent:
1st angle:
Leftist Protesters get more than they bargain for when Andrew Bolt bashes back
2nd angle:
Seven + Nine News. Zionist AntiFa vs Bolt. (Andrew Bolt Hits Back)
(1) Three accomplices—two attackers plus a cameraman—approach Bolt with the intent to trap and ambush.
(2) Thug 1, trailed by the cameraman, approaches a distracted Bolt from the front.
(3) Thug 2 (blue and white knit hat) flanks Bolt by running along the street, as seen top left of frame in this alternate security cam view, completing a pincer movement to block Bolt's six. Bolt’s 3 and 9 o’clock are blocked by the building and a streetside glass barrier.
(4) The first bit of violence—Thug 1 shoves an old lady to get at Bolt at (0:20) in your posted video.
(5) Thug 1 hits Bolt with an unknown (to Bolt) substance.
(6) Bolt counter-attacks Thug 1 who has already assaulted two people.
(7) Thug 2 appears from Bolt’s initial six o'clock blind spot (contrary to your assertion Bolt was not attacked from behind), joins the attack (also dumping a substance?), and shoves the 57 year old man.
(8) The three continue to brawl (none attempting to flee) until a burly male bystander yells at and approaches the attackers, who then run off. The cameraman runs off in the opposite direction.No need to put quotes around attackers—your video shows that Bolt (and a bystander) were attacked. As to serious injury—anyone, especially of advanced age—can get seriously hurt trying to evade or fight off assailants.
The whole thing happened very fast—10 seconds from first contact to last strike as seen in this high frame rate accomplice POV:
https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/872601761101488133
I can only deduce that you’re a pacifist/masochist from your bizarre take on this incident (or maybe just an Antifa sympathizer?) …I highly doubt their plan was to promote their cause by getting their arses kicked on camera by an old guy. They likely thought they were spry enough to be able to publicly taunt Bolt without physical consequences. Now he’s a minor national hero. D’oh!Your ideal society is a publicly polite vendetta culture? And how does that apply to Australia? I don’t quite follow.
P.S., 'Tis possible you're trolling, Chrisnonymous. If so, ya got me good. :)
Sore losers? Churchill lost: the empire, Eastern and a good part of Central Europe and much of the rest of the world to communism, independent British foreign policy, and his own country to Beveridge socialism.
Basically, everything he cared about except beating the Nazis. But since the Nazis are our civilization’s perpetual Emmanuel Goldstein, he’s a hero.
It's barely relevant, but I took some Karate classes years ago and began to think that some kind of street fighting class would be a better investment -- that and a concealed carry permit.
I'm sure some martial arts skills do apply to real fighting, but does going whole hog and collecting colored belts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Fairbairn#Military_career
OSS trainer, WW2: “I teach what is called ‘gutter fighting’. There’s no fair play, no rules except one: Kill or be killed.”
The two most effective things to do in a melee are to gouge the other fellow's eyes (permanently blinding him, if done competently), and grabbing, twisting, and pulling on his genitals in a single, swift motion (causing cripplingly excruciating pain if done competently).
I was taught both techniques by my gunnery sergeant, who was hardly unmanly, and who knew more about fighting (as does most any gunny) than probably at least ninety per cent of the planet's population).
Rather than confront the far left, and get into a messy progressive civil war, the moderate left stands back and hopes most of the far left's hostility is directed towards the right. This strategy works well at the local level, but at the national level it will drive moderate voters towards the right.
Eh, they fear people noticing and doing stuff about the violent left. They’re perfectly willing to use them as shock troops whenever it’s to their advantage.
Okay, not all of them. But those in the know. Clinton, for instance, made BLM a major part of her campaign up to and including when they were going on violent rampages and assassinating public officials.
Also remember that our perceptions of the left are heavily influenced by the MSM. The MSM doesn't just attack conservatives, it makes a great effort to avoid paying attention to leftist in-fighting. Media stories about leftist divisions are almost non-existent, yet as I'm sure Tom Wolfe will tell you, they would make highly entertaining media fodder.
Both the moderate left and the conservative right are brain-washed into believed in the unity of the left.
Ok, so how is he going to identify the masked attackers in order to obtain revenge? What would revenge consist of? And how, as a token conservative in the leftist MSM, is he going to get anything accomplished against them using his position?
No, if anything he went soft on them. It's hard to know if they had weapons, but it sure would feel good if in that situation to close the distance and use any of the nearby hard surfaces to inflict greater damage.
See my reply above to Rod1963.
Oh, the feelz!
The point of the proverb is not about revenge, it’s about not acting hotheadedly, which sets you up to fail. In modern society, you’re likely to get yourself into legal trouble by “not going soft”.
IANAL but I think Svigor has a point - if two masked people attack you in the street, you would be justified in thinking attempted murder given the recent bike lock attack, BLM shootings and the like. You would be justified in neutralizing such an attack and some leeway would be given I think to a fairly vicious response given the adrenaline dump and fight or flight response.
The leftist thugs also self-dox in unmasking, so they have to want to risk that to press charges.
Your interpretation of the revenge proverb is a new one to me btw. I always thought it related to revenge in particular.
See my reply above to Rod1963.
Yeah, actually maybe. I always took Mario Puzo at face value on that one, but looking it up, it appears not to actually be Sicilian.
In the book Defying Hitler, Sebastian Haffner talks about his utter disappointment with how quickly the left folded in the face of Nazi violence. I certainly don't care to have a Nazi takeover, so I'm hoping the leftist violence is quashed before that happens.
Oh, it was FAR worse than that. Leftists in Wiemar weren’t merely “beating people on the street,” they were throwing revolutions and seizing power. The Left actually created — get this — the “Bavarian Soviet Republic” for about six months in 1919 before they were shot to death by the Freikorps. Then there was Rosa Luxembourg’s failed Spartacist coup in Berlin; and right next door in Hungary, Bela Kun, trained in Moscow by Trotsky, created the Hungarian Soviet in 1919-1920. There was a very, very serious probability of a successful Bolshevik-style seizure of power in Germany.
(All of main characters behind these subversive plots were… ahem… God’s Chosen People, which explains National Socialism’s animosity toward the Tribe).
I think we’ve got quite a way to go before we reach the stage Wiemar was at, but the Left is intemperate and irrational, and who knows… could happen yet.
In the USA, entire cities have decided to ignore federal law, if it happens to affect their crazy leftism.
I think Toronto is or would do the same, but we don't have a Trump here.
------
As a side note, I notice that the massive influx of Chinese and Sikhs to Vancouver has rather lowered its leftist reputation.
These groups think differently. There are plenty of SJWs to go around but this particular set of immigrants seems to have made the place less leftist.
A lot of them likely want a business-friendly environment.
One simple, but unexpected strike the instructor showed me, though he was told not to, saved my life five years later.
That’s great, but whatever he showed you wasn’t TKD.
TKD is Japanese karate that the Koreans learned badly from the Japanese during the occupation. Japanese karate is Okinawan karate that the Japanese learned badly from Okinawans. Okinawan karate is Chinese kung fu that the Okinawans learned badly from the Chinese.
The proof of the BS is that in karate and TKD, any competition sparing or self-defense taught bears absolutely no relationship to the kata forms that the martial art is supposedly based on.
For example, in this video where the karate guy gets his ass handed to him by the wing chun guy, the karate guy is just doing very incompetent kick-boxing–there’s no kara-te (Chinese hand) in his karate.
It is 'empty hand', not 'Chinese hand'.
This is pretty funny, Steve.
I wonder what the arsyfa expected to capture on this video.
I checked a little of this Bolt's writing on three topics, I think it fair to say that he is a neo-conservative, not a conservative. He is also not for free speech in the US First Amendment sense, only for less restricted speech.
Still, a good show against the arsyfa!
That means he is a real modern and understands evolution and selection, unlike all the morons who 'fucking love science!'
Explains a lot.
Growing up amongst Aborigines with arms like rake handles, rock hard hands, and little or no inhibition against violence, would sort the wheat from the chaff.
Given that white people who so much as verbally threaten blacks get up to 20 years in the slammer, you'd think the antifas who routinely violate people's civil rights with actual criminal violence could at least spend a couple years behind bars, but it doesn't happen. It's obvious that Democrats have neither any interest in nor desire for prosecution if the victims are not clearly on their side.
Term checks out:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/manfully
OSS trainer, WW2: "I teach what is called 'gutter fighting'. There's no fair play, no rules except one: Kill or be killed."
The idea of a fair fight and the like is ridiculous outside of a boxing ring.
The two most effective things to do in a melee are to gouge the other fellow’s eyes (permanently blinding him, if done competently), and grabbing, twisting, and pulling on his genitals in a single, swift motion (causing cripplingly excruciating pain if done competently).
I was taught both techniques by my gunnery sergeant, who was hardly unmanly, and who knew more about fighting (as does most any gunny) than probably at least ninety per cent of the planet’s population).
These and other deadly techniques (krav maga) that can't be trained against anything other than compliant opponents can give a false sense of security. You also have to close to use them. How do you do that vs someone competent at boxing as in the video of the Turkish mob, for example? It's hard enough to hit someone in the face if he's not trying to be hit, let alone hitting them in the eye or the nuts. Meanwhile if you are boxing or using MT or even contact-Karate style kicking, you can inflict enough damage to incapacitate or cause a loss of will to fight (as with the Bolt conflict).
How do you get better at them unless it is against someone who is trying their best within the confines of acceptable rules to do you harm? From that perspective, the sport combat route offers realistic feedback. You don't have 120lbs girls entertaining the thought that they are likely to come out in any other fashion than unraped vs a grown man if they have taken boxing, wrestling, judo or BJJ classes. That's why they all have weight classes. (I have seen krav maga classes in the same gym, with a bunch of girls and moms taking them. Yes, the instructor knew what he was doing and also was a BJJ blue belt, but he had a good business going on with his own class.)
And I know plenty of military and police who endorse the sport combat method of training for self-defence purposes.
I think even in a war, most of the killing is going to be done with bullets and explosive ordnance. The use of bayonets these days is the exception that proves the rule. Beyond that, if you are having to go hand to hand, someone has stuffed up. It's a last resort.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10?r=US&IR=T
In previous centuries, maybe there was enough time to gain practice in the field with deadly hand-to-hand stuff and not get killed in between learning how it works if you work good and lucky, but I think that is the exception. Even choking in BJJ requires quite a bit of practice for a lot of the techniques to get it right, other than the rear-naked choke (sleeper hold).
And the advantage, as Steve says of old-fashioned fisticuffs is that it will likely be more legally acceptable than picking up a nearby club or stabbing implement and going to town.
Only Leftists could stage something like this and be proud of the results. We shake our heads in wonderment.
That’s absurd.
What Churchill did was to prioritize sending foodgrains to the Allied war effort that might otherwise have been better used to relieve the Great Bengal Famine of ’43, in which perhaps a million Indians died of starvation. It seems reasonably clear that he understood the trade-off, and was bloody minded about it, as wartime leaders often are. At other times, he expressed personal distaste for Hindus and their “beastly” religion.
But he did not run a fascist gulag in India, no.
The point of the proverb is not about revenge, it's about not acting hotheadedly, which sets you up to fail. In modern society, you're likely to get yourself into legal trouble by "not going soft".
The point of the proverb is not about revenge, it’s about not acting hotheadedly, which sets you up to fail. In modern society, you’re likely to get yourself into legal trouble by “not going soft”.
IANAL but I think Svigor has a point – if two masked people attack you in the street, you would be justified in thinking attempted murder given the recent bike lock attack, BLM shootings and the like. You would be justified in neutralizing such an attack and some leeway would be given I think to a fairly vicious response given the adrenaline dump and fight or flight response.
The leftist thugs also self-dox in unmasking, so they have to want to risk that to press charges.
Your interpretation of the revenge proverb is a new one to me btw. I always thought it related to revenge in particular.
It's barely relevant, but I took some Karate classes years ago and began to think that some kind of street fighting class would be a better investment -- that and a concealed carry permit.
I'm sure some martial arts skills do apply to real fighting, but does going whole hog and collecting colored belts?
Martial arts work really well as long as you are constantly training and practising. This means something like three hours a week or more. If people who just jogged or lifted weights instead practiced martial arts for the same amount of time they’d be much better at fighting.
Billy Martin, for example, beat up Reggie Jackson in his prime and made him cry, because Martin worked out on a speedbag every day. Martin was well into middle age at the time. The first player to beat Martin in a fight (when Martin was 57) was a martial arts student.
But like any exercise if you don’t use it you lose it.
Well, that’s a the trade-off you have to make. Telling the whole world your ideas and making a lot of people angry in the process is expensive, and the price is either a lot of brawling or stress.
On the other hand, you can pay the price of foregoing the pleasure of self-expression, and you’ll spend your life unmolested to the point where you can be as weak as you want.
“Freedom of speech” is nonsense. It’s used exclusively by the powerless as a more pr-friendly half way point to restricting speech themselves.
In the end, politics isn’t that important. What’s important is to choose a dangerous life only if you can deal with it.
They don’t. But they expect their readers will, which is their purpose.
They can't really teach this stuff in sporting schools (e.g., MMA), because it isn't a sport.
Unarmed combat as something other than a sport is mostly silly (it's good to learn, but people waaaay overprioritize).
Usually your comments are spot on but in this instance you have this almost exactly backwards.
You are much more likely to need to know how to use your fists than to stab or shoot someone. What is more common in the civilian world, brawls or gun battles? Unless you live in an active war zone the answer is overwhelmingly the former. There is a lot of silliness in the martial arts community but there is also serious and effective stuff as well. Actually, since the mainstreaming of MMA there is probably considerably less silliness these days.
Where would Andrew Bolt be right now had he picked up a steak knife and stabbed these goons that attacked him? I am not familiar with Australian law but despite the “disparity of force”, it is unlikely that he could justify killing them. And a handgun is not even a legal option for him. Also keep in mind he is a public figure that was being recorded by multiple individuals.
It is often the gun nuts that way overprioritize their weapons. Many of them are utterly helpless without them. And I say this as a former firearms instructor, martial artist and someone that carries a legally concealed pistol. Unarmed fighting skills are a fundamental part of being prepared for self defense. Too many gun people treat the weapon as a proverbial hammer and every problem is a nail, at least in theory. There is a great deal of cult like behavior in the gun world as well. It’s just human nature, I suppose.
When it comes to delusional beliefs, I think there are a significant number of martial artists with more realistic understanding of their capabilities and limitations under stress than there are gun people, most of whom have little or no real training at all besides standing still and carefully shooting at stationary pieces of paper. And if nothing else, martial arts training tends to be a more active endeavor. Many gun people are in more danger of dying from cardiovascular disease than from criminal violence. Even a regular boxing gym can teach you a lot more about real violence than a concealed carry course. At least a boxer has actually been seriously hit in the face at some point by a real opponent, unlike most gun nuts.
All that being said, when you really need a gun, there is no acceptable substitute. Learning to use firearms in defense is not something that should be taken lightly, and there is more to it than just getting a permit. I’m sure you’re well aware of all this despite the rather cavalier attitude in your comments.
Mike Tyson said, "everyone's got a plan until they get hit in the face!"
In my late teens and again in my late 20's, I trained and boxed at a couple of local gyms. And, you're correct, learning how to throw and take a punch, move around and build up your physical and cardiovascular strength are vital to self defense. I ended up w/ a 3 - 3 amateur record.
I also trained for a couple of years each in Karate and Judo; and same thing - being in shape and learning how to move is beneficial for self defense.
I will say, however, the fight usually goes to the heavier, stronger participant. On a few occasions, in the gym, I boxed and grappled with guys 20 to 50 pounds heavier than me, and they could move and throw me around like a rag doll.
We need to fast-forward from the Evergreen business. Evergreen is not representative of the population.
I’ve just been reading a bit of Mark Steyn speaking about ” soft passive ” Eloi and “ravenous ,predatory ” Morlocks ( from HG Wells’ The Time Machine ).
Bolt is a bit of a rareity -traditionalist ,alt right (?) ,very productive , alpha personality and I understand the offspring of liberal Dutch migrants
More power to him
You are much more likely to need to know how to use your fists than to stab or shoot someone. What is more common in the civilian world, brawls or gun battles? Unless you live in an active war zone the answer is overwhelmingly the former. There is a lot of silliness in the martial arts community but there is also serious and effective stuff as well. Actually, since the mainstreaming of MMA there is probably considerably less silliness these days.
Where would Andrew Bolt be right now had he picked up a steak knife and stabbed these goons that attacked him? I am not familiar with Australian law but despite the "disparity of force", it is unlikely that he could justify killing them. And a handgun is not even a legal option for him. Also keep in mind he is a public figure that was being recorded by multiple individuals.
It is often the gun nuts that way overprioritize their weapons. Many of them are utterly helpless without them. And I say this as a former firearms instructor, martial artist and someone that carries a legally concealed pistol. Unarmed fighting skills are a fundamental part of being prepared for self defense. Too many gun people treat the weapon as a proverbial hammer and every problem is a nail, at least in theory. There is a great deal of cult like behavior in the gun world as well. It's just human nature, I suppose.
When it comes to delusional beliefs, I think there are a significant number of martial artists with more realistic understanding of their capabilities and limitations under stress than there are gun people, most of whom have little or no real training at all besides standing still and carefully shooting at stationary pieces of paper. And if nothing else, martial arts training tends to be a more active endeavor. Many gun people are in more danger of dying from cardiovascular disease than from criminal violence. Even a regular boxing gym can teach you a lot more about real violence than a concealed carry course. At least a boxer has actually been seriously hit in the face at some point by a real opponent, unlike most gun nuts.
All that being said, when you really need a gun, there is no acceptable substitute. Learning to use firearms in defense is not something that should be taken lightly, and there is more to it than just getting a permit. I’m sure you’re well aware of all this despite the rather cavalier attitude in your comments.
Bolt is getting excellent press in Australia, in part because he reacted with virile, traditional fisticuffs. If he’d hit his attackers with a chair or used effective but dirty Krav Maga streetfighting techniques, he wouldn’t be getting the admiring press. But he fought back exactly the way an Australian conservative should, with his fists. It’s not the most effective way to fight, but it’s the most honorable.
Whoops! Honest mistake!
http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2015/08/20/9a2b8fd2-f7d2-4230-870d-e962a8beb4b4/resize/620x/6a3c51c47922134e7bd87deb21786a4b/females2-women-to-pass-army-ranger-school.jpg#
(1) The newspaper article Steve posted says Bolt was attacked from behind. This is incorrect. You can clearly see in the two videos above that the "attackers" come from the front.
(2) The "attack" consisted of a man throwing paint on Bolt and then immediately backing away and assuming a defensive posture.
(3) When Bolt starts punching the man who has taken a defensive posture (literally, punching down), the "attackers" push Bolt away, but they don't punch back. They push with open hands--no closed fist punching.
(4) After Bolt knocks one of them down and kicks him, that man gets up and may punch back (his actions are obscured in the video). If he did, this is the only punch thrown by the "attackers" during the scuffle.
(5) That man also gives a half-hearted kick at that point, but it's hard to believe it was meant to cause damage. The "attackers" are keeping distance at this point, and it looks like the kick is intended more to keep Bolt away than to attack him.
There is no point during this episode at which Bolt looks like he is in actual danger of serious injury from the "attackers". Assuming this was not a false flag event set up by Bolt (I doubt it), I suspect it felt to him in the middle of things like he was in danger, but an objective viewing of the videos shows him to be acting out of fight-or-flight not actually defending himself from an attack.
Since Bolt goes after the man who has backed away from him, I wouldn't be surprised at all if law enforcement could interpret this as an assault committed by Bolt. I strongly suspect this is what the men intended to happen. If they were really trying to beat him up, they wouldn't have filmed it.
And if they were trying to set Bolt up, they succeeded. Why? Because he didn't keep his cool when they came at him!
People who are from cultures that are actually more conflict prone place a higher value on politeness and on the personal characteristic of keeping one's cool. If you can't, you are more likely to end up losing in the long run. Hence, the Sicilian proverb, which is quite correct.
It all happened so fast.
But Bolt certainly didn’t hesitate a nanosecond before hitting back.
Greatly enjoyed seeing someone attacking the insufferable SJWs!
And two, are a lot of other media picking this story up a lot, or not? It seems like whenever an athlete or coach anywhere in the world throws even a single ineffective punch in the general direction of a journalist, tons of other journalists write stories about how horrible that was and make a big important deal out of it. I wonder if this kind of pro-journalism bias is strong enough to extend to cases where the (supposed) progressives come out looking like totally ineffective losers.
Bolt is reviled by the usually pretty far left journalists. They would be delighted to see him attacked.
TKD is Japanese karate that the Koreans learned badly from the Japanese during the occupation. Japanese karate is Okinawan karate that the Japanese learned badly from Okinawans. Okinawan karate is Chinese kung fu that the Okinawans learned badly from the Chinese.
The proof of the BS is that in karate and TKD, any competition sparing or self-defense taught bears absolutely no relationship to the kata forms that the martial art is supposedly based on.
For example, in this video where the karate guy gets his ass handed to him by the wing chun guy, the karate guy is just doing very incompetent kick-boxing--there's no kara-te (Chinese hand) in his karate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f7td8Hc-V4
Chrisno,
It is ‘empty hand’, not ‘Chinese hand’.
This is pretty funny, Steve.
I wonder what the arsyfa expected to capture on this video.
I checked a little of this Bolt’s writing on three topics, I think it fair to say that he is a neo-conservative, not a conservative. He is also not for free speech in the US First Amendment sense, only for less restricted speech.
Still, a good show against the arsyfa!
Brett Weinstein is very much of the left, just not the baseball bat wing.
Weinstein did object to the SJWs and that it is good. But I don’t think he anticipated the violence of the response.
I wonder if he isn’t one of those leftists who think the left are the warm and fuzzy party?
Of course, watching the various Battles of Berkeley should have served as a warning to be prepared for violence if he didn’t knuckle under.
But somehow I don’t think he was expecting things to get so bad.
“Surely they know I’m a nice leftist too and will treat me politely” might be what he was thinking.
(All of main characters behind these subversive plots were... ahem... God's Chosen People, which explains National Socialism's animosity toward the Tribe).
I think we've got quite a way to go before we reach the stage Wiemar was at, but the Left is intemperate and irrational, and who knows... could happen yet.
Although I’m not trying to draw parallels between Weimar and the present, one thing disturbs me a great deal.
In the USA, entire cities have decided to ignore federal law, if it happens to affect their crazy leftism.
I think Toronto is or would do the same, but we don’t have a Trump here.
——
As a side note, I notice that the massive influx of Chinese and Sikhs to Vancouver has rather lowered its leftist reputation.
These groups think differently. There are plenty of SJWs to go around but this particular set of immigrants seems to have made the place less leftist.
A lot of them likely want a business-friendly environment.
It is 'empty hand', not 'Chinese hand'.
This is pretty funny, Steve.
I wonder what the arsyfa expected to capture on this video.
I checked a little of this Bolt's writing on three topics, I think it fair to say that he is a neo-conservative, not a conservative. He is also not for free speech in the US First Amendment sense, only for less restricted speech.
Still, a good show against the arsyfa!
In Japanese, the written characters for empty and Chinese are both pronounced “kara”. During the pre-WWII era, they started writing “empty” for ethnocentric reasons, but the original and more accurate name is “Chinese hand”, not “empty hand.”
Unfortunately, the same is pretty much true in ultra-leftist American cities like New York, D.C., and San Francisco.
Places where Second Amendment rights are ironclad (e.g., West Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona) don't have any antifa problems whatsoever.
There is no Second Amendment in Australia, or most other Western Countries… the Left controls the governments and self-defense is a crime in many jurisdictions, so the Left owns the streets.
Unfortunately, the same is pretty much true in ultra-leftist American cities like New York, D.C., and San Francisco.
Places where Second Amendment rights are ironclad (e.g., West Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona) don’t have any antifa problems whatsoever.
Yesterday, the Governor of FL signed into law a stronger “Stand Your Ground Law.” Under the FL “Stand Your Ground” law, a person that has come under attack has no duty to retreat. Prior to yesterday, if a person was arrested after protecting himself and planned to use a defense under “Stand Your Ground,” that person would need to prove to a judge’s satisfaction at a pretrial hearing that “Stand Your Ground” is an acceptable defense at trial. Now it’s the prosecutor’s burden to prove that “Stand Your Ground” doesn’t apply.
The regular legal-theory of “Self Defense” still applies and is different from but similar to “Stand Your Ground.” Again, under “Stand Your Ground,” a victim does not have a duty to retreat.
And, of course, the “Castle Doctrine” is different from but similar to “Self Defense” and “Stand Your Ground.”
Also, in FL, about five years ago, Florida authorized tough sanctions against any FL municipality that tried, even in the slightest, to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights, even including financial penalties against individual local officials. In effect, local municipalities are prohibited from making any gun law; all gun laws are made by the State.
(1) The newspaper article Steve posted says Bolt was attacked from behind. This is incorrect. You can clearly see in the two videos above that the "attackers" come from the front.
(2) The "attack" consisted of a man throwing paint on Bolt and then immediately backing away and assuming a defensive posture.
(3) When Bolt starts punching the man who has taken a defensive posture (literally, punching down), the "attackers" push Bolt away, but they don't punch back. They push with open hands--no closed fist punching.
(4) After Bolt knocks one of them down and kicks him, that man gets up and may punch back (his actions are obscured in the video). If he did, this is the only punch thrown by the "attackers" during the scuffle.
(5) That man also gives a half-hearted kick at that point, but it's hard to believe it was meant to cause damage. The "attackers" are keeping distance at this point, and it looks like the kick is intended more to keep Bolt away than to attack him.
There is no point during this episode at which Bolt looks like he is in actual danger of serious injury from the "attackers". Assuming this was not a false flag event set up by Bolt (I doubt it), I suspect it felt to him in the middle of things like he was in danger, but an objective viewing of the videos shows him to be acting out of fight-or-flight not actually defending himself from an attack.
Since Bolt goes after the man who has backed away from him, I wouldn't be surprised at all if law enforcement could interpret this as an assault committed by Bolt. I strongly suspect this is what the men intended to happen. If they were really trying to beat him up, they wouldn't have filmed it.
And if they were trying to set Bolt up, they succeeded. Why? Because he didn't keep his cool when they came at him!
People who are from cultures that are actually more conflict prone place a higher value on politeness and on the personal characteristic of keeping one's cool. If you can't, you are more likely to end up losing in the long run. Hence, the Sicilian proverb, which is quite correct.
The attack (no scare quotes) consisted of two men wearing hoodies and with bandanas over their face (you know, like what muggers and bank robbers wear) charging up to him and throwing powder in his face to blind him. Then, after doing this, instead of running away, they remain near him, within punching or stabbing range.
Got it. Shoving someone forcefully into a table doesn’t count as a bodily assault.
He could have run away when he got back up, but he and his companion stay and fight.
But they don’t retreat, they stay near him within lunging distance.
He got shoved into a table with enough force to knock it over.
A reasonable person would feel in danger if two men in hoodies and bandanas over their faces suddenly charge up to you and throw powder in your face to blind you. It would be reasonable to assume you are being mugged.
On this point I agree entirely.
LOL. If they tried that in a “culture that is actually more conflict prone” they would have been mobbed by the bystanders and gotten beaten very badly. Where do you mean? Pakistan? Columbia? Darkest Africa? There’s youtube videos of third-worlders dealing with punks and petty criminals in their idiosyncratic way, but they are age-restricted.
In summary, if a gang of men in hoodies and bandanas, which is what muggers and gas station robbers wear, charge up to you and throw powder in your face to blind you, a reasonable person would believe he is in danger of harm. If he or a bystander pulled a gun on the punks I would vote for aquittal.
The best quality videos I found of the Andrew Bolt punching incedent:
1st angle:
Leftist Protesters get more than they bargain for when Andrew Bolt bashes back
2nd angle:
Seven + Nine News. Zionist AntiFa vs Bolt. (Andrew Bolt Hits Back)
You are much more likely to need to know how to use your fists than to stab or shoot someone. What is more common in the civilian world, brawls or gun battles? Unless you live in an active war zone the answer is overwhelmingly the former. There is a lot of silliness in the martial arts community but there is also serious and effective stuff as well. Actually, since the mainstreaming of MMA there is probably considerably less silliness these days.
Where would Andrew Bolt be right now had he picked up a steak knife and stabbed these goons that attacked him? I am not familiar with Australian law but despite the "disparity of force", it is unlikely that he could justify killing them. And a handgun is not even a legal option for him. Also keep in mind he is a public figure that was being recorded by multiple individuals.
It is often the gun nuts that way overprioritize their weapons. Many of them are utterly helpless without them. And I say this as a former firearms instructor, martial artist and someone that carries a legally concealed pistol. Unarmed fighting skills are a fundamental part of being prepared for self defense. Too many gun people treat the weapon as a proverbial hammer and every problem is a nail, at least in theory. There is a great deal of cult like behavior in the gun world as well. It's just human nature, I suppose.
When it comes to delusional beliefs, I think there are a significant number of martial artists with more realistic understanding of their capabilities and limitations under stress than there are gun people, most of whom have little or no real training at all besides standing still and carefully shooting at stationary pieces of paper. And if nothing else, martial arts training tends to be a more active endeavor. Many gun people are in more danger of dying from cardiovascular disease than from criminal violence. Even a regular boxing gym can teach you a lot more about real violence than a concealed carry course. At least a boxer has actually been seriously hit in the face at some point by a real opponent, unlike most gun nuts.
All that being said, when you really need a gun, there is no acceptable substitute. Learning to use firearms in defense is not something that should be taken lightly, and there is more to it than just getting a permit. I’m sure you’re well aware of all this despite the rather cavalier attitude in your comments.
At least a boxer has actually been seriously hit in the face at some point by a real opponent
Mike Tyson said, “everyone’s got a plan until they get hit in the face!”
In my late teens and again in my late 20′s, I trained and boxed at a couple of local gyms. And, you’re correct, learning how to throw and take a punch, move around and build up your physical and cardiovascular strength are vital to self defense. I ended up w/ a 3 – 3 amateur record.
I also trained for a couple of years each in Karate and Judo; and same thing – being in shape and learning how to move is beneficial for self defense.
I will say, however, the fight usually goes to the heavier, stronger participant. On a few occasions, in the gym, I boxed and grappled with guys 20 to 50 pounds heavier than me, and they could move and throw me around like a rag doll.
Okay, not all of them. But those in the know. Clinton, for instance, made BLM a major part of her campaign up to and including when they were going on violent rampages and assassinating public officials.
It’s more complex than that. In the case of BLM, Hillary supported BLM to some extent, but Bill didn’t and got hammered by elements of the left for doing so.
Also remember that our perceptions of the left are heavily influenced by the MSM. The MSM doesn’t just attack conservatives, it makes a great effort to avoid paying attention to leftist in-fighting. Media stories about leftist divisions are almost non-existent, yet as I’m sure Tom Wolfe will tell you, they would make highly entertaining media fodder.
Both the moderate left and the conservative right are brain-washed into believed in the unity of the left.
The two most effective things to do in a melee are to gouge the other fellow's eyes (permanently blinding him, if done competently), and grabbing, twisting, and pulling on his genitals in a single, swift motion (causing cripplingly excruciating pain if done competently).
I was taught both techniques by my gunnery sergeant, who was hardly unmanly, and who knew more about fighting (as does most any gunny) than probably at least ninety per cent of the planet's population).
If it comes from the Gunny, it’s like it came from the burning bush.
The two most effective things to do in a melee are to gouge the other fellow's eyes (permanently blinding him, if done competently), and grabbing, twisting, and pulling on his genitals in a single, swift motion (causing cripplingly excruciating pain if done competently).
I was taught both techniques by my gunnery sergeant, who was hardly unmanly, and who knew more about fighting (as does most any gunny) than probably at least ninety per cent of the planet's population).
The two most effective things to do in a melee are to gouge the other fellow’s eyes (permanently blinding him, if done competently), and grabbing, twisting, and pulling on his genitals in a single, swift motion (causing cripplingly excruciating pain if done competently).
These and other deadly techniques (krav maga) that can’t be trained against anything other than compliant opponents can give a false sense of security. You also have to close to use them. How do you do that vs someone competent at boxing as in the video of the Turkish mob, for example? It’s hard enough to hit someone in the face if he’s not trying to be hit, let alone hitting them in the eye or the nuts. Meanwhile if you are boxing or using MT or even contact-Karate style kicking, you can inflict enough damage to incapacitate or cause a loss of will to fight (as with the Bolt conflict).
How do you get better at them unless it is against someone who is trying their best within the confines of acceptable rules to do you harm? From that perspective, the sport combat route offers realistic feedback. You don’t have 120lbs girls entertaining the thought that they are likely to come out in any other fashion than unraped vs a grown man if they have taken boxing, wrestling, judo or BJJ classes. That’s why they all have weight classes. (I have seen krav maga classes in the same gym, with a bunch of girls and moms taking them. Yes, the instructor knew what he was doing and also was a BJJ blue belt, but he had a good business going on with his own class.)
And I know plenty of military and police who endorse the sport combat method of training for self-defence purposes.
I think even in a war, most of the killing is going to be done with bullets and explosive ordnance. The use of bayonets these days is the exception that proves the rule. Beyond that, if you are having to go hand to hand, someone has stuffed up. It’s a last resort.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10?r=US&IR=T
In previous centuries, maybe there was enough time to gain practice in the field with deadly hand-to-hand stuff and not get killed in between learning how it works if you work good and lucky, but I think that is the exception. Even choking in BJJ requires quite a bit of practice for a lot of the techniques to get it right, other than the rear-naked choke (sleeper hold).
And the advantage, as Steve says of old-fashioned fisticuffs is that it will likely be more legally acceptable than picking up a nearby club or stabbing implement and going to town.
Nor do I suggest charging the other fellow with one's arm extended for his groin or eyes; I mentioned to very effective grappling techniques to illustrate sportsmanship and fair play have no place in a serious fight.
#nonsequitur
http://gruntstuff.com/ranger-gets-confirmed-kill-with-mre-spoon/
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/01/the-fight-one-lone-retired-gurkha-against-a-train-with-40-bandits.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2012_Camp_Bastion_raid#The_raid
(1) The newspaper article Steve posted says Bolt was attacked from behind. This is incorrect. You can clearly see in the two videos above that the "attackers" come from the front.
(2) The "attack" consisted of a man throwing paint on Bolt and then immediately backing away and assuming a defensive posture.
(3) When Bolt starts punching the man who has taken a defensive posture (literally, punching down), the "attackers" push Bolt away, but they don't punch back. They push with open hands--no closed fist punching.
(4) After Bolt knocks one of them down and kicks him, that man gets up and may punch back (his actions are obscured in the video). If he did, this is the only punch thrown by the "attackers" during the scuffle.
(5) That man also gives a half-hearted kick at that point, but it's hard to believe it was meant to cause damage. The "attackers" are keeping distance at this point, and it looks like the kick is intended more to keep Bolt away than to attack him.
There is no point during this episode at which Bolt looks like he is in actual danger of serious injury from the "attackers". Assuming this was not a false flag event set up by Bolt (I doubt it), I suspect it felt to him in the middle of things like he was in danger, but an objective viewing of the videos shows him to be acting out of fight-or-flight not actually defending himself from an attack.
Since Bolt goes after the man who has backed away from him, I wouldn't be surprised at all if law enforcement could interpret this as an assault committed by Bolt. I strongly suspect this is what the men intended to happen. If they were really trying to beat him up, they wouldn't have filmed it.
And if they were trying to set Bolt up, they succeeded. Why? Because he didn't keep his cool when they came at him!
People who are from cultures that are actually more conflict prone place a higher value on politeness and on the personal characteristic of keeping one's cool. If you can't, you are more likely to end up losing in the long run. Hence, the Sicilian proverb, which is quite correct.
Yeah thanks. Here’s an honest and more informed rundown:
(1) Three accomplices—two attackers plus a cameraman—approach Bolt with the intent to trap and ambush.
(2) Thug 1, trailed by the cameraman, approaches a distracted Bolt from the front.
(3) Thug 2 (blue and white knit hat) flanks Bolt by running along the street, as seen top left of frame in this alternate security cam view, completing a pincer movement to block Bolt’s six. Bolt’s 3 and 9 o’clock are blocked by the building and a streetside glass barrier.
(4) The first bit of violence—Thug 1 shoves an old lady to get at Bolt at (0:20) in your posted video.
(5) Thug 1 hits Bolt with an unknown (to Bolt) substance.
(6) Bolt counter-attacks Thug 1 who has already assaulted two people.
(7) Thug 2 appears from Bolt’s initial six o’clock blind spot (contrary to your assertion Bolt was not attacked from behind), joins the attack (also dumping a substance?), and shoves the 57 year old man.
(8) The three continue to brawl (none attempting to flee) until a burly male bystander yells at and approaches the attackers, who then run off. The cameraman runs off in the opposite direction.
No need to put quotes around attackers—your video shows that Bolt (and a bystander) were attacked. As to serious injury—anyone, especially of advanced age—can get seriously hurt trying to evade or fight off assailants.
The whole thing happened very fast—10 seconds from first contact to last strike as seen in this high frame rate accomplice POV:
The reason I put "attack" in scare quotes is not that the two thugs didn't do anything to Bolt, it's that their actual actions and missed opportunities suggest they were not actually trying to harm Bolt. For example, if they were actually intending to physically assault him, Thug 2 should have not paused and rather come right up behind Bolt and cold-cocked him. Likewise, Thug 1 shouldn't have run off to the side and assumed a defensive posture, he should have pressed his advantage after throwing the substance at Bolt.Again, you're seeing what you want to see. Usually when you see a Brawl, you see punches flying on both sides. There is possibly one punch from the thugs at this point, but "continue" is not really accurate.All of their actions throughout suggest antagonism without an intention that is captured by the common understanding of the word "attack." Since they posted on Facebook that "Some of our family in solidarity were attacked by Andrew Bolt while they were protesting today. Why he isn't in prison for his horrendous, violent language yet is beyond me.", it seems entirely plausible that this is the outcome they wanted. What they may not have expected was a positive public response to Bolt, but that's beside the point.I didn't say that, but now that you mention it, given these two hypothetical situations:
(1) Bolt fights back, is charged by law enforcement, fired from his job, and his voice is shut down.
(2) Bolt doesn't fight back and continues in his job. An "accident" befalls antifa thugs after they are ID'd.
Yeah, I guess I would choose number 2.
But my point was not that a vendetta culture is better in general, but that when people are forced to consider the long-term consequences regularly, they don't default to "manful" behavior. This should give people pause when confronted with the question what to do in Bolt's situation, which, saliently, was that he was not actually fighting off an attack so much as responding to provocation.
A real Aussie would use his tail for balance and disembowel attackers with his big ol’ clodhoppers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIRT7lf8byw
Bolt is one of Australia's best-known conservative commentators, and the most prominent in Melbourne. No other commentator is excoriated as much by the SJW left and its MSM enablers. It is therefore no surprise that leftist thugs would want to target him in particular.
A few years ago, Bolt was sued under a notorious law (section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which operates much like section 13 did in Canada until Mark Steyn succeeded in getting it repealed) for two newspaper columns he wrote. In them he exposed the racket whereby middle-class individuals with small amounts of Aboriginal ancestry manage to win large numbers of government grants and jobs reserved for Aboriginal people, supposedly to compensate for their entrenched poverty and disadvantage.
Bolt lost the case due largely to the judge, a creature of the leftist political machine in this city, who perversely interpreted Bolt's comments in a way that enabled them to be found in breach of section 18C.
While Bolt is understandably bitter about the case, he hasn't slowed in his efforts to expose the hypocrisies and lies of the left, and champion conservative values. He is particularly concerned about the Muslim and African influx which has led to instances of terrorism and an endless wave of serious crime.
I long knew of his moral courage, but the physical courage he showed in the face of this attack on a Melbourne street is a revelation.
“In them [two newspaper columns] he exposed the racket whereby middle-class individuals with small amounts of Aboriginal ancestry manage to win large numbers of government grants and jobs reserved for Aboriginal people, supposedly to compensate for their entrenched poverty and disadvantage.”
Yes, the exposure of rigged-up, undue enrichment will earn a writer big-time, long lasting enmity. Thanks.
There’s no honorable way to fight. You either win or lose, that’s all.
Andrew Bolt attack videos:
1st angle:
Leftist Protesters get more than they bargain for when Andrew Bolt bashes back
2nd angle:
Seven + Nine News. Zionist AntiFa vs Bolt. (Andrew Bolt Hits Back)
Looking at all the many bystanders watching, passively, as a 57 year old man single-handedly fights three Communist insurgents, who then run off scot-free without being pursued, I thought of a Star Trek TOS episode. Klingons are occupying the pacifist Organians and Kirk is a resistance fighter. The Klingon captures Kirk and says they are like two tigers in a world of sheep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmohao7jXnc
Notice that the attackers have a video camera and they really don't fight back much considering they outnumber him. It looks like they instigated a fight but set him up to throw the punches, filmed him, then ran off.
“Notice that the attackers have a video camera and they really don’t fight back much considering they outnumber him. It looks like they instigated a fight but set him up to throw the punches, filmed him, then ran off.”
Maybe. Alot of these libturds see how the justice system turns a blind eye to what they do, they probably assume (with some justification) that they could just walk up and gang assault a man who’s old enough to have an AARP card, film themselves doing it, post it online, and just bask in the praise of other useful idiots like themselves without repercussions, because he’s -gasp- conservative!
Good to see he fought back. These little sh*ts tend to curl up and wither away when they get as good as they give out.
Company hires H1bs, experiences blowback:
http://gizmodo.com/jobs-site-accidentally-places-ad-on-white-nationalist-p-1795938000
Full quote: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”
The military confiscated all the boats of the civilian population so they would not be used by the Japanese if they invaded, as a kind of scorched earth tactic. Would a fascist do that? Fortunately for the Japanese, they did not invade Bengal and inherit the ongoing famine. Then we would all hear about the 4 million Bengalis who were deliberately starved by the cruel Japanese occupation.
Bingo. And who would be leading the charge in spreading this meme? Smooth-talking British "historians."
Free speech defender Andrew Bolt not only battles the anti-free speech thugs, he can also turn a phrase with elocution that is reminiscent of James Mason.
Andrew Bolt says this in a manner that would have made James Mason envious:
“Bad luck for them, of course, I don’t do running and hiding.”
Andrew Bolt gloriously elongates the “hiding” bit to express all his scorn and contempt for the anti-free speech rats who attacked him. Bolt behaved bravely, and to show his superiority to the anti-free speech rodents, he further gives them the treatment they deserve with a wonderful use of language and timing. This Andrew Bolt guy is a mass media pro extraordinaire it would seem.
Maybe. Alot of these libturds see how the justice system turns a blind eye to what they do, they probably assume (with some justification) that they could just walk up and gang assault a man who's old enough to have an AARP card, film themselves doing it, post it online, and just bask in the praise of other useful idiots like themselves without repercussions, because he's -gasp- conservative!
Good to see he fought back. These little sh*ts tend to curl up and wither away when they get as good as they give out.
My understanding is that what the libtards posted was that they were assualted by Bolt while peacefully protesting. If true, that’s consistent with the idea that he was being set up.
Definitely agree. Any street assault , even by a single attacker, carries the possibility of a fatal injury. Even if no weapons are initially used, there is no way to know whether the attacker(s) have one hidden. The wisest strategy is to assume that this is a deadly assault with intent to cause grave bodily harm or worse.
You are wrong. It has no connection to China, except in origin. Kara, 空, is connected to the sky and emptiness, not specifically to China.
In case you're trolling instead of ignorant, I'm not going to reply again unless you post an explanation of why the widely accepted historical fact is wrong. Thanks.
Then we would all hear about the 4 million Bengalis who were deliberately starved by the cruel Japanese occupation
Bingo. And who would be leading the charge in spreading this meme? Smooth-talking British “historians.”
Mike Tyson said, "everyone's got a plan until they get hit in the face!"
In my late teens and again in my late 20's, I trained and boxed at a couple of local gyms. And, you're correct, learning how to throw and take a punch, move around and build up your physical and cardiovascular strength are vital to self defense. I ended up w/ a 3 - 3 amateur record.
I also trained for a couple of years each in Karate and Judo; and same thing - being in shape and learning how to move is beneficial for self defense.
I will say, however, the fight usually goes to the heavier, stronger participant. On a few occasions, in the gym, I boxed and grappled with guys 20 to 50 pounds heavier than me, and they could move and throw me around like a rag doll.
Re women and martial arts training, I like something the trainer Rory Miller wrote at his blog:
http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2011/06/nightmare.html
Of course, women have the advantage in domestic violence situations, because the cops will almost invariably be on their side. They can escalate at will. A truly nightmarish scenario is to be a man with a woman who might decide to murder you at the drop of a hat, and even though you know you could overpower her easily if you saw it coming, she won't let you see it coming.
These and other deadly techniques (krav maga) that can't be trained against anything other than compliant opponents can give a false sense of security. You also have to close to use them. How do you do that vs someone competent at boxing as in the video of the Turkish mob, for example? It's hard enough to hit someone in the face if he's not trying to be hit, let alone hitting them in the eye or the nuts. Meanwhile if you are boxing or using MT or even contact-Karate style kicking, you can inflict enough damage to incapacitate or cause a loss of will to fight (as with the Bolt conflict).
How do you get better at them unless it is against someone who is trying their best within the confines of acceptable rules to do you harm? From that perspective, the sport combat route offers realistic feedback. You don't have 120lbs girls entertaining the thought that they are likely to come out in any other fashion than unraped vs a grown man if they have taken boxing, wrestling, judo or BJJ classes. That's why they all have weight classes. (I have seen krav maga classes in the same gym, with a bunch of girls and moms taking them. Yes, the instructor knew what he was doing and also was a BJJ blue belt, but he had a good business going on with his own class.)
And I know plenty of military and police who endorse the sport combat method of training for self-defence purposes.
I think even in a war, most of the killing is going to be done with bullets and explosive ordnance. The use of bayonets these days is the exception that proves the rule. Beyond that, if you are having to go hand to hand, someone has stuffed up. It's a last resort.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10?r=US&IR=T
In previous centuries, maybe there was enough time to gain practice in the field with deadly hand-to-hand stuff and not get killed in between learning how it works if you work good and lucky, but I think that is the exception. Even choking in BJJ requires quite a bit of practice for a lot of the techniques to get it right, other than the rear-naked choke (sleeper hold).
And the advantage, as Steve says of old-fashioned fisticuffs is that it will likely be more legally acceptable than picking up a nearby club or stabbing implement and going to town.
I don’t much see your points; no one who still has ammunition for his sidearm is engaging in melee; hence my discussion of techniques for melee. By definition, firearms are not used in melee.
Nor do I suggest charging the other fellow with one’s arm extended for his groin or eyes; I mentioned to very effective grappling techniques to illustrate sportsmanship and fair play have no place in a serious fight.
#nonsequitur
With a re-read of your post, I see that I have read more into it than what was written. Now I see that these are two techniques that are in a context of other techniques, presumably, that can be drilled, hopefully against a resisting opponent. I have seen the argument quite a few times that "X deadly techniques are awesome and superior than Y sports-combat techniques", and went into autopilot. Sorry about that.
My point was that you were taught this by someone in the military. Someone I know was also in the military, an officer, and I am using his arguments as to deadly techniques to incapacitate - capacity to train them. This was in the days when BJJ was practically confined to Brazil still. If he had been born later, I think it's likely he would have learned BJJ as he trained in wrestling and boxing, likely as the component skills of unarmed combat. I know that this guy got the better of the fights he had been in, in real life. Once against a criminal. He was very much an advocate of wrestling and boxing as being very effective schooling in self-defense.
Nor do I suggest charging the other fellow with one’s arm extended for his groin or eyes; I mentioned to very effective grappling techniques to illustrate sportsmanship and fair play have no place in a serious fight.
I agree to a certain extent about sportsmanship and fair play. Certainly you shouldn't expect your opponent to exhibit any sportsmanship or fair play in a street fight let alone a fight to the death. And yes, you should expect your opponent to go for the nuts or eyes if you are grappling on the ground.
My larger point is that you can use such techniques, if you choose, as options from a sport fighting base. Say you know some BJJ and your opponent is untrained. If you have scrambled for a good side control, he will not be in a position to attack your balls or your eyes. However, here you have options. You can choke, or you can apply the Americana or Kimura and break his arm, or just cry "uncle". And you know you can do this, because you have safely practiced it to the point of tapping many times. Or you can elbow him in the head a few times. Or you can upgrade your position to full mount if you like, personally I think you can do enough damage from side control and it's a more stable position. Or you can get to your feet and run away.
If he manages to scramble out of it, at least you know how to upgrade your position again.
If you only know wrestling, then you will likely have to improvise more and use some GNP. That being said, you have a much better chance (especially if opponent is unskilled and similar in size) to dictate where the fight is taking place and who has the advantage.
These days with the popularity of MMA, the assumption of an unskilled opponent may not be a good one.
“And he may be counting on a previous relationship with you to keep you from acting”
Of course, women have the advantage in domestic violence situations, because the cops will almost invariably be on their side. They can escalate at will. A truly nightmarish scenario is to be a man with a woman who might decide to murder you at the drop of a hat, and even though you know you could overpower her easily if you saw it coming, she won’t let you see it coming.
Such scenarios – premeditated or enraged violence instigated by women, serious injuries and forbearance (followed by narrow escapes or even prosecutions) for men – with the females departing scot-free, or even with cash and prizes, are fsr more common than the Narratives depiction of females as put-upon, docile creatures.
Just as with disloyalty (to mates or tribes; cf. divorce and voting), sexuality, (hypergamy and promiscuity), honesty (rationalisation), and any other aspect of honour you may mention, it turns out the Patriarchy was never for oppressing women, but, such as it was, for preserving civilisation.
(1) The newspaper article Steve posted says Bolt was attacked from behind. This is incorrect. You can clearly see in the two videos above that the "attackers" come from the front.
(2) The "attack" consisted of a man throwing paint on Bolt and then immediately backing away and assuming a defensive posture.
(3) When Bolt starts punching the man who has taken a defensive posture (literally, punching down), the "attackers" push Bolt away, but they don't punch back. They push with open hands--no closed fist punching.
(4) After Bolt knocks one of them down and kicks him, that man gets up and may punch back (his actions are obscured in the video). If he did, this is the only punch thrown by the "attackers" during the scuffle.
(5) That man also gives a half-hearted kick at that point, but it's hard to believe it was meant to cause damage. The "attackers" are keeping distance at this point, and it looks like the kick is intended more to keep Bolt away than to attack him.
There is no point during this episode at which Bolt looks like he is in actual danger of serious injury from the "attackers". Assuming this was not a false flag event set up by Bolt (I doubt it), I suspect it felt to him in the middle of things like he was in danger, but an objective viewing of the videos shows him to be acting out of fight-or-flight not actually defending himself from an attack.
Since Bolt goes after the man who has backed away from him, I wouldn't be surprised at all if law enforcement could interpret this as an assault committed by Bolt. I strongly suspect this is what the men intended to happen. If they were really trying to beat him up, they wouldn't have filmed it.
And if they were trying to set Bolt up, they succeeded. Why? Because he didn't keep his cool when they came at him!
People who are from cultures that are actually more conflict prone place a higher value on politeness and on the personal characteristic of keeping one's cool. If you can't, you are more likely to end up losing in the long run. Hence, the Sicilian proverb, which is quite correct.
When is an attack merely an “attack?” When masked thugs surround you, throw something at you, shove you, and don’t disengage but hover around you for a while as you fight back? The target of this mere “attack,” if he were manful, should be able to read the scare-quote attackers’ minds. They weren’t intent on caving his head in with a bike lock, because that never happens, right?
Obviously, the masked men only intended to bait him, which is why they trapped and assaulted him. Like, who can’t read minds, man? Always go into a street brawl assuming the other side will only escalate up until the point that you look bad. That way you’ll never get your head caved in with a bike lock.
But seriously, one thing I agree with is that he can’t count on the cops to protect him, even when he was clearly attacked (not “attacked”). Unfortunately, that ruins your “dish best served cold” advice. Though it’s possible the masked men get unmasked, even then, what are the odds they get prosecuted?
Also, revenge is for after you’ve been wronged. It’s weird to think about revenge while you’re being wronged. Unless the wronging lasts a while. But this was over in ten seconds. You’re saying that in those ten seconds not only should he be not concerned about what is in fact an attack but luckily not a life-threatening one, he should manfully hold himself back because he could get in trouble from the authorities, and he should wait for revenge that could only come through those same authorities upon whom he can’t rely.
Or is the revenge supposed to come from those masked men simply being exposed, or even from the victim being able to hold his head high knowing he wasn’t baited by direct offensive action in his face? Hey, how about instead of revenge he just defends himself and gets to be a media hero? That’ll save time.
But I disagree with your and other commenters characterizations of what happened. The initial "glitter-bomb" was not followed up by punches, kicks, etc, it was followed up by a retreat and curling into a defensive posture. This is not a "I needed to throw a punch because maybe he had a knife" situation, it's a "I needed to throw a punch because he threw something on my clothes" situation.
Antifa wants to silence Bolt, and there are various ways to do that. He should be cognizant of that.
Here's a different way to look at the issue of reacting "manfully": from a tactical viewpoint, when confronted by a group, turning your back on attackers is a cardinal error. Bolt's best action in this case would have been to move past the cameraman in the direction the attack came from. This is where he had a view of an opening with no attackers. Moving into that space and then turning to face them would have been the best way of maintaining personal safety and raising the odds of winning against a possible group assault. However, I accept that that's a reaction it probably would require training to carry out. But maintaining enough equilibrium to take quick stock of your surroundings after someone retreats is a goal anyone can meet.
These and other deadly techniques (krav maga) that can't be trained against anything other than compliant opponents can give a false sense of security. You also have to close to use them. How do you do that vs someone competent at boxing as in the video of the Turkish mob, for example? It's hard enough to hit someone in the face if he's not trying to be hit, let alone hitting them in the eye or the nuts. Meanwhile if you are boxing or using MT or even contact-Karate style kicking, you can inflict enough damage to incapacitate or cause a loss of will to fight (as with the Bolt conflict).
How do you get better at them unless it is against someone who is trying their best within the confines of acceptable rules to do you harm? From that perspective, the sport combat route offers realistic feedback. You don't have 120lbs girls entertaining the thought that they are likely to come out in any other fashion than unraped vs a grown man if they have taken boxing, wrestling, judo or BJJ classes. That's why they all have weight classes. (I have seen krav maga classes in the same gym, with a bunch of girls and moms taking them. Yes, the instructor knew what he was doing and also was a BJJ blue belt, but he had a good business going on with his own class.)
And I know plenty of military and police who endorse the sport combat method of training for self-defence purposes.
I think even in a war, most of the killing is going to be done with bullets and explosive ordnance. The use of bayonets these days is the exception that proves the rule. Beyond that, if you are having to go hand to hand, someone has stuffed up. It's a last resort.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10?r=US&IR=T
In previous centuries, maybe there was enough time to gain practice in the field with deadly hand-to-hand stuff and not get killed in between learning how it works if you work good and lucky, but I think that is the exception. Even choking in BJJ requires quite a bit of practice for a lot of the techniques to get it right, other than the rear-naked choke (sleeper hold).
And the advantage, as Steve says of old-fashioned fisticuffs is that it will likely be more legally acceptable than picking up a nearby club or stabbing implement and going to town.
Counter-terrorism suggests a need for close-combat proficiency:
http://gruntstuff.com/ranger-gets-confirmed-kill-with-mre-spoon/
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/01/the-fight-one-lone-retired-gurkha-against-a-train-with-40-bandits.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2012_Camp_Bastion_raid#The_raid
In the January 2011 story, he faces 40 bandits, kills three, wounds eight, and causes the rest to flee the train. He did this after they threatened to rape a beautiful 18-year-old girl sitting beside him.
In the original September 2010 account, there were 30 bandits and he wounded three before being overwhelmed, disarmed, and wounded with his own weapon. Instead of an 18-year-old girl seated near him it was an 8-year-old. No indication rape was impending.
I'm not disparaging the man's performance--he stood tall! It just got exaggerated by the newspapers.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Soldier-takes-on-dacoits-on-trainGang-Of-30/articleshow/6488820.cms?
The video for the simple anti-Antifa move is, hopefully, this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb5kt9nBWQk&t=29s
If it doesn't work go on youtube to:
2 Second Fight Ender ANYONE Can Learn!!
Also, as a cop friend of mine said to me when I told him of getting sucker-punched on the street in NYC: “Balls, balls, balls!”
Not if you take your self-defense seriously, and arm yourself. Somebody comes “brawling” after me and they’re running up on a knife, at the least.
You mean, would the goons have attacked him, had he been brandishing a knife? No.
True, but waaay overprioritized. It’s mostly just glorified exercise (yes, exercise is good). If promoters acknowledged that, I’d have more respect.
Behold:
“Almost helpless without a weapon” is silly talk. Don’t find yourself without one. Fight your way to one if you do.
Anyone who doesn’t have a weapon is far more helpless, against someone who does.
Not that you did this, but I always find the “you’re nothing without that weapon” talk amusing. Tools are what separate man from beast.
Whoops, looks like I forgot to fill in the fields for one of my comments.
The most important self-defense skills are all mental: psychologically prepare yourself to do what it takes to defend yourself. Situational awareness. This is far harder for most of the saps who train in traditional MA to accomplish than any physical technique.
No, actually, it looks like the blog is crapping itself.
In summary, if a gang of men in hoodies and bandanas, which is what muggers and gas station robbers wear, charge up to you and throw powder in your face to blind you, a reasonable person would believe he is in danger of harm. If he or a bystander pulled a gun on the punks I would vote for aquittal.
The best quality videos I found of the Andrew Bolt punching incedent:
1st angle:
Leftist Protesters get more than they bargain for when Andrew Bolt bashes back
2nd angle:
Seven + Nine News. Zionist AntiFa vs Bolt. (Andrew Bolt Hits Back)
They didn’t do that. They threw something on his clothes, and he clearly wasn’t blinded.
Yup. That’s consistent with the idea I put forward that they were trying to lure him into a situation in which he overreacted. But staying within distance of someone is not the same as attacking them.
If that were the first action in a scuffle it would obviously be an escalation and assault. However, when someone is punching you or your friend, shoving is a lower level of violence. I bet if you got in a fight and shoved someone away from you the police would see that differently from punching the person.
They stay but they don’t really fight. Again, it’s consistent with the idea I put forward that they were trying to lure him into something but not with the idea that they were trying to harm him.
Since he didn’t knock a table over (see your own 2nd angle video 0:30-0:33) that’s just speculative.
Again, that’s not an accurate description of what happened, and I doubt he thought he was being mugged. In fact, from his own description of his motivation for fighting, one must conclude that he knew it was an “antifa” ambush.
You just don’t understand what I’m talking about. You can Google “culture of honor” and “politeness theory” and start reading to educate yourself.
and step through frame by frame. He had a cup thrust at his face and he had to duck. Maybe it was aimed at the upper chest, but the face is right above that and powder coming out of a cup spreads out over a wide area. He wasn't blinded because he ducked in time.Ok, you can split hairs over the definition of "attack".Ok then. I will modify to "enough force to make it tilt to a 45 degree angle".The "punch a Nazi" and "bash the fash" people? Then he could expect the posibility of a bikelock to the head.You initially mentioned Sicily. Do you mean to say if that attack, sorry, I mean "attack", had been on John Gotti, or whoever is the famous mafia guy now, he would have done nothing?
What follows from that conclusion? Maybe, "I better fight back or they might cave my head in with a bike lock."
Staying within distance after attacking them, and while attempting to prevent them from fleeing, is to continue the attack. It doesn't suddenly stop being an attack if you don't make physical contact every .5 seconds.
Taki of TakiMag was attacked by two hired goons on a London street about ten years ago and took a moderate beating as I remember him writing about it.
Taki is a very experienced fighter but 1. Surprise 2. Being outnumbered …. makes all the difference.
Bastids.
The attacker POV video is a great lesson for everybody: typical chaotic brawl where there’s no time for dojo dance moves.
Bolt relies on boxing skills but he should’ve grabbed some furniture and devastated the opposition. Table or chair. Grab a weapon! Start swinging it around and those punks are going to back the hell up.
Very few people can end a street fight with a punch. But almost anyone can end a fight with a solid object. The best fighters get disoriented by a blow from a solid object. There is no training that can prepare the receiver of the blow for the shock.
(1) Three accomplices—two attackers plus a cameraman—approach Bolt with the intent to trap and ambush.
(2) Thug 1, trailed by the cameraman, approaches a distracted Bolt from the front.
(3) Thug 2 (blue and white knit hat) flanks Bolt by running along the street, as seen top left of frame in this alternate security cam view, completing a pincer movement to block Bolt's six. Bolt’s 3 and 9 o’clock are blocked by the building and a streetside glass barrier.
(4) The first bit of violence—Thug 1 shoves an old lady to get at Bolt at (0:20) in your posted video.
(5) Thug 1 hits Bolt with an unknown (to Bolt) substance.
(6) Bolt counter-attacks Thug 1 who has already assaulted two people.
(7) Thug 2 appears from Bolt’s initial six o'clock blind spot (contrary to your assertion Bolt was not attacked from behind), joins the attack (also dumping a substance?), and shoves the 57 year old man.
(8) The three continue to brawl (none attempting to flee) until a burly male bystander yells at and approaches the attackers, who then run off. The cameraman runs off in the opposite direction.No need to put quotes around attackers—your video shows that Bolt (and a bystander) were attacked. As to serious injury—anyone, especially of advanced age—can get seriously hurt trying to evade or fight off assailants.
The whole thing happened very fast—10 seconds from first contact to last strike as seen in this high frame rate accomplice POV:
https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/872601761101488133
I can only deduce that you’re a pacifist/masochist from your bizarre take on this incident (or maybe just an Antifa sympathizer?) …I highly doubt their plan was to promote their cause by getting their arses kicked on camera by an old guy. They likely thought they were spry enough to be able to publicly taunt Bolt without physical consequences. Now he’s a minor national hero. D’oh!Your ideal society is a publicly polite vendetta culture? And how does that apply to Australia? I don’t quite follow.
P.S., 'Tis possible you're trolling, Chrisnonymous. If so, ya got me good. :)
Nah, its always darkest night in Chrisnonymous’ world. The fact he might have to actually struggle sends him into apoplexy.
Squatting Slave TV.
Shows how discombobulated “Anti-Fa” types get being questioned by someone who looks too dangerous to fight!
(1) Three accomplices—two attackers plus a cameraman—approach Bolt with the intent to trap and ambush.
(2) Thug 1, trailed by the cameraman, approaches a distracted Bolt from the front.
(3) Thug 2 (blue and white knit hat) flanks Bolt by running along the street, as seen top left of frame in this alternate security cam view, completing a pincer movement to block Bolt's six. Bolt’s 3 and 9 o’clock are blocked by the building and a streetside glass barrier.
(4) The first bit of violence—Thug 1 shoves an old lady to get at Bolt at (0:20) in your posted video.
(5) Thug 1 hits Bolt with an unknown (to Bolt) substance.
(6) Bolt counter-attacks Thug 1 who has already assaulted two people.
(7) Thug 2 appears from Bolt’s initial six o'clock blind spot (contrary to your assertion Bolt was not attacked from behind), joins the attack (also dumping a substance?), and shoves the 57 year old man.
(8) The three continue to brawl (none attempting to flee) until a burly male bystander yells at and approaches the attackers, who then run off. The cameraman runs off in the opposite direction.No need to put quotes around attackers—your video shows that Bolt (and a bystander) were attacked. As to serious injury—anyone, especially of advanced age—can get seriously hurt trying to evade or fight off assailants.
The whole thing happened very fast—10 seconds from first contact to last strike as seen in this high frame rate accomplice POV:
https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/872601761101488133
I can only deduce that you’re a pacifist/masochist from your bizarre take on this incident (or maybe just an Antifa sympathizer?) …I highly doubt their plan was to promote their cause by getting their arses kicked on camera by an old guy. They likely thought they were spry enough to be able to publicly taunt Bolt without physical consequences. Now he’s a minor national hero. D’oh!Your ideal society is a publicly polite vendetta culture? And how does that apply to Australia? I don’t quite follow.
P.S., 'Tis possible you're trolling, Chrisnonymous. If so, ya got me good. :)
The addition of pejorative terms like “thug” and jargon like “6 o’clock” doesn’t make your account either honest or more informed. However, it does reveal that you’re seeing in the video what you want to see. Viz:
Bolt was simply not attacked from behind. Your assertion that he was is based on your assumption about what Thug 2 would have done if he had arrived at the same time as Thug 1. What he actually does is run up to the scene of Bolt and Thug 1 tussling and pause until Bolt has turned and is more or less facing him. Then he assists Thug 1 in pushing Bolt away from the two of them. He doesn’t take any opportunity he had to punch or kick Bolt.
The reason I put “attack” in scare quotes is not that the two thugs didn’t do anything to Bolt, it’s that their actual actions and missed opportunities suggest they were not actually trying to harm Bolt. For example, if they were actually intending to physically assault him, Thug 2 should have not paused and rather come right up behind Bolt and cold-cocked him. Likewise, Thug 1 shouldn’t have run off to the side and assumed a defensive posture, he should have pressed his advantage after throwing the substance at Bolt.
Again, you’re seeing what you want to see. Usually when you see a Brawl, you see punches flying on both sides. There is possibly one punch from the thugs at this point, but “continue” is not really accurate.
All of their actions throughout suggest antagonism without an intention that is captured by the common understanding of the word “attack.” Since they posted on Facebook that “Some of our family in solidarity were attacked by Andrew Bolt while they were protesting today. Why he isn’t in prison for his horrendous, violent language yet is beyond me.”, it seems entirely plausible that this is the outcome they wanted. What they may not have expected was a positive public response to Bolt, but that’s beside the point.
I didn’t say that, but now that you mention it, given these two hypothetical situations:
(1) Bolt fights back, is charged by law enforcement, fired from his job, and his voice is shut down.
(2) Bolt doesn’t fight back and continues in his job. An “accident” befalls antifa thugs after they are ID’d.
Yeah, I guess I would choose number 2.
But my point was not that a vendetta culture is better in general, but that when people are forced to consider the long-term consequences regularly, they don’t default to “manful” behavior. This should give people pause when confronted with the question what to do in Bolt’s situation, which, saliently, was that he was not actually fighting off an attack so much as responding to provocation.
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/green-beret-vs-peruvian-special-forces/
An interviewer once asked Bruce Lee what technique he would teach someone if that person knew he was going to have to fight for his life within 10 minutes. Lee's answer: The eye jab.
Ugly but effective.
In real street/bar fights by ordinary people I’ve noticed that uneducated punching simply does not work well at all. Most people don’t have the upper body strength to do enough quick damage.
Looking back at the London Bridge fight I wonder that more men did not group together to fight them off.
Easier said than done in situations were many people’s minds dissolve and when all mainline advice revolves around running away.
(The attackers had fake suicide belts on also.)
But in the bars there are stools and chairs and bottles to use as shields or weapons.
I think infidels are going to have to get used to thinking about supporting each other.
The point about these attacks is to instill fear. Flocks of shrieking infidels running away is honey to the Muslims.
(Again I repeat easier said than done in reality but…)
Billy Martin, for example, beat up Reggie Jackson in his prime and made him cry, because Martin worked out on a speedbag every day. Martin was well into middle age at the time. The first player to beat Martin in a fight (when Martin was 57) was a martial arts student.
But like any exercise if you don't use it you lose it.
That’s all he did, just work out on a speedbag?
It's barely relevant, but I took some Karate classes years ago and began to think that some kind of street fighting class would be a better investment -- that and a concealed carry permit.
I'm sure some martial arts skills do apply to real fighting, but does going whole hog and collecting colored belts?
Buzz, best rule in fighting, first punch usually wins or gains the greatest advantage. If you’re going to fight, then fight to inflict great harm.
And I don't mind insulting them. A lot of them need to be insulted. You'd be amazed at how delusional some of these people get over this stuff.
Svigor, years ago there was a girl in college that lived in a sketchy neighborhood near our campus. I mentioned that I thought she should move. She replied that she was taking judo classes. She told be to attack her from behind like a mugger would. I knew I shouldn’t hit her over the head with a bat , so I threw one arm around her neck, the other around her waist and picked her off her feet. She struggled helplessly and I let her go. She turned and said…”That’s not how you’re supposed to do it , just grab my shoulder.” Cute kid though.
It almost wouldn't matter who pins whom.
Anonym, Love the scene in “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” where Indiana Jones faces the Arab with the huge sword. Indy pauses, then pulls his pistol and shoots him dead. Simplicity of motion.
I just re-watched it. Yes, he certainly did pause, time enough to contemplate, and did the appropriate thing in the situation. He was too cool to aim it properly, but I guess he could afford to with another 5 shots or so.
Mike Tyson said, "everyone's got a plan until they get hit in the face!"
In my late teens and again in my late 20's, I trained and boxed at a couple of local gyms. And, you're correct, learning how to throw and take a punch, move around and build up your physical and cardiovascular strength are vital to self defense. I ended up w/ a 3 - 3 amateur record.
I also trained for a couple of years each in Karate and Judo; and same thing - being in shape and learning how to move is beneficial for self defense.
I will say, however, the fight usually goes to the heavier, stronger participant. On a few occasions, in the gym, I boxed and grappled with guys 20 to 50 pounds heavier than me, and they could move and throw me around like a rag doll.
E, Except in the movies where Angelina Jolie can kick any guys ass.
Years ago when I was still ironworking one of my crew told be that he had seen an acquaintance of mine in a street fight the night before. He said, ” You know he did something very unorthodox for a southpaw.” I asked what was that? He replied, “He kicked the other guy in the balls.” Whatever works.
From a legal perspective, using a knife in a fistfight can get you judged really badly, so I see where OP is coming from.
http://gruntstuff.com/ranger-gets-confirmed-kill-with-mre-spoon/
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/01/the-fight-one-lone-retired-gurkha-against-a-train-with-40-bandits.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2012_Camp_Bastion_raid#The_raid
I would be extra skeptical about news stories that come out of India. The Gurkha on the train sounded like a superhero in news reports published in January 2011 when he was awarded a medal for bravery. However, news reports published in September 2010, shortly after the incident, gave an account that sounds more plausible.
In the January 2011 story, he faces 40 bandits, kills three, wounds eight, and causes the rest to flee the train. He did this after they threatened to rape a beautiful 18-year-old girl sitting beside him.
In the original September 2010 account, there were 30 bandits and he wounded three before being overwhelmed, disarmed, and wounded with his own weapon. Instead of an 18-year-old girl seated near him it was an 8-year-old. No indication rape was impending.
I’m not disparaging the man’s performance–he stood tall! It just got exaggerated by the newspapers.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Soldier-takes-on-dacoits-on-trainGang-Of-30/articleshow/6488820.cms?
That's courage.
It isn't only in sunny tropic scenes that news stories deviate from strict reality. One of my favorite Tales to Astonish took place in NYC and involved a mega-celebrity, but accounts differ substantially:
http://www.boxingmonthly.com/stories/criminal-stupidity-the-day-two-muggers-tried-to-rob-jack-dempsey/
(I remember this story running in my hometown paper in the 1968-'71 time period, accompanied by a photo of elderly Jack holding his fist up to the camera so it looked as big as a basketball.)
Nor do I suggest charging the other fellow with one's arm extended for his groin or eyes; I mentioned to very effective grappling techniques to illustrate sportsmanship and fair play have no place in a serious fight.
#nonsequitur
I don’t much see your points; no one who still has ammunition for his sidearm is engaging in melee; hence my discussion of techniques for melee. By definition, firearms are not used in melee.
With a re-read of your post, I see that I have read more into it than what was written. Now I see that these are two techniques that are in a context of other techniques, presumably, that can be drilled, hopefully against a resisting opponent. I have seen the argument quite a few times that “X deadly techniques are awesome and superior than Y sports-combat techniques”, and went into autopilot. Sorry about that.
My point was that you were taught this by someone in the military. Someone I know was also in the military, an officer, and I am using his arguments as to deadly techniques to incapacitate – capacity to train them. This was in the days when BJJ was practically confined to Brazil still. If he had been born later, I think it’s likely he would have learned BJJ as he trained in wrestling and boxing, likely as the component skills of unarmed combat. I know that this guy got the better of the fights he had been in, in real life. Once against a criminal. He was very much an advocate of wrestling and boxing as being very effective schooling in self-defense.
Nor do I suggest charging the other fellow with one’s arm extended for his groin or eyes; I mentioned to very effective grappling techniques to illustrate sportsmanship and fair play have no place in a serious fight.
I agree to a certain extent about sportsmanship and fair play. Certainly you shouldn’t expect your opponent to exhibit any sportsmanship or fair play in a street fight let alone a fight to the death. And yes, you should expect your opponent to go for the nuts or eyes if you are grappling on the ground.
My larger point is that you can use such techniques, if you choose, as options from a sport fighting base. Say you know some BJJ and your opponent is untrained. If you have scrambled for a good side control, he will not be in a position to attack your balls or your eyes. However, here you have options. You can choke, or you can apply the Americana or Kimura and break his arm, or just cry “uncle”. And you know you can do this, because you have safely practiced it to the point of tapping many times. Or you can elbow him in the head a few times. Or you can upgrade your position to full mount if you like, personally I think you can do enough damage from side control and it’s a more stable position. Or you can get to your feet and run away.
If he manages to scramble out of it, at least you know how to upgrade your position again.
If you only know wrestling, then you will likely have to improvise more and use some GNP. That being said, you have a much better chance (especially if opponent is unskilled and similar in size) to dictate where the fight is taking place and who has the advantage.
These days with the popularity of MMA, the assumption of an unskilled opponent may not be a good one.
Anonym, Love the scene in “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” where Indiana Jones faces the Arab with the huge sword. Indy pauses, then pulls his pistol and shoots him dead. Simplicity of motion.
I just re-watched it. Yes, he certainly did pause, time enough to contemplate, and did the appropriate thing in the situation. He was too cool to aim it properly, but I guess he could afford to with another 5 shots or so.
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/green-beret-vs-peruvian-special-forces/
An interviewer once asked Bruce Lee what technique he would teach someone if that person knew he was going to have to fight for his life within 10 minutes. Lee's answer: The eye jab.
If an untrained person with one technique and 10 minutes – undoubtedly the sprint. If you get two techniques, point behind your adversary and say “Shit! The police!” and then sprint.
If he is 6’3″ and 240lbs of muscle my advice is “improvise”. These sort of people usually don’t ask that question though.
"The legs go first" is a for-real thing...
The origin of the proverb that Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. Clodius was acquitted at trial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIRT7lf8byw
That ‘roo needs to harden the fuck up.
Heavily contingent on legal environment. US law regarding lethal force is currently that disparity of numbers(3 vs 1 in this case) would typically justify escalation to lethal force on the part of the single fighter, even if attackers were “unarmed.”
I have no idea what Australian law is.
He'd stayed on a bit too long, and a little mouthy bloke approached him at the bar, began abusing him, then tried to stab him in the throat with a beer glass.
The first bloke reacted with a punch that knocked the little bloke out.
Unfortunately, he had an ''egg shell skull'' and suffered catastrophic brain damage when the back of his head hit the floor.
The Jury said ''Guilty!'', the Judge ruled the bloke wasn't cornered, and had the opportunity to back off, but didn't.
Sentenced to over 10 years.
Bottom line: in Australia, you need to be able to find lawyers who are trying, fund them, and ideally have some friends who can influence the prosecution.
Otherwise, good luck.
Australia is just a different kind of society to the US where visitors are well aware that lethal violence may never be too far away .
When in the US I was always struck by how common unintended fatal shootings were
Taki is a very experienced fighter but 1. Surprise 2. Being outnumbered .... makes all the difference.
Plus, ten years ago, Taki would have been — what — 75? Street predators always seek “easy” targets and load the odds in their favor as much as possible.
Bastids.
If he is 6'3" and 240lbs of muscle my advice is "improvise". These sort of people usually don't ask that question though.
If only I could rely on my speed! I was never fast, and now in my dotage I’m glacial. Can still bang the heavy bag, though.
“The legs go first” is a for-real thing…
https://youtube.com/watch?v=symp82TAYBk
In the January 2011 story, he faces 40 bandits, kills three, wounds eight, and causes the rest to flee the train. He did this after they threatened to rape a beautiful 18-year-old girl sitting beside him.
In the original September 2010 account, there were 30 bandits and he wounded three before being overwhelmed, disarmed, and wounded with his own weapon. Instead of an 18-year-old girl seated near him it was an 8-year-old. No indication rape was impending.
I'm not disparaging the man's performance--he stood tall! It just got exaggerated by the newspapers.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Soldier-takes-on-dacoits-on-trainGang-Of-30/articleshow/6488820.cms?
He took on 30 bandits single-handedly?
That’s courage.
Ha! Fair corker, mate!
Bastids.
Taki won the world judo championship for his age group about a half decade ago. He threw a huge actor who had starred in some of the Walking Tall movies.
I am sure, had his attackers approached him from the front and engaged him one at a time, that Taki could have abruptly introduced them to the pavement. Street scum rarely follow the courtesies of "the gentle way" however...
By the way, here's another celeb with judo in his toolbox, and a whole lotta other force options, as well:
https://i.imgur.com/ju1wwZm.gifv
In the January 2011 story, he faces 40 bandits, kills three, wounds eight, and causes the rest to flee the train. He did this after they threatened to rape a beautiful 18-year-old girl sitting beside him.
In the original September 2010 account, there were 30 bandits and he wounded three before being overwhelmed, disarmed, and wounded with his own weapon. Instead of an 18-year-old girl seated near him it was an 8-year-old. No indication rape was impending.
I'm not disparaging the man's performance--he stood tall! It just got exaggerated by the newspapers.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Soldier-takes-on-dacoits-on-trainGang-Of-30/articleshow/6488820.cms?
I agree that news from the Mysterious East can often be distorted. My only point was that even in an age of satellite-targeted drones, there’s still a big need for knuckles ‘n know-how.
It isn’t only in sunny tropic scenes that news stories deviate from strict reality. One of my favorite Tales to Astonish took place in NYC and involved a mega-celebrity, but accounts differ substantially:
http://www.boxingmonthly.com/stories/criminal-stupidity-the-day-two-muggers-tried-to-rob-jack-dempsey/
(I remember this story running in my hometown paper in the 1968-’71 time period, accompanied by a photo of elderly Jack holding his fist up to the camera so it looked as big as a basketball.)
http://www.theboxingglove.com/2015/05/book-review-in-this-corner-forty-world.html
Interviews were conducted between 1970 & 1972, and from memory, Jack Dempsey said the incident happened ''about 10 years ago.
Born in 1895, so he would've been in his late 60s.
He also mentioned ''barnstorming tours'' across the country to make money.
Game locals would get $20 for lasting a round. He said he regularly knocked out 20 - 25 guys in a nights entertainment.
In real street/bar fights by ordinary people I've noticed that uneducated punching simply does not work well at all. Most people don't have the upper body strength to do enough quick damage.
Looking back at the London Bridge fight I wonder that more men did not group together to fight them off.
Easier said than done in situations were many people's minds dissolve and when all mainline advice revolves around running away.
(The attackers had fake suicide belts on also.)
But in the bars there are stools and chairs and bottles to use as shields or weapons.
I think infidels are going to have to get used to thinking about supporting each other.
The point about these attacks is to instill fear. Flocks of shrieking infidels running away is honey to the Muslims.
(Again I repeat easier said than done in reality but...)
I hope that good people are starting to wake up and think about the issue of self-defense. The next step will be training, and the next step execution under pressure.
Joe, I hope you immediately transitioned to groundfighting.
It almost wouldn’t matter who pins whom.
Yup! Taki da man!
I am sure, had his attackers approached him from the front and engaged him one at a time, that Taki could have abruptly introduced them to the pavement. Street scum rarely follow the courtesies of “the gentle way” however…
By the way, here’s another celeb with judo in his toolbox, and a whole lotta other force options, as well:
https://i.imgur.com/ju1wwZm.gifv
"The legs go first" is a for-real thing...
Ah, in that situation I recommend the following:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=symp82TAYBk
Heavy bag trains endurance, floor to ceiling ball is all he would need to practice getting in first with the most.
I remember one about 15 years ago, in Brisbane, a bloke was at his work Christmas party, in a pub.
He’d stayed on a bit too long, and a little mouthy bloke approached him at the bar, began abusing him, then tried to stab him in the throat with a beer glass.
The first bloke reacted with a punch that knocked the little bloke out.
Unfortunately, he had an ”egg shell skull” and suffered catastrophic brain damage when the back of his head hit the floor.
The Jury said ”Guilty!”, the Judge ruled the bloke wasn’t cornered, and had the opportunity to back off, but didn’t.
Sentenced to over 10 years.
Bottom line: in Australia, you need to be able to find lawyers who are trying, fund them, and ideally have some friends who can influence the prosecution.
Otherwise, good luck.
It isn't only in sunny tropic scenes that news stories deviate from strict reality. One of my favorite Tales to Astonish took place in NYC and involved a mega-celebrity, but accounts differ substantially:
http://www.boxingmonthly.com/stories/criminal-stupidity-the-day-two-muggers-tried-to-rob-jack-dempsey/
(I remember this story running in my hometown paper in the 1968-'71 time period, accompanied by a photo of elderly Jack holding his fist up to the camera so it looked as big as a basketball.)
Mentioned in Pete Heller’s book In This Corner: 40 World Champions Tell Their Stories
http://www.theboxingglove.com/2015/05/book-review-in-this-corner-forty-world.html
Interviews were conducted between 1970 & 1972, and from memory, Jack Dempsey said the incident happened ”about 10 years ago.
Born in 1895, so he would’ve been in his late 60s.
He also mentioned ”barnstorming tours” across the country to make money.
Game locals would get $20 for lasting a round. He said he regularly knocked out 20 – 25 guys in a nights entertainment.
Fran – once I would have agreed with you but have since come to realise that the brownshirts (and later the blackshirts in Britain) were formed precisely because of this sort of violence.
We saw something similar at Trump rallies – the left attacked and the media swung into action to highlight the violence with the clear implication that Trump supporters were the cause of the problem, not the target.
The winners get to write the history.
In real street/bar fights by ordinary people I've noticed that uneducated punching simply does not work well at all. Most people don't have the upper body strength to do enough quick damage.
Looking back at the London Bridge fight I wonder that more men did not group together to fight them off.
Easier said than done in situations were many people's minds dissolve and when all mainline advice revolves around running away.
(The attackers had fake suicide belts on also.)
But in the bars there are stools and chairs and bottles to use as shields or weapons.
I think infidels are going to have to get used to thinking about supporting each other.
The point about these attacks is to instill fear. Flocks of shrieking infidels running away is honey to the Muslims.
(Again I repeat easier said than done in reality but...)
And apparently such things were used by some. But the MSM is very keen to push the passive lambs to the slaughter narrative and shows a distinct lack of interest in reporting the fighting back angle.
Okay. I shouldn’t have mentioned the apochryphal proverb for a couple reasons, including that I was trying to stress not acting hotheadedly rather than stress how to get revenge.
But I disagree with your and other commenters characterizations of what happened. The initial “glitter-bomb” was not followed up by punches, kicks, etc, it was followed up by a retreat and curling into a defensive posture. This is not a “I needed to throw a punch because maybe he had a knife” situation, it’s a “I needed to throw a punch because he threw something on my clothes” situation.
Antifa wants to silence Bolt, and there are various ways to do that. He should be cognizant of that.
Here’s a different way to look at the issue of reacting “manfully”: from a tactical viewpoint, when confronted by a group, turning your back on attackers is a cardinal error. Bolt’s best action in this case would have been to move past the cameraman in the direction the attack came from. This is where he had a view of an opening with no attackers. Moving into that space and then turning to face them would have been the best way of maintaining personal safety and raising the odds of winning against a possible group assault. However, I accept that that’s a reaction it probably would require training to carry out. But maintaining enough equilibrium to take quick stock of your surroundings after someone retreats is a goal anyone can meet.
I think given the circumstances, he did as well as could be expected.
I don’t think you get it. This character used to write “kara” was not original. It was originally a different character meaning “China” that was also pronounced “kara”. This is not speculation. There are Japanese books published in the pre-war period that use the older character.
In case you’re trolling instead of ignorant, I’m not going to reply again unless you post an explanation of why the widely accepted historical fact is wrong. Thanks.
Using lethal force in Australia would very rarely be allowable and even then probably only in mitigation .
Australia is just a different kind of society to the US where visitors are well aware that lethal violence may never be too far away .
When in the US I was always struck by how common unintended fatal shootings were
You can review the video:Seven + Nine News. Zionist AntiFa vs Bolt. (Andrew Bolt Hits Back(25sec)
and step through frame by frame. He had a cup thrust at his face and he had to duck. Maybe it was aimed at the upper chest, but the face is right above that and powder coming out of a cup spreads out over a wide area. He wasn’t blinded because he ducked in time.
Ok, you can split hairs over the definition of “attack”.
Ok then. I will modify to “enough force to make it tilt to a 45 degree angle”.
The “punch a Nazi” and “bash the fash” people? Then he could expect the posibility of a bikelock to the head.
You initially mentioned Sicily. Do you mean to say if that attack, sorry, I mean “attack”, had been on John Gotti, or whoever is the famous mafia guy now, he would have done nothing?
In case you're trolling instead of ignorant, I'm not going to reply again unless you post an explanation of why the widely accepted historical fact is wrong. Thanks.
Looking back into the 19th century when it remained a peculiarly Okinawan practice, the 唐 “Tang (a name of China)” character in the name for a certain school of martial arts was actually pronounced as tō, which really seals the deal in favor of the precedence of the 唐 character over 空. Tōde (or tōdī in Okinawan pronunciation) was changed to karate only around the beginning of the 20th century when karate began to be popularized in other parts of Japan and was formalized as a sport. The original name 唐手 tōdī literally means “Chinese method, Chinese technique(s)” in the Okinawan language. Tii “hand(s)” is a common word for “method, technique” in Okinawan; its Japanese cognate, te, also has a similar usage, but it is more often used to mean “a ruse, a trick, a sneaky means to achieve some end” when not literally meaning “hand(s).”
http://www.edrdg.org/jmdictdb/cgi-bin/entr.py?svc=jmdict&sid=&q=2511320
The alternate reading is the path by which the name "karate" was chosen. "Emptiness" is incidental to karate, regardless of what modern practitioners will tell you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmohao7jXnc
Notice that the attackers have a video camera and they really don't fight back much considering they outnumber him. It looks like they instigated a fight but set him up to throw the punches, filmed him, then ran off.
Those are excellent reactions by Bolt. Few young men in their 20s, never mind their late 50s, would react so rapidly, decisively and with such aggression in such circumstances.
These are the reactions I’d expect of someone with a background in a spearhead military formation or someone trained in fighting.
He'd stayed on a bit too long, and a little mouthy bloke approached him at the bar, began abusing him, then tried to stab him in the throat with a beer glass.
The first bloke reacted with a punch that knocked the little bloke out.
Unfortunately, he had an ''egg shell skull'' and suffered catastrophic brain damage when the back of his head hit the floor.
The Jury said ''Guilty!'', the Judge ruled the bloke wasn't cornered, and had the opportunity to back off, but didn't.
Sentenced to over 10 years.
Bottom line: in Australia, you need to be able to find lawyers who are trying, fund them, and ideally have some friends who can influence the prosecution.
Otherwise, good luck.
When I read things like that, it makes me wish that Japan had conquered the continent.
But I disagree with your and other commenters characterizations of what happened. The initial "glitter-bomb" was not followed up by punches, kicks, etc, it was followed up by a retreat and curling into a defensive posture. This is not a "I needed to throw a punch because maybe he had a knife" situation, it's a "I needed to throw a punch because he threw something on my clothes" situation.
Antifa wants to silence Bolt, and there are various ways to do that. He should be cognizant of that.
Here's a different way to look at the issue of reacting "manfully": from a tactical viewpoint, when confronted by a group, turning your back on attackers is a cardinal error. Bolt's best action in this case would have been to move past the cameraman in the direction the attack came from. This is where he had a view of an opening with no attackers. Moving into that space and then turning to face them would have been the best way of maintaining personal safety and raising the odds of winning against a possible group assault. However, I accept that that's a reaction it probably would require training to carry out. But maintaining enough equilibrium to take quick stock of your surroundings after someone retreats is a goal anyone can meet.
The optics of fighting back are pretty good, I have to say. He has enough plausible deniability to say he was attacked – and I would feel attacked in his position – and he certainly reacted in a way which comes off as skillful and strong.
I think given the circumstances, he did as well as could be expected.
I don't understand this line of thought. Clearly, he was attacked. That's not up for debate.
But I disagree with your and other commenters characterizations of what happened. The initial "glitter-bomb" was not followed up by punches, kicks, etc, it was followed up by a retreat and curling into a defensive posture. This is not a "I needed to throw a punch because maybe he had a knife" situation, it's a "I needed to throw a punch because he threw something on my clothes" situation.
Antifa wants to silence Bolt, and there are various ways to do that. He should be cognizant of that.
Here's a different way to look at the issue of reacting "manfully": from a tactical viewpoint, when confronted by a group, turning your back on attackers is a cardinal error. Bolt's best action in this case would have been to move past the cameraman in the direction the attack came from. This is where he had a view of an opening with no attackers. Moving into that space and then turning to face them would have been the best way of maintaining personal safety and raising the odds of winning against a possible group assault. However, I accept that that's a reaction it probably would require training to carry out. But maintaining enough equilibrium to take quick stock of your surroundings after someone retreats is a goal anyone can meet.
I am happy that our host, Steve, finally got someone to confirm the accuracy of my earlier reply..
In case you're trolling instead of ignorant, I'm not going to reply again unless you post an explanation of why the widely accepted historical fact is wrong. Thanks.
I am not ignorant, nor trolling, but you certainly are, on both counts.
FWIW-I’ll mention the obvious. The attack on Mr. Bolt doesn’t fall neatly into either a property crime or an ordinary crime of violence against a person known to the attackers. The purpose of the attack, as I’m seeing it, was to harass him sufficiently to dissuade Mr. Bolt from continuing with his writing and speaking. His “I’m sick” statements I’m understanding as roughly “My nerves are stretched tight thinking about what’s up next”.
So, I’m seeing this politically motivated attack on Mr. Bolt as having some success. He’s been thrown off his game. I don’t know how Aussie law works, but had Mr. Bolt been charged with a crime for having defended himself, the court would have unwittingly and circumstantially put itself in league with his attackers to squelch liberty.
I am not ignorant, nor trolling, but you certainly are, on both counts.
My understanding is that it is originally “the way of the empty hand” in China, as a literal description of the skill it was supposed to describe: bare-handed fighting. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something.
Brownshirts were victims. Later they beat up just anyone, but at first they were beating up the commies who were beating up everyone else.
I think given the circumstances, he did as well as could be expected.
“He has enough plausible deniability to say he was attacked — and I would feel attacked in his position”
I don’t understand this line of thought. Clearly, he was attacked. That’s not up for debate.
“one must conclude that he knew it was an ‘antifa’ ambush”
What follows from that conclusion? Maybe, “I better fight back or they might cave my head in with a bike lock.”
The reason I put "attack" in scare quotes is not that the two thugs didn't do anything to Bolt, it's that their actual actions and missed opportunities suggest they were not actually trying to harm Bolt. For example, if they were actually intending to physically assault him, Thug 2 should have not paused and rather come right up behind Bolt and cold-cocked him. Likewise, Thug 1 shouldn't have run off to the side and assumed a defensive posture, he should have pressed his advantage after throwing the substance at Bolt.Again, you're seeing what you want to see. Usually when you see a Brawl, you see punches flying on both sides. There is possibly one punch from the thugs at this point, but "continue" is not really accurate.All of their actions throughout suggest antagonism without an intention that is captured by the common understanding of the word "attack." Since they posted on Facebook that "Some of our family in solidarity were attacked by Andrew Bolt while they were protesting today. Why he isn't in prison for his horrendous, violent language yet is beyond me.", it seems entirely plausible that this is the outcome they wanted. What they may not have expected was a positive public response to Bolt, but that's beside the point.I didn't say that, but now that you mention it, given these two hypothetical situations:
(1) Bolt fights back, is charged by law enforcement, fired from his job, and his voice is shut down.
(2) Bolt doesn't fight back and continues in his job. An "accident" befalls antifa thugs after they are ID'd.
Yeah, I guess I would choose number 2.
But my point was not that a vendetta culture is better in general, but that when people are forced to consider the long-term consequences regularly, they don't default to "manful" behavior. This should give people pause when confronted with the question what to do in Bolt's situation, which, saliently, was that he was not actually fighting off an attack so much as responding to provocation.
“All of their actions throughout suggest antagonism without an intention that is captured by the common understanding of the word ‘attack’”
You are out of touch with the common understanding. Merely coming up to someone on the street, throwing some substance at the person, and shoving them into furnishings constitutes an attack in everyday speech. Doing so while masked and with accomplices removes all possible doubt. Doing so in such a manner as to deliberately make it difficult for him to flee, and to wear clothes readily identifying you with a known criminal organization responsible for repeated mayhem? There’s no way you can characterize that as anything but an attack.
You want them to be able to employ, I don’t know how to put it exactly, graduated tactics, so that if at any point the victim fights back–not even in escalation, but just tit for tat–he’s in the wrong. Which is utterly unrealistic. It would put all the power in the attacker’s hands. There’s no reason whatsoever to give up your right to defend yourself because maybe their intent is only to bait you, simply because they haven’t attacked you with the greater force possible. Though they have, in fact, attacked you.
There are different levels of attack, obviously. You must be in reasonable fear for your life to use deadly force, for instance. But these thugs (yes, thugs) provided more than enough provocation for fisticuffs. There’s no extra level of escalation required. If physically assaulting a person, attempting to cut off retreat, and hovering around him aren’t enough, what is?
I think the horse is dead, so here is my final post on the matter. Please feel free to defame me like @CheGuevara and @JackHanson from here on.
First, let me say that I am quite happy with the way things turned out. I am happy to see a stale pale male open a can of whoop-ass on some cultural Marxists. It makes me feel good. I am happy the public reaction was pro-Bolt and not pro-Antifa. I am happy the law, the media, and corporations have not turned against Bolt. It's all good.
However, I don't think the outcomes were a foregone conclusion.
The media really turned on Trump, for example, and blamed him for any quasi-violent thing that happened during the campaign. I think it's clear Antifa was trying this same tactic on Bolt--they call his language violent, and this incident, as shown by their Facebook posting, was an attempt to frame Bolt as, simply, a violent man. It didn't work. But it might have.
Bolt is an extremely prominent conservative commentator in Australia. The elimination of his voice from the public square would be a blow to us, as Antifa clearly knows. Bolt is not a foot soldier, he's a commander, or at least heavy armor. You don't sacrifice commanders or armor the way you might grunts.Okay, maybe I am out of touch. If someone tells me they were attacked, I imagine something that conforms to the definition "act against someone aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill" (emphasis mine). But in an age of snowflakes, maybe people imagine glitter and paint.
However, when I do a Google Image search on "attack", I see images of deadly weapons, predatory animals maiming and killing, and, then, the first image with people is this illustration of two guys whaling on each other: http://anguerde.com/pics/main/5/227296-attack.jpg
I don't see any glitter.
Similarly, if I do a Google Image search on "I was attacked", I see cuts, blood, bruises, black eyes, swelling, a neck brace, bandages. It looks to me like my idea of attack is pretty consistent with most people's.As has been happening since the beginning of this thread, you have not quite got the series of events right. Importantly, the shoving occurs only after Bolt starts punching Thug 1. Except for the glitter bomb, there is nothing physical directed at Bolt until after he starts throwing punches, and the glitter-bomber immediately retreats and adopts a non-threatening posture after throwing glitter (I'm assuming it's glitter).
How is this important? Let's distinguish some questions:
(1) before Bolt started punching, was he actually attacked?
(2) before Bolt started punching, could he reasonably believe he was being attacked?
The answer to (1) is clearly "no". Was he provoked? Yes. Was he possibly assaulted in the eyes of the law? Yes. Was his property vandalized? Yes, and in a most disturbing way. But was he attacked in the common understanding? No.
The answer to (2) is very gray to me. Maybe. I think it's open to interpretation. It has to do somewhat with his priors and emotional state, which we don't know. I'm glad law enforcement and Bolt's employer think "yes", but I think they could say "no" just as well.
(3) did Bolt believe he was being attacked?
My feeling is "no". I think he was pissed off. Cf, his reaction afterwards: "I'm sick of being sued and bullied and I'm not going to take it. I'm just not going to take it." This verbiage is more Falling Down than The Game.
To me, pissed off in this situation is reasonable. To me, throwing a punch when pissed off is okay. Is it okay to law enforcement? I think, not usually. Do most people think you ought to be able to stop yourself from punching when pissed off. I think so. It's not unreasonable.
Could Bolt have stopped himself? I suspect so. Should he have if he could have? As a controversial public figure, I think so because of the answers to numbers 2 and 3 above.
Finally, 3 thought experiments:
(1) Andrew Bolt's Groundhog Day : Imagine Bolt repeats this incident 1000 times, but each time, when Thug 1 retreats after the glitter bomb, he retreats a little farther. Each time, when Thug 1 adopts a defensive posture, he gets a little lower. Each time, when bolt punches, he punches a little harder and a little longer. Eventually by the 1000th iteration, Bolt is chasing Thug 1 down the street, and Thug 1 is lying down flat on the ground, and Bolt is punching him bloodied. Is Bolt fighting off an attack now? No? Okay, at which iteration of this incident did "fighting off an attack" turn into something else? (I am not accusing bolt of assault.)
(2) It's a trap! : Imagine Antifa was actually trying to injure Bolt. But now they've seen how everything turned out, so they've got a cunning plan for next time. "Next time," they say to each other, "we'll do the same thing, but we'll just scare him and let him assault us on tape. No shoving or kicking back. Then, we'll let the court of public opinion and the police deal him a career blow that silences him. Genius! Why didn't we think of this before?!" So Bolt experiences another episode where masked men run up to him and do something vaguely threatening. What should Bolt do in this instance?
(3) Fairweather Friends : Imagine Antifa was actually trying to injure Bolt, so instead of glitter, the second thug had a blackjack. Roll tape: Thug 1 throws glitter, moves away, Bolt lunges after him. But now instead of coming up and throwing glitter at Bolt's back, Thug 2 comes up behind Bolt and easily cold-cocks him with the blackjack as he's too distracted by punching Thug 1 to notice Thug 2. Bolt goes down. Thugs 1 and 2 stomp him. He ends up in the hospital. How would things have played out? Would the iSteve commentariat be calling him a hero or critiquing his foolhardy fighting technique of turning his back on a possible 2nd attacker?
Okay, now defame away!
“staying within distance of someone is not the same as attacking them”
Staying within distance after attacking them, and while attempting to prevent them from fleeing, is to continue the attack. It doesn’t suddenly stop being an attack if you don’t make physical contact every .5 seconds.
And if their hands are up, their knees are bent, and they’re facing you “within distance”, that’s a fighting stance — no ifs ands or buts — and it reasonably indicates an intent to continue striking when the timing and opening present themselves.
Of course, women have the advantage in domestic violence situations, because the cops will almost invariably be on their side. They can escalate at will. A truly nightmarish scenario is to be a man with a woman who might decide to murder you at the drop of a hat, and even though you know you could overpower her easily if you saw it coming, she won't let you see it coming.
I lost a tooth to a vile woman’s right hook. By my forbearance I restrained her (had a man done what she did to me, at the very least we would have left the scene for a jail or a hospital, possibly one to each). In the event the police came ’round after she fled, and I cowered in the darkened apartment until they left, knowing they’d no cause not a warrant based merely upon the neighbors’ having reported a row.
Such scenarios – premeditated or enraged violence instigated by women, serious injuries and forbearance (followed by narrow escapes or even prosecutions) for men – with the females departing scot-free, or even with cash and prizes, are fsr more common than the Narratives depiction of females as put-upon, docile creatures.
Just as with disloyalty (to mates or tribes; cf. divorce and voting), sexuality, (hypergamy and promiscuity), honesty (rationalisation), and any other aspect of honour you may mention, it turns out the Patriarchy was never for oppressing women, but, such as it was, for preserving civilisation.
So, I'm seeing this politically motivated attack on Mr. Bolt as having some success. He's been thrown off his game. I don't know how Aussie law works, but had Mr. Bolt been charged with a crime for having defended himself, the court would have unwittingly and circumstantially put itself in league with his attackers to squelch liberty.
Precisely this phenomenon is happening throughout Mexifornia. I’ve experienced it myself firsthand; you’ve all seen it in print or video, and so on.
The government – at least much of it – is now openly and unapolgetically hostile to the people in a way unprecedented since, probably the Occupation (conveniently euphemised as the Reconstruction). This time it’s happening the other way ’round because the lesson has been learned that it is essier to prevent war with persecution than to recover from war via oppression.
“The government – at least much of it – is now openly and unapologetically hostile to the people . . .”. Yup, I’ll go with that.
See my comment #158 above in reply to Richard of Melbourne. My early morning top-of-the-head guess is our governments have found these victimhood-and-compensation rackets have simplified enormously the job of governing. Hetero males of European ancestry are, of course, exempt from these rackets. The winners seem to be our corporate masters who benefit from our moral confusion below deck.
FWIW-I mentioned in a recent comment that “race” and “nation” in political discourse have come to mean, respectively, no more than bottomless preferences and gross national product. I have to give a tip of the hat to the many commenters on Unz who’ve been trying to restore political meaning to those words.
Yes, you’ve got it. You’re just missing the fact that Japanese also has the alternate reading “kara” for 唐.
http://www.edrdg.org/jmdictdb/cgi-bin/entr.py?svc=jmdict&sid=&q=2511320
The alternate reading is the path by which the name “karate” was chosen. “Emptiness” is incidental to karate, regardless of what modern practitioners will tell you.
http://www.edrdg.org/jmdictdb/cgi-bin/entr.py?svc=jmdict&sid=&q=2511320
The alternate reading is the path by which the name "karate" was chosen. "Emptiness" is incidental to karate, regardless of what modern practitioners will tell you.
The fact that the name karate has originated in an alteration of an earlier Okinawan juubakoyomi to a standard Japanese kun’yomi has been implied in the first two sentences of my previous comment, as that is the only plausible route by which 19th century 唐手 tōdī might become present-day 空手 karate.
Sorry. I thought you were disagreeing with my post, so I misinterpreted your second sentence. I thought you were suggesting that 唐 was simply jettisoned and replaced with 空 without any phonetic connection. This might seem plausible to one who accepted the idea that early Japanese practitioners were re-purposing Okinawan “todi” as a spiritualized budo–people who think karate is Moving Zen. Apparently, you are not one of those.
also @Daniel_Chieh, , @JennerIckhamErrican and the manly men of iSteve…
I think the horse is dead, so here is my final post on the matter. Please feel free to defame me like @CheGuevara and @JackHanson from here on.
First, let me say that I am quite happy with the way things turned out. I am happy to see a stale pale male open a can of whoop-ass on some cultural Marxists. It makes me feel good. I am happy the public reaction was pro-Bolt and not pro-Antifa. I am happy the law, the media, and corporations have not turned against Bolt. It’s all good.
However, I don’t think the outcomes were a foregone conclusion.
The media really turned on Trump, for example, and blamed him for any quasi-violent thing that happened during the campaign. I think it’s clear Antifa was trying this same tactic on Bolt–they call his language violent, and this incident, as shown by their Facebook posting, was an attempt to frame Bolt as, simply, a violent man. It didn’t work. But it might have.
Bolt is an extremely prominent conservative commentator in Australia. The elimination of his voice from the public square would be a blow to us, as Antifa clearly knows. Bolt is not a foot soldier, he’s a commander, or at least heavy armor. You don’t sacrifice commanders or armor the way you might grunts.
Okay, maybe I am out of touch. If someone tells me they were attacked, I imagine something that conforms to the definition “act against someone aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill” (emphasis mine). But in an age of snowflakes, maybe people imagine glitter and paint.
However, when I do a Google Image search on “attack”, I see images of deadly weapons, predatory animals maiming and killing, and, then, the first image with people is this illustration of two guys whaling on each other:
I don’t see any glitter.
Similarly, if I do a Google Image search on “I was attacked“, I see cuts, blood, bruises, black eyes, swelling, a neck brace, bandages. It looks to me like my idea of attack is pretty consistent with most people’s.
As has been happening since the beginning of this thread, you have not quite got the series of events right. Importantly, the shoving occurs only after Bolt starts punching Thug 1. Except for the glitter bomb, there is nothing physical directed at Bolt until after he starts throwing punches, and the glitter-bomber immediately retreats and adopts a non-threatening posture after throwing glitter (I’m assuming it’s glitter).
How is this important? Let’s distinguish some questions:
(1) before Bolt started punching, was he actually attacked?
(2) before Bolt started punching, could he reasonably believe he was being attacked?
The answer to (1) is clearly “no”. Was he provoked? Yes. Was he possibly assaulted in the eyes of the law? Yes. Was his property vandalized? Yes, and in a most disturbing way. But was he attacked in the common understanding? No.
The answer to (2) is very gray to me. Maybe. I think it’s open to interpretation. It has to do somewhat with his priors and emotional state, which we don’t know. I’m glad law enforcement and Bolt’s employer think “yes”, but I think they could say “no” just as well.
(3) did Bolt believe he was being attacked?
My feeling is “no”. I think he was pissed off. Cf, his reaction afterwards: “I’m sick of being sued and bullied and I’m not going to take it. I’m just not going to take it.” This verbiage is more Falling Down than The Game.
To me, pissed off in this situation is reasonable. To me, throwing a punch when pissed off is okay. Is it okay to law enforcement? I think, not usually. Do most people think you ought to be able to stop yourself from punching when pissed off. I think so. It’s not unreasonable.
Could Bolt have stopped himself? I suspect so. Should he have if he could have? As a controversial public figure, I think so because of the answers to numbers 2 and 3 above.
Finally, 3 thought experiments:
(1) Andrew Bolt’s Groundhog Day : Imagine Bolt repeats this incident 1000 times, but each time, when Thug 1 retreats after the glitter bomb, he retreats a little farther. Each time, when Thug 1 adopts a defensive posture, he gets a little lower. Each time, when bolt punches, he punches a little harder and a little longer. Eventually by the 1000th iteration, Bolt is chasing Thug 1 down the street, and Thug 1 is lying down flat on the ground, and Bolt is punching him bloodied. Is Bolt fighting off an attack now? No? Okay, at which iteration of this incident did “fighting off an attack” turn into something else? (I am not accusing bolt of assault.)
(2) It’s a trap! : Imagine Antifa was actually trying to injure Bolt. But now they’ve seen how everything turned out, so they’ve got a cunning plan for next time. “Next time,” they say to each other, “we’ll do the same thing, but we’ll just scare him and let him assault us on tape. No shoving or kicking back. Then, we’ll let the court of public opinion and the police deal him a career blow that silences him. Genius! Why didn’t we think of this before?!” So Bolt experiences another episode where masked men run up to him and do something vaguely threatening. What should Bolt do in this instance?
(3) Fairweather Friends : Imagine Antifa was actually trying to injure Bolt, so instead of glitter, the second thug had a blackjack. Roll tape: Thug 1 throws glitter, moves away, Bolt lunges after him. But now instead of coming up and throwing glitter at Bolt’s back, Thug 2 comes up behind Bolt and easily cold-cocks him with the blackjack as he’s too distracted by punching Thug 1 to notice Thug 2. Bolt goes down. Thugs 1 and 2 stomp him. He ends up in the hospital. How would things have played out? Would the iSteve commentariat be calling him a hero or critiquing his foolhardy fighting technique of turning his back on a possible 2nd attacker?
Okay, now defame away!
I think the horse is dead, so here is my final post on the matter. Please feel free to defame me like @CheGuevara and @JackHanson from here on.
First, let me say that I am quite happy with the way things turned out. I am happy to see a stale pale male open a can of whoop-ass on some cultural Marxists. It makes me feel good. I am happy the public reaction was pro-Bolt and not pro-Antifa. I am happy the law, the media, and corporations have not turned against Bolt. It's all good.
However, I don't think the outcomes were a foregone conclusion.
The media really turned on Trump, for example, and blamed him for any quasi-violent thing that happened during the campaign. I think it's clear Antifa was trying this same tactic on Bolt--they call his language violent, and this incident, as shown by their Facebook posting, was an attempt to frame Bolt as, simply, a violent man. It didn't work. But it might have.
Bolt is an extremely prominent conservative commentator in Australia. The elimination of his voice from the public square would be a blow to us, as Antifa clearly knows. Bolt is not a foot soldier, he's a commander, or at least heavy armor. You don't sacrifice commanders or armor the way you might grunts.Okay, maybe I am out of touch. If someone tells me they were attacked, I imagine something that conforms to the definition "act against someone aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill" (emphasis mine). But in an age of snowflakes, maybe people imagine glitter and paint.
However, when I do a Google Image search on "attack", I see images of deadly weapons, predatory animals maiming and killing, and, then, the first image with people is this illustration of two guys whaling on each other: http://anguerde.com/pics/main/5/227296-attack.jpg
I don't see any glitter.
Similarly, if I do a Google Image search on "I was attacked", I see cuts, blood, bruises, black eyes, swelling, a neck brace, bandages. It looks to me like my idea of attack is pretty consistent with most people's.As has been happening since the beginning of this thread, you have not quite got the series of events right. Importantly, the shoving occurs only after Bolt starts punching Thug 1. Except for the glitter bomb, there is nothing physical directed at Bolt until after he starts throwing punches, and the glitter-bomber immediately retreats and adopts a non-threatening posture after throwing glitter (I'm assuming it's glitter).
How is this important? Let's distinguish some questions:
(1) before Bolt started punching, was he actually attacked?
(2) before Bolt started punching, could he reasonably believe he was being attacked?
The answer to (1) is clearly "no". Was he provoked? Yes. Was he possibly assaulted in the eyes of the law? Yes. Was his property vandalized? Yes, and in a most disturbing way. But was he attacked in the common understanding? No.
The answer to (2) is very gray to me. Maybe. I think it's open to interpretation. It has to do somewhat with his priors and emotional state, which we don't know. I'm glad law enforcement and Bolt's employer think "yes", but I think they could say "no" just as well.
(3) did Bolt believe he was being attacked?
My feeling is "no". I think he was pissed off. Cf, his reaction afterwards: "I'm sick of being sued and bullied and I'm not going to take it. I'm just not going to take it." This verbiage is more Falling Down than The Game.
To me, pissed off in this situation is reasonable. To me, throwing a punch when pissed off is okay. Is it okay to law enforcement? I think, not usually. Do most people think you ought to be able to stop yourself from punching when pissed off. I think so. It's not unreasonable.
Could Bolt have stopped himself? I suspect so. Should he have if he could have? As a controversial public figure, I think so because of the answers to numbers 2 and 3 above.
Finally, 3 thought experiments:
(1) Andrew Bolt's Groundhog Day : Imagine Bolt repeats this incident 1000 times, but each time, when Thug 1 retreats after the glitter bomb, he retreats a little farther. Each time, when Thug 1 adopts a defensive posture, he gets a little lower. Each time, when bolt punches, he punches a little harder and a little longer. Eventually by the 1000th iteration, Bolt is chasing Thug 1 down the street, and Thug 1 is lying down flat on the ground, and Bolt is punching him bloodied. Is Bolt fighting off an attack now? No? Okay, at which iteration of this incident did "fighting off an attack" turn into something else? (I am not accusing bolt of assault.)
(2) It's a trap! : Imagine Antifa was actually trying to injure Bolt. But now they've seen how everything turned out, so they've got a cunning plan for next time. "Next time," they say to each other, "we'll do the same thing, but we'll just scare him and let him assault us on tape. No shoving or kicking back. Then, we'll let the court of public opinion and the police deal him a career blow that silences him. Genius! Why didn't we think of this before?!" So Bolt experiences another episode where masked men run up to him and do something vaguely threatening. What should Bolt do in this instance?
(3) Fairweather Friends : Imagine Antifa was actually trying to injure Bolt, so instead of glitter, the second thug had a blackjack. Roll tape: Thug 1 throws glitter, moves away, Bolt lunges after him. But now instead of coming up and throwing glitter at Bolt's back, Thug 2 comes up behind Bolt and easily cold-cocks him with the blackjack as he's too distracted by punching Thug 1 to notice Thug 2. Bolt goes down. Thugs 1 and 2 stomp him. He ends up in the hospital. How would things have played out? Would the iSteve commentariat be calling him a hero or critiquing his foolhardy fighting technique of turning his back on a possible 2nd attacker?
Okay, now defame away!
We’re all friends here. No one is trying to defame you.
That’s the one.