Category Archives: Conflict

How To Think And Act Like A Ruthless Warrior By Jack Kerwick

Argument, Conflict, Crime, Just War, Liberty, War

“Virtuous people become virtuous by acting virtuously. Similarly, one becomes a warrior by acting like one. The Warrior Within envisions himself crucifying, without mercy, the monsters of his choosing.”—Jack Kerwick

Warriors aren’t born. They are made.

This is the philosophy behind Warrior Flow Combatives, or Warrior Flow.

And a Warrior without Ruthless Intent is like a library without books or, more accurate yet, a square without four sides.

Ruthless Intent is nothing more or less than the will to crush the Enemy, those who would prey upon the innocent, into nonexistence.

To the end of cultivating this virtue—and, yes, it most certainly is a martial and moral virtue—physical training is necessary, yes. But even more importantly, mental training is required.

To cultivate Ruthless Intent, the aspiring Warrior must routinely engage in three mutually supportive and equally essential activities: Self-Talk, Visualization, and what Warrior Flow refers to as “Visceralization.”

Self-talk requires one to pay meticulous attention to the inner commentary that the mind ceaselessly cranks out, for even when it is commentary upon happenings in the external world, it is, ultimately, autobiographical, it is self-commentary, for our thoughts on the world, our relationships with others, are inescapably colored and shaped by our experiences and memories.

We need to manage that “inner voice.”

Self-talk is inescapable. We are all incessantly speaking to ourselves, whether we realize it or not. There is scarcely a moment when, either through word or image, we aren’t communicating to ourselves. Past experiences, or our interpretations of those experiences, we have, in large measure subconsciously, weaved into an autobiographical narrative. As is the case with any other work, our self-story is necessarily selectively edited. Yet we confuse this highly redacted version of ourselves with our whole selves.

And we allow this abridged reading of ourselves to color our sense of reality.

Warrior Flow implores students to attend carefully to their Self-Talk. Moreover, they are to assume conscious control of it, to habituate their minds to thinking self-affirming thoughts. In the case of this combat art specifically, the Warrior-in-the-Making must begin thinking and living as if the future self that he wants to become is already a present reality.

It doesn’t demand much reflection to realize that this is indeed how we became whatever it is that we’ve ever become. If one wants to become a cook, one must first cook. If one want to become a dancer, one must dance. If one wants to become a football player, one must play football.

Aristotle, the most prominent of all virtue theorists, wrote famously on this subject. Brave men become brave by acting like brave men. Just men become just by acting like just men.

Comprehensively, virtuous people become virtuous by acting virtuously.

Similarly, one becomes a warrior by acting like one. And acting like a warrior means as well thinking like one.

Yet Aristotle knew that being virtuous was a matter not just of thinking a certain way, but of feeling the appropriate way. For instance, a courageous person is someone who knows what to fear and the extent to which he should fear it. The object of fear elicits the emotion or passion of fear within the body. The courageous person, though, experiences fear in the appropriate proportion.

The aspiring warrior must feel as the Warrior that he will become feels. As he regularly affirms his own physical abilities, his resolute acceptance of injury, and even death, in battle, and his equal resolve to incapacitate the Enemy by whichever means, with ruthless efficiency, his Self-Talk will necessarily be accompanied by visuals.

As with his Self-Talk, though, the Warrior Within must make sure that the activity of Visualization in which he engages is consciously directed. He needs to open up the reservoir of his imagination and unleash his creative powers as he envisions himself crucifying, without mercy, the monsters of his choosing. They could be real people or imaginary. They can be people who one has personally known or only those of whom one has heard. In any event, to cultivate Ruthless Intent—the conviction that predators must be reduced to prey, the raw, undifferentiated determination to instill within violent attackers the same unbridled terror that they sought to inspire in their victims—one must not only visualize, but visceralize.

Visceralization is a species of visualization. When a person engages in Visceralization, he doesn’t just see the object of his imagination; he hears, smells, and touches it, and he perceives it with all of his senses in painstaking detail. He visualizes it in what students of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) refer to as an “associated” way.

In other words, when associated visualization (visceralization) occurs, the visualizer doesn’t just form a mental picture of himself within the framework of the visual, as is the case when it is “dissociated visualization” that occurs. Associated visualization, in contrast, immerses the visualizer within the scene that he envisages, allowing him to enact it.

When a person visceralizes he experiences those emotions that he either once experienced, if he is in effect reliving a past event, or those that he would experience if the event that he visceralizes actually occurred. Physiologically speaking, the emotion felt in the body while visceralizing and that felt in response to a real world happening are one and the same. The brain doesn’t know the difference.

Specifically, when developing Ruthless Intent, an aspiring warrior must not only perceive his attacker or attackers in his mind; he must as well feel in the very marrow of his bones all of the contempt, the righteous indignation and fury with which he visualizes himself destroying the Enemy. Physiologically speaking, the feelings that he conjures while training are one and the same as those that he would have in a real confrontation. The brain doesn’t know the difference between the fantasy and the reality.

While immersed in visceralization, the aspiring Warrior can, for example, feel the flesh of the Enemy’s neck spontaneously with the sound of it snapping as he drives an axe-handed chop to it with all of the power that he believes is necessary for the purpose of cleaving the Enemy’s skull from his body. Beholding the (admittedly anatomically impossible) spectacle promises to go no small distance toward marshalling and channeling from within one’s pain, rage, fear, and disdain for the wicked.

I leave this to your fertile imagination, but there are practically limitless ways by which the Warrior-in-Waiting can visceralize visiting destruction upon the Enemy. Creativity in combat is a virtue of the Warrior. Yet it presupposes Ruthless Intent.

And to the end of cultivating Ruthless Intent, Self-Talk, Visualization, and Visceralization are imperative.

***

Jack Kerwick is a columnist for Beliefnet, FrontPage Magazine, American Greatness and Townhall.com.  He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Temple University, a master’s degree in philosophy from Baylor University, and a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and religious studies from Wingate University. I teach philosophy at several colleges in the New Jersey and Pennsylvania areas. Follow him on Twitter.

UPDATED (10/2): NEW COLUMN: Trump Floated Like A Butterfly And Stung Like A Bee

Conflict, Democracy, Democrats, Donald Trump, Elections

NEW COLUMN, “Trump Floated Like A Butterfly And Stung Like A Bee,” appeared on the  Unz Review, WND.COM, the Quarterly Review out of London, founded in 1809. It is now a feature on American Greatness.

An excerpt:

The first presidential debate, on Tuesday 29, was also the first bit of fun we’ve had in a while.

True, President Donald J. Trump failed to float his theory about that “big fat shot in the ass” Joe Biden likely got from his handlers, to allow the Democratic candidate to nimbly prance onto the debate stage and, “for two hours,” be “better than ever before.”

But, like Muhammad Ali, the heavyweight boxing legend, POTUS floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee. A masculine force at full tilt, Mr. Trump provided plenty energy and entertainment as he blattered Joe Biden, while being funny in the process.

“If you didn’t enjoy that debate, you are a soy-boy, beta cuck,” a fun-loving fella tweeted out. Soy-boy Shapiro was having none of the fun stuff. Glum and sanctimonious, Ben tweeted out: “I literally have no idea who won this debate. I just know we all lost.”

Deep, man.

The self-styled philosopher-king’s funereal pronouncement received the benefit of a Michelle Malkin reenactment. Don’t miss that hilarity, 3:40 minutes into her post-debate podcast.

In letting out a collective primal groan that was music to MAGA ears, Ben-Shap was joined by every liberal and Never Trumpster on the left-wing game reserve.

Dana Bash of CNN lamented a “shitshow,” in which “the American people lost.” “The debate was a disaster for democracy,” her shell-shocked colleagues yelped. (Well, good, because the founders of this republic didn’t think much of democracy.)

Certainly, judging by the rabid frothing and foaming on CNN, Trump did indeed win Tuesday’s debate. Anderson Cooper whinged to Republican commentator Rick Santorum: “It’s not even funny. Are you proud of the president? Santorum could not conceal a grin: “He came out HOT.”

Livid, Van Jones deployed his best rhetorical device: repetition. “Three things happened: The president refused to condemn white supremacy. The president refused to condemn white supremacy. The president refused to condemn white supremacy.” Gloria Borger, also at CNN, required sedation.

A man infatuated with his own cleverness, Jake Tapper bewailed “the worst debate in history, a hot mess, inside a dumpster fire, inside a train wreck.” (Who wrote that “hot mess”?) Tapper forgot an interesting tidbit: Such fires are typically lit by the “idea” called Antifa.

Yes, Biden had called Antifa an idea. …

… READ THE REST… NEW COLUMN,  “Trump Floated Like A Butterfly And Stung Like A Bee,” appeared on the  Unz Review, WND.COM, the Quarterly Review out of London, founded in 1809. It is now a feature on American Greatness.

UPDATE (10/2): In reply to the  Comment:

“The hive media”: I will have to steal that. Have you, sir, heard Ben-Shap speak? It’s hard to believe anyone would listen to a rapid-fire chipmunk. Content: mediocre, Republican fare.

Dennis Kucinich was a very nice presence in politics. The late Robert Byrd was a great constitutionalist, too, a Democrat who could not escape the idiot comments from Republicans about his past. Byrd opposed Obama Care and other extra-constitutional adventurism.

Andrew Sullivan Forgets How He ALSO Once Policed Uniformity. Iraq, Andrew?

America, Argument, Bush, Conflict, Constitution, Free Speech, Iraq

What Andrew Sullivan, a fine essayist, says in this one paragraph of his latest piece, “Is There Still Room For Debate?,” is profound. It concerns the manner in which adherence to ideology is policed in America (and it is):

In America, of course, with the First Amendment, this is impossible. But perhaps for that very reason, Americans have always been good at policing uniformity by and among themselves. The puritanical streak of shaming and stigmatizing and threatening runs deep. This is the country of extraordinary political and cultural freedom, but it is also the country of religious fanaticism, moral panics, and crusades against vice. It’s the country of The Scarlet Letter and Prohibition and the Hollywood blacklist and the Lavender Scare. The kind of stifling, suffocating, and nerve-racking atmosphere that Havel evokes is chillingly recognizable in American history and increasingly in the American present.

The new orthodoxy — what the writer Wesley Yang has described as the “successor ideology” to liberalism — seems to be rooted in what journalist Wesley Lowery calls “moral clarity.” He told Times media columnist Ben Smith this week that journalism needs to be rebuilt around that moral clarity, which means ending its attempt to see all sides of a story, when there is only one, and dropping even an attempt at objectivity (however unattainable that ideal might be). And what is the foundational belief of such moral clarity? That America is systemically racist, and a white-supremacist project from the start,

Funny thing, however: I well remember, early in the 2000s, how Mr. Sullivan, together with the likes of David Frum (see my “Frum’s Flim-Flam” ), scolded and almost silenced those who objected to the invasion of Iraq. Well, I was certainly exiled from polite political company, around about then.

From my “PUNDITS, HEAL THYSELVES!” (May 29, 2004):

Thomas Friedman, Christopher Hitchens (undeniably a writer of considerable flair and originality), George Will and Tucker Carlson (both of whom seem to have conveniently recanted at the eleventh hour), Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Mark Steyn, Max Boot, John Podhoretz, Andrew Sullivan – they all grabbed the administration’s bluff and ran with it. Like the good Trotskyites many of them were, once they tasted blood, they writhed like sharks. Compounding their scent-impaired bloodhound act was their utter ignorance of geopolitical realities – they insisted our soldiers would be greeted with blooms and bonbons and that an Iraqi democracy would rise from the torrid sands of Mesopotamia.
Their innumerable errors and flagrant hubris did not prevent the neoconservatives from managing to marginalize their competitors on the Right: the intrepid Pat Buchanan and his American Conservative; the quixotic Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. of LewRockwell.com, and Antiwar.com. (Plus this column, of course). Unfortunately for America, there hasn’t been a horror in Iraq that these prescients did not foretell well in advance.

Confess, Clinton; Say You’re Sorry, Sullivan” (2007):

Senator Hillary Clinton and neoconservative blogger Andrew Sullivan share more than a belief that “Jesus, Mohamed, and Socrates are part of the same search for truth.” They’re both Christians who won’t confess to their sins.

Both were enthusiastic supporters of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, turned scathing and sanctimonious critics of the war. Neither has quite come clean. Both ought to prostrate themselves before those they’ve bamboozled, those they’ve helped indirectly kill, and whichever deity they worship. (The Jesus-Mohamed-and-Socrates profanity, incidentally, was imparted by Sullivan, during a remarkably rude interview he gave Hugh Hewitt. The gay activist-cum-philosopher king was insolent; Hewitt took it .)

I won’t bore you with the hackneyed war hoaxes Sullivan once spewed, only to say that there was not an occurrence he didn’t trace back to Iraq: anthrax, September 11, and too few gays in the military—you name it; Iraq was behind it. Without minimizing the role of politicians like Clinton, who signed the marching orders, neoconservative pundits like Sullivan provided the intellectual edifice for the war, also inspiring impressionable young men and women to sacrifice their lives and limbs to the insatiable Iraq Moloch.

The latest policed orthodoxy Sullivan expounds on and wishes to be able to debate openly is, “That America is systemically racist, and a white-supremacist project from the start, that, as Lowery put it in The Atlantic, ‘the justice system — in fact, the entire American experiment — was from its inception designed to perpetuate racial inequality.”

Obviously incorrect.

Another of those Big Lies guarded across the spectrum, left and right, are the lies about America’s mandate around the world, borne of its exceptionalism: The Big Lies undergirding the destruction of Iraq (supported by Republicans like Sullivan) and Libya (brought about by Democrats like Hillary Clinton).

These are typical American truisms which need shattering, too. Mr. Sullivan, in his defense, did apologize for his role in the destruction of Iraq (after the fact).

* Image courtesy John @John89325183

Is The Economist Bewailing That America Is Becoming A Minority-Majority Country?

America, Argument, Conflict, Europe, IMMIGRATION, Multiculturalism, Race, Racism

The transatlantic relations are worth fighting for, laments the Economist, a progressive news magazine. Europe and America must work to stop their relationship from unraveling.

Just about in every issue, the same progressives (excellent journalists, for sure) celebrate that America is on its way to becoming a minority-majority country.

It’s inexplicable, then, that the economist proceeds to bitterly bewail the fact that, “America is becoming less European. A century ago more than 80% of its foreign-born population came from Europe; now the figure is only 10%. Surging economies in Asia are tugging America’s attention away.”

AND,

Europe inevitably counts for less in American eyes than it once did. The generation that formed bonds fighting side-by-side in the second world war is passing away and even the cold war is becoming a distant memory.

READ: “Europe and America must work to stop their relationship unraveling.”

Trump is certainly not retarding the trend: