Therefore, not everyone has to 'get their hands dirty'. There
will always be a select few, like the killer T -cells in the
body, that roam the bloodstream protecting the body from
the intrusion of viral cells, who are chosen to do the dirty
work in the name of those who won't or can't. The immune
system protects the body this way, and even God in his
infinite wisdom had warring angels in Heaven to fight evil.

So, I realise that until the species we call humankind evolves,
there will always be a need for violence (unfortunately, I
have no doubt about this in my mind) to protect the good
majority and the world, from the bad minority and the
indifferent from themselves. This doesn't make violence
right, rather it is a necessary evil -sometimes you have to
lose a finger to save a hand. This does not mean that
everyone has to partake in violence, or even agree on its
necessity, on a large scale to protect this world from those
who would inadvertently destroy it. Many people make the
mistake of thinking that a solution must be palatable to be
correct -this couldn't be farther from the truth. Violence to
prevent greater violence will never be more than a hideous
expression of physical domination, but it may save mankind
until its metamorphosis into a spiritual domain.

My reply angered her so much that her face contorted into a
domino of hate. She proceeded to remove a stiletto heel
from her elegant foot, hoist the makeshift weapon above her
head like an executioner's axe and attempt to separate me
from my mortality. She was about to employ violence to
accentuate her point that it was 'not the answer'.
It would seem that hypocrisy in our society knows no
bounds. Ironically my own life as a bouncer began due to
my own innate fear of violence. I donned the required 'tux'
in the hope that confronting my fears might nurture a greater
understanding of my own sympathetic nervous system, one
that seemed in a permanent state of alert, maybe even descry
a little desensitization. It was to be an eventful, if not bloody
journey that lasted nine years. En route I discovered that
truths that can only usually be found in the middle of stormy
oceans or at the top of craggy mountains. Nothing comes
free of course, and there is a consequence to every action
that we take; if you pick up one end of the stick you also
pick up the other. Enlightenment came at great expense. My
innocence was clubbed like a beached seal, my marriage
ended in bitter divorce and my faith in human nature took a
near near-fatal slash to the jugular.

Not an easy standard to apply though
when faced by a savage adversary intent on flattening the
world with your head. How many would not employ even
the vilest instrument to protect a loved one? For instance the
young lady who nearly burst my ear drum out side a
Coventry nightclub would never have believed herself
capable of violent assault, yet when her beloved was
attacked her principles disappeared quicker than a gambler's
rent money. 'Violence is not the answer!' She yelled at me
indignantly. Granted I had just 'sparked' her irate boyfriend
with a practiced right cross. He had tried to marry my face
with the speared edges of a broken beer glass -I felt
compelled to stop him the only way I knew how.
'No?' I replied with mock surprise. 'Well, tell your boyfriend
that when he wakes up.'

This behaviour was
acceptable, even expectable but
in civvy street, me and my kind
were brandished Neanderthal.
So when I finally transcended
the door' there was a time of
readjustment, of trying to locate
my place in a capricious society
where doormen were seen as
vogue in times of trouble and
vague in times of peace.
I was frequently informed by those who had not met
violence down a dark alley (and it's too easy to say when you
haven't 'been there'), that violence was not the answer -a
view
voiced so often these days that it has almost become a
fashion accessory.

Overexposure to the brutality of people left me temporarily
paranoid, cynical and often very
violent. I could see only
physical solutions to life's many
disputes. Punching an adversary
unconscious after an argument
was, to me, as perfunctory as a
mint after dinner. It was never
gratuitous, I hated fighting, it
was survival, and that was all.
In my world violence was a
plumber's wrench -no more than
that.

As for me working with violence? Physically the toll was
bearable, if not a little hideous. My nose, broken in three
places (I'll never go to those places again!) stab scars in my
head, broken knuckles and fingers and a cauliflower ear that
could win a horticultural ribbon. But some of my friends
were
not so lucky: three lost their lives, a couple their marbles and
yet another lost the sight in one eye to a glass-wielding
psychopath.
Psychologically however my wounds were less superfluous.

WAR!

War was what they agreed
upon! War: the greatest expression of violence known to
man, where thousands of men, women and children are
killed and maimed. The UN told this leader in no uncertain
terms that they were prepared to talk to him, that they
wanted to avoid war, that they wanted to find an alternative
to bloodshed but the bottom line was, if he did not comply,
they would kill him and his people!'
The immune system recognises cancerous cells, it knows
that one cancerous cell can destroy the whole body if it is not
killed, so it sends out killer T-cells to assassinate the
threatening cell. Ugly, but necessary if you want the body,
and the species to survive.

The UN tried to escape a violent situation with compromise,
they 'loopholed' by trying to offer 'the threat' honourable
alternatives to war, they 'postured' by threatening war, (even
flying bomber planes over his country in a threatening
manner). They absolutely exhausted mediation. When it all
failed, what did the United Nation do, what did they consider
justifiable, though unfortunate, what did they greatest minds
in the free world agree upon when all their avoidance
techniques did not work?

How would you deal with the situation?
How would your peers deal with it? Those in government?
Those with power?
Without wishing to go into politics and the rights and
wrongs of what is going on in the world, I will offer an
example of how they, the leaders of the free world, the
highbrow of humanity, deal with potentially violent
situations that will not go away. The world recently found
itself in a very threatening
situation with a foreign leader, a threat that could potentially
destroy the world and effect many other planets in our solar
system. The United Nations, the immune system of the
world, tried to avoid a violent confrontation by mediation.

Unfortunately,

even then I could not find a
preferable solution to the threat of immediate attack than that
of counter-attack. I am aware that the state might call my
actions criminal, but how do they rationalise their own acts
of violence? Perhaps by calling them law? I teach many
strategies to evade attack; avoidance, escape, verbal
dissuasion, loopholing and posturing. But what do you do
when all of these techniques have been exhausted and you
are still facing an adversary that wants to step outside the law
and attack you? You are left with a choice, either become the
hammer or the anvil -hurt or be hurt, kill or be killed. Does
that sound brutal? Are these the words of an uneducated
nightclub thug?

I feel it is not the answer. Most people's opinions are
born from experiencing only one of these perspectives.
As a nightclub doorman I was often faced by violence that
terrified me, woundings that revolted me and conduct that
chilled me to the bone. However, what really sickened me -
even more than the congealed blood and smashed teeth of an
adversary -was the absolute hypocrisy of this fickle society.
Facing adversity did show me the beauty of amity but it took
time, many savage confrontations and much self-education,
before I could drag myself kicking and screaming into a
better existence.

Their truth

for a completely violence-free world
is as limited by their finite perspective, as mine was as a
nightclub doorman. I needed to experience the hope of nonviolence
to appreciate its potential. They probably need to
experience violence to appreciate its necessity as an antidote
in a world where the species is lowly evolved.
I have a varied background in these matters. I have
experienced violence, pre-bouncer, as a scared young man
who could only suffer in silence. I have also experienced
violence as man who could confidently counter it with
greater violence and I now experience a violent world as
man who
can confidently employ violence but who chooses not to
because

To some in society violence is a
language, a way of communication - a very primitive
language -but a means of discourse nonetheless. If you don't
speak to them in their own tongue, then they will not
understand you. This is where the contention begins.
So, we have a contradiction in play here: violence is wrong
but sometimes we have to employ it. I know that the
uninitiated are already up in arms, probably scribbling away
discontent to the letters page as we speak. I truly understand
how they feel, because I feel the same way, but I fear that
they will never be convinced by words, and their experience
of life is often not broad enough to give them another
perspective.