Even trained martial artists get fooled by the four D's,

because they do not appear on their training curriculum.

Therefore, they do not understand the enemy that they are

facing and so also fail to grasp -and therefore translate -

'street speak', the mass deception often causing

disorientation. The attacker uses the former and latter to

prime a victim that is only trained in 'physical response'. As I

have already stated, deceptive dialogue is the professional

attacker's leading technique. Understanding this will allow

you greater awareness, it will keep you 'switched on'. Being

switched on to all of the forgoing is the better part of 'Target

Hardening'.

The distraction technique is also used by the
experienced attacker to take down any protective fences that
may have been constructed by the victim. This final product
of expert priming is your destruction. Few victims survive
the first physical blow and most are 'out of the game', before
they even realise that they are in it, because many street
attackers are pro's with one or two physical techniques that
have been tried, tested and perfected on numerous, previous
victims.

If the distraction is submissive; 'I don't want any trouble, can
we talk about it?' This will take your assailant from Code
Red (when a person is ready for 'fight' or 'flight') to Code
White (a state of non-awareness). The submissiveness will
intimate that the danger is over and he'll go into a state of
relief. Brain engagement, via disarming/distracting dialogue
gives the victim a 'blind second'. This is when the assailant
strikes.

There is no honour in war, and this is war in
microcosm.
'Distraction' is a part of deception and usually comes
through dialogue. The attacker may ask his victim a question
and then initiate attack when the brain is engaged. The
distraction, or brain engagement, also switches off any inbuilt
spontaneous, physical response the victim may have. A
man with twenty years of physical training in a fighting art
under his belt can be stripped of his ability by this simple
ploy. I have witnessed many trained fighters, who are
monsters in the controlled arena, get beaten by a guy with
only an ounce of their physical ability. How? They were
distracted before the attack. Rob, a hardened street fighter
and nightclub doorman always told his potential attackers
that he didn't want to fight before he attacked them.
Invariably they would come around from their unconscious
stupor, after Rob had knocked them unconscious, some
seconds later muttering 'I'm sure he said he didn't want to
fight!'

Dialogue, and often appearance, Is used to
'deceive' the victim before attack. Nearly every attack I have
ever documented that was not a blind side, ambush attack
(the ones that happen when you do not use awareness)
always arose through deception -the attacker using this as a
window of entry. The rule of thumb with the unsolicited
attacker is if his lips move he's lying. If anyone approaches,
it is imperative that you employ a protective fence
immediately (see 'fence' later). Most attacks are launched
under the guise of deception, for the street fighter 'that's the
art', you might moan that it is dishonourable, a Judas attack,
unfair etc. but the bottom line will still be the same -he won
and you lost. The fact that you might think it dishonourable
demonstrates your lack of understanding of the modern
enemy.

Those that are
unavoidable, you will be able to control, those beyond your
control you will be able to defend against.
The four D's are often used by attackers, especially muggers
and rapists. 'Dialogue' is the priming tool, the leading
technique used by many attackers. The attacker does not lead
or open with a jab or a lead leg roundhouse, he leads with
dialogue, and is often either aggressive or very deceptive. If
you do not understand this then you will be suckered into
the first attack.

If the guy is not on his own and
you are facing two or more opponents then you can expect to
be hospitalised, even killed. Two of my friends were stabbed
by women when they were ground fighting with men.
Ambush fighting is what you get nine times out of ten if you
are not switched on, or coded up, as they say (see colour
codes). An ambush fight is when the first you know of the
fight is a physical attack. If the guy who attacks you is worth
his salt as a street fighter then that first blow is likely to be
the last in the fight and you should get used to hospital food
because that's what you will be getting. If you are switched
on to the enemy and the environment yourself, then you will
avoid nearly all of the potential attacks.

Here are a few of the things
that I have picked up on my travels about the modern enemy.
Note: It is important here to stress one point, fighting in the
street is rarely match fighting. Most affrays of the modern era
are 'three second fights': attacks preceded by dialogue that is
used as a leading technique to create a window of entry for a
devastating physical attack, that usually takes the victim out of
the game before he even knows that he is in it.
Match fighting, as honourable as it is, is an arena that died
with my fathers' generation. If you do find yourself in a
match fight scenario I will bet my trousers that the fight will
go to ground within seconds (most fighters are grossly ill
prepared for ground fighting). If the three second fight goes
more that the usual three, then in all likelihood this too will
end up in a match fight that will end on the floor. If you can
ground fight, great, you can tear the guy a new arse. lf you
can't you should expect at the very least an elongated fight,
perhaps even a brutal loss.

The contemporary enemy likes to work via dialogue and
deception. An understanding the enemy and his rituals is
imperative, if you are ever going to avoid his onslaught (see
Dead Or Alive). So many people these days say that they train
for self-defence -yet they know nothing about the enemy that
they are training to fight or the environment that they are
planning to fight in -then they wonder why they get their heads
kicked in when a situation goes 'live'. Many such people ask
me, 'Where did I go wrong?' I have a profound love for people,
for my species, and I don't want to see innocent people getting
battered when they could so easily, with a little information,
have avoided a physical scenario.

'Why bother bursting your balls on a dwelling with all that
protection when there are rakes of houses around the corner
with **ck all, just asking to be robbed. These people kill us.
They fucking gripe about having their houses robbed yet they
leave us an invite at the door. They just make it easy for us.'
Many burglars rob the same house three or more times,
because the owners do nothing to stop them. Self-protection
works in a similar vein. If you make yourself a hard target by
following the rules of awareness, you too will by by-passed for
an 'easier target'. If you don't you will be chosen again and
again.

This can also mean watching
extreme fighting tapes to see how the innovators are doing it.
The key phrase for avoidance in contemporary self-protection is
'Target Hardening'. By making yourself a hard target, you lessen
your chances of being chosen as a potential victim. I once
interviewed a group of burglars, I asked them for their prime
requisite when selecting a house to rob. This was their response:
'We always look for properties that are not protected.' The house
that sported an alarm box, dog pictures in the window, window
locks etc. were very often by-passed by the average robber.

Jeff Cooper, legendary American close combat and shooting
instructor (known on the circuit as this generation's closest thing
to Wyatt Earp), was once asked how you would know if your art
was effective for street defence or self-protection. His reply was
simple: when you are worried about hurting, perhaps killing
another human being because your technique is so potent, then
you know your art is real.
Do you feel that way, or are you still worrying/wondering
whether your art will in fact even work in that arena? If your
feelings fall into the latter category it is worth injecting a little
more pressure in your training and putting your system to the
test in the controlled arena, by taking it as close to the real thing
(under supervision) as possible.

I understand this; it is a syndrome that I too went through as a
young instructor. As a man that has 'been there', my ideals
have changed and whilst the physical response is, obviously,
still on my training curriculum, it is no longer my main
artillery, neither is the physical ippon (KO) my main aim.
Rather my goal is to defeat an opponent without becoming
physical.
In theory, I am aware that this aim is simple and
straightforward, in reality in a confrontational society such as
ours it is not so easy -a tremendous amount of self-control
and confidence is needed to make this lofty goal an actuality.
This is predominantly why I make my personal system of
combat such
a difficult one: to develop this confidence and control. This is
also the reason why our motto is the latin 'Per Ardua Et Astra'
(through hardship to the stars), and why such people as the
American Dog brothers work with the motto 'higher
consciousness through harder contact'.

Many people find themselves fighting because they are
worried about what others might think if they run away. If
you are very confident in yourself and you know your
capabilities you will have no problem walking away, or
simply not being there in the first place. Insecure people,
those that are not sure of themselves or their art, will be
fighting all day long because they lack the strength of
character to go against popular opinion. This is often the case
with martial artists (no offense intended), especially high
graded ones. They are frequently on such a high pedestal
(placed there by themselves, or by their own pupils) that they
drag themselves into fights that could/should be avoided,
because they are worried about letting their students down in
some way. This is often their own fault because they have
taught a 'corporal' system that only addresses the physical
response -the ultimate accolade being a KO when attacked by
an assailant.

If you are training in a martial art, then avoidance
is understanding that
art and whether it
will stand up to the
threat of a real
encounter. More
than anything,
avoidance is having
enough control over
yourself, your ego,
your pride, peer
pressure, morality
etc. to stop these
negative emotions
from dragging you into a situation that could otherwise be
avoided.

Chapter One

Avoidance
Avoidance is the very first in a long list of tactical maneuvers
aimed at 'not being there' when an attack is taking place. And it
really is very simple, even obvious, but I find it is the 'simple'
and 'obvious' stuff that usually gets overlooked and lands people
in an affray that should never have occurred. These tactics are
not to be read and stored, rather they are to be read and practiced
over and over again until they are natural, everyday habits, like
getting into the car and putting on your seat-belt, (something that
once had to be forced is now a habit). In fact, I bet if you tried
driving without a seat belt it would feel awkward after wearing
one for so long. Avoidance is being aware, understanding the
enemy, understanding yourself and understanding your
environment.

None of it is theory, I have
made it all work on many occasions against fearsome
opponents who wanted to part me from my mortality, or
from my good looks at the very least!
When I started in the martial arts my 'ippon', my knock out,
my tap-out was to beat my opponents with the use of
physical force. My objectives have now changed. Now if I
have to hit some one to win the day I feel that no one has
won. So my ippon now is to beat someone using guile as
opposed to force. My hope is that this book will encourage
the same in you.

I believe that a part of the evolution of our species
is to rid the world of violence, so I would like to explore as
many ways of avoiding fighting as I can. If all we know is 'a
punch on the nose', then, when the shit hits the fan and
contention is on the menu, we will have no other choice but
to employ a punch on the nose. If, however, we have several
other alternatives to choose from, and we can become expert
in using these alternatives, then we can strategically evade
the use of force, and still ensure victory most of the time.
As with all my concepts, this book is pieced together from
empirical study in the field.

Returning to my
original questions: why did I write this book, why do I teach
avoidance techniques? Because violence is wrong and one of
the best remedies is to attack proactively so that we can
avoid, escape, dissuade, loophole or posture to avoid
physical confrontation and prevent violence from becoming
manifest.