Thursday, January 20, 2011

The dissonance of 'Dr. Ruthless' ~ By Phil Elmore

How can a person whose ideology rests squarely with those hostile to your right to self-defense presume to teach self-defense? How can a woman whose votes most surely are cast with those who seek to take your guns, confiscate your earnings and control your every waking moment ever believe she upholds the individual in any real way?

She can't.
On Phil's facebook page, there is a comment by Bill Heiser that states the following on one of Phil's links to this column:
I've looked at some of her material. She is nothing special. Feminist indoctrination in the guise of a self defense class at worst, empty marketing tactics at best. The techniques I have seen her demonstrate have been taught better by better instructors.
In Phil's response, he writes:
I want to be clear that I'm not attacking the techniques she teaches -- this is not an analysis of that.
The reason I bring those comments up is to make sure that you pay attention to the actual subject of Phil's column. This musing regarding Ms. Melissa Soalt, aka "Dr. Ruthless," is about the dissonance (meaning: the lack of agreement or consistency) between her self-defense training and her leftist politics.

The dissonance of 'Dr. Ruthless'
By Phil Elmore

January 20, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Her name is Melissa Soalt. She is, ostensibly, a teacher of self-defense for women. She is a feminist, a leftist, and occasionally a political pundit. She is also what's wrong with the modern technology of self-defense.

Self-defense is the application of technology – both "hardware" and "software," or weapons and instruction – to the problem of societal violence. There is no doubt that violence exists within society. Crime occurs anywhere and everywhere. While most of us are not under threat at any given moment, none of us can know when a self-defense scenario might occur.

It is this inability to predict with certainty the imminent need for self-defense that prompts us as conservatives and libertarians to equip ourselves with the technology of personal protection. We buy guns. We carry knives. We seek instruction in the martial arts and in the wielding of weapons. We fight, politically, for the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear these tools. In contrast to us, Democrats, liberals and leftists of every stripe are defined by their ravening desire to see you and your family disarmed and helpless.

Left-wingers despise self-defense. This is because they are weak, both mentally and emotionally. They project this weakness on all others, attributing to everyone the libs' inability to behave responsibly. They want a cradle-to-grave totalitarian nanny state; it does not occur to them that any sane person could yearn for anything else. In their weakness, the libs may even elevate themselves falsely, believing that while they can be trusted to go armed, you, a mere mortal or, worse, a benighted conservative, cannot.

The individual, to the liberal, is subordinate to the community, possessing no rights and earning no wealth not grudgingly allowed him by committee. To defend yourself from crime and violence is the ultimate statement of individuality. This, the communitarians and "progressives" cannot abide. It is anathema to their belief system. It is an affront, an act of rebellion in the face of their presumed, preordained right to rule and control you.

Recently, talk-radio host Glenn Beck mentioned that Gavin de Becker (author of the groundbreaking self-defense book "The Gift of Fear") handles Beck's security. Mr. Beck has been forced to hire protection for his family because loving, tolerant libs adore making death threats against women and children (when they're not threatening their political opponents to those opponents' faces).

What caught my attention was my recollection that de Becker is virulently anti-gun. In "The Gift of Fear," he makes several statements that I would consider condemnations of civilian gun ownership – access to the technology of self-defense. How does a man who would see his fellow citizens disarmed and helpless believe he may, with any credibility, teach others to succeed in self-defense? In interviews, de Becker has tried to distance himself from his writing on the topic, even directly contradicting his words in claiming, " I don't in any way advocate government gun control." These claims, from someone so quick to voice concern over access to the "lethal" products he so fears, simply don't ring true to me. Libs deny individuals' natural rights and thus will always work at cross-purposes to the goal of self-defense. They cannot teach it with authority – which brings me back to Melissa Soalt.


Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

No comments:

Post a Comment