Click to Subscribe
▶  More from Modern Combat Video Reviews
AVD Combatives
Methods for Defending an Alternative Speaking Venue


Note: When I write gouge I mean rake. For low impact, low energy, minimal physical risk unarmed combatives nothing beats poking or scraping the eye. So when I write gouge I don’t suggest digging that thing out of the socket, but just scratching the cornea or shocking the eye muscle or tear duct to render an intruder ineffective.

This article discusses Asymmetrical Venue Defense methods. News film clips viewed through the YouTube window at the base of the article may be used as a tactical study. This is a film of two dozen aggressors pushing one man out of a speaking venue. The question is, how could three to five able defenders protect this man and keep him at his podium, with three being all you can jam into a car with this guy, and five most likely the maximum number that could be gathered from a gym or martial arts club on short notice.

Positions

1. Bodyguard, the man dedicated to the subject’s defense, someone who can drop bodies with his empty hands and is cool enough to use an improvised weapon without going ape shit and killing someone.

2. Doorman, the man who defends access to the venue, a big, big dude, ideally a wrestler or offensive lineman. Wing Chun or aikido experience would be a huge benefit.

3. Tactician, the rover who scouts for and reinforces the other two, basically the same profile as the bodyguard, but more ruthless.

4. [Optional] second doorman

5. [Optional] second tactician stationed outside the venue with a communication link to the lead man on his tactical team, who will hit intruders from behind.

The tactics used by this group of ‘louts’ below consists of posing, pacing, pushing—three faces of aggression.

Asymmetrical defenses are preferred, using large staff against small intruders, small staff against large intruders, grappling versus striking, striking versus grappling, with small joint manipulation, foot stomping and eye gouging as the default tactics. Ideally your super heavyweight doorman breaks the feet of the small men and the fingers of the large men, with the tactical man commanding compliance or dishing out KOs of those who get past the doorman, and the bodyguard ruthlessly disposing of anyone who touches the primary. To keep up appearances, women who touch the primary should only have their feet broken—one foot will suffice. Our men should not be seen touching women with their hands.

Contact Priorities

1. The doorman is not to attempt to deny access to such a large body, but rather tax them and let them pass one at a time. I’m thinking of Cory here, our 6 and a half foot tall 370 pounder, who practices breaking feet. Once he’s at the bottom of a pile he is useless. His priority is to stay on his feet and, as each person manages to squeeze by, breaking a thumb, and stomping on a foot. He should wear heavy engineer boots, and keep his chin tucked against punches that might come. No matter what, the doorman does not throw punches. Cory, let them through the door as soon as you have broken a finger or a foot. With large intruders a thumb lock while using a literal ankle press might be necessary. Do not push back but through. Big men who push should be pushed past you and tripped, for the tactical man to disable while they are on the deck.

2. The tactical man [I’m thinking myself here] first instructs peaceful attendees that at the first sign or trouble, they are to retreat to the walls and keep clear of the common space. If this is an open venue with no movable seating equipment than this man needs to come armed with the largest flashlight available, for making certain that the subject might be escorted through a darkened venue if the lighting is compromised. If the door is breached than any male intruder with a face mask is to be hammered in the jaw with the flashlight and KO’d. If this is a venue with movable seating, then the flashlight is handed off to the bodyguard. Bar stools and folding chairs make ideal pole axes for breaking legs. Any male intruder should have his leg pole-axed.

3. The bodyguard [I’m thinking Oliver or Craig] will need to deal with people who attempt to touch the subject. Ideally this guy is a boxer. Men must be dropped as soon as they near the subject, with chin shoots preferred. Aggressively dangerous women should just have their ankle stomped until useless, with one inside stomp probably all that is needed. If the tactical flashlight has been handed off to the bodyguard this should be used alternately to jab the body and smash the jaws of male intruders.

Note: Females who link arms are not capable of stopping or harming the speaker or pushing him out of the venue, so cut out the males who link with them by breaking their fingers and thumbs through unobtrusive small joint manipulation.

Overall, the defenders should use the following action cue scale:

1. Deny access to intruders

2. Compromise the ability of aggressive intruders by breaking hand and foot bones in an unobtrusive and subtle way, and push tripping them face first through the door rather than going down with them.

3. Disable aggressive intruders that have entered the venue and are advancing on the speaker’s personal space.

4. Intruders who enter and do not advance on the speaker must be commanded to take off their masks and kneel.

5. Once all intruders are disabled or compliantly kneeling, their shoestrings should be tied together.

6. Any member of the security team who is injured or struck, or successfully immobilized [or any member who sees this happen to another member] should shout breach, which is the cue to blind intruders with eye jabs, spear hands, and gouging attacks, until an intruder rout has been achieved.

7. An egress point separate from the entrance way must be established by the team immediately upon arrival, and should be the way by which the subject is ushered from the venue if there is a breach.

8. The bodyguard is never to leave the personal space of the subject, even to aid a team member. No able bodied male must be permitted in the personal space of the subject, personal space being defined as within arm’s length. I kind of like the idea of cutting out the men and letting the short women ring the tall Aryan speaker like his sexual property on display.

If possible choose a private venue with choke points and poor visibility, such as a bar, where the owner will take part in the defense arrangements, as opposed to hotels or restaurants whose staff and management have a passive orientation toward intruders.

As American society continues to devolve into a kind of caricature of 1920s Germany, I see an increased level of government tolerance extended to leftist groups who wish to attack free speakers, and suggest seeking privately secured speaking venues and bringing a security team, rather than trusting to speaking venues typically used by the elite and media.

Private security firms that are not completely useless are rare and expensive. In dire circumstances, such as being targeted by violent groups, the only organizations capable of providing effective security will be sports teams and gangs. Police forces are no longer a threat to violent actors, with the possible exception of those defending your venue. Legal defensibility will need to be a guiding principal in your arrangements, with any weapons in the hands of the security team being a gross liability.

For someone such as Jared Taylor, asking a local rugby, boxing, wrestling, or MMA team to provide security at a barroom setting would be ideal for dealing with college hoodlums. Even during the Baltimore Riots the only venues that rioters were prevented from entering were barrooms protected by one or two athletes, who the rioters avoided like the plague even as they attacked police! A study of the body language and physical make up of these college age groups indicates close to zero combat effectiveness. Two dangerous men could take one of these groups apart. Part of the effectiveness of these groups is that they rely on the civility of their victims. This is another reason to choose a bar as a speaking venue as the police tolerate a certain level of violence at drinking establishments and come to the door assuming that the bouncer was justified in taking out a rowdy intrusive element. I highly recommend that intellectuals such as Taylor seek the safety of a biker bar.

For more on this subject check out

‘Are The Counter-Currents People Cowards?’

Tactically Speaking

While the article you have just read is based on my thoughts as a security lead for a venue such as that filmed below—which was a disastrous goat fuck from the get go—Tactically Speaking stresses venue selection and minimizing legal liabilities, so comes off differently.

Militant Devolution

Note that the very non athletic attackers armed with hammers in this video would not only justify the use of chairs—even for head shots—but make easy meat for such tactics as well. I'm over fifty and I'll pit myself with a chair against four of these jokers and pick the old man for an easy win.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz3BuqTQdMc

Add Comment
KmanMay 30, 2015 1:00 PM UTC

Incidents like this are much more likely in places where people are unable to bear arms and where use of force laws favor the criminals. Where I live, Mr. LaFond's methods might expose the defenders to legal liabilities. Use of intermediate force weapons such as chemical sprays and hand help electronic stun guns leave little to no physical injuries. Hand held stunners might be particularly useful in a melee of unarmed lefties such as Mr. Jared encountered
responds:June 1, 2015 1:59 PM UTC

Your insights are correct, in my view, Kman.

I did see footage of some cops using pepper spray during the riots and it necessitated them leaving the formation, and had some effect against police and reporters [sob, sob] when the wind shifted, and could effect bystanders in doors.

I think hand held stunners would be a great weapon in such a melee situation. The problem with stunning devices is that a falling body's head can hit hard objects. Just last year a hospital 4 miles from where I sit saw a young man killed by a police stun device in the ER! So, although there will be less aggregate injury from stun devices compared to impact weapons, there will still be injury.

Also, my recommendations in this scenario are, I believe, at the extremity; the outer limits of what I perceive as legally defensible. I've taken other, milder, stances in some of the attached articles.

That said, if I'm protecting someone like Mr. Jared, and some big meathead puts his hands on him, than said meathead is hitting the deck hard. This is one reason why I have almost always refused to work such situations, because of where it could go.

The more I have thought about it the more I recommend using biker bars as speaking venues. It also seems from some of the Bowden footage, and inferences he has made as to other un filmed venues, that he choose drinking establishments and club type facilities, over open hotel rooms and university venues that would favor leftist force, but local venues integrated into the community that would favor the right.

You are definitely right about some of my recommended methods being legally problematic, which, no matter the municipality, is always the reality when a small group defends against a large group, aggravated by the fact that law enforcement focuses on results rather than the actual initial act of aggression, generally placing blame squarely on the shoulders of any successful defender.

Thanks for expanding the discussion.