“It has always bothered me that of the four planes hijacked by a handful of essentially unarmed foreigners over American soil, that only the men on one plane did not just sit by and wait to die while American women were killed—with what, box cutters and sharpened toothbrushes? My question to you, is, if such a situation arose today, would American men fight, or at least do so at better than a one in four ratio?”

-Larry

According to Grossmen, in On Killing, one in four is only slightly less combat participation than shown by U.S. infantrymen in WWII. What is disturbing about these attacks was the three in which no one fought, meaning that those planes featured passenger lists of 100% emasculated men. Personally, I will never underestimate the emasculation of the American male. This is a sissy nation. But it still has a few teeth left.

I can tell you that this would never happen on a Baltimore City bus. There is no way that ten black dudes sit by while a middle eastern guy attacks a black female bus driver. They would participate in reverse proportion—at 90-100% in the stomping of this box cutter-armed twerp. Of course, there is a vast difference in racial makeup and financial class between the two mass transit groups. Whites—particularly affluent whites—have been conditioned to see any use of force on their part as taboo, and to excuse the use of force among racially inferior types. This two-track aggression matrix in America is no different than the system used by Moulay Ismail, Sultan of Morocco, in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, in which he used black slaves as slave-drivers, employed in beating white slaves constantly, while whites were used as carpenters, engineers, masons, smiths, landscapers, etc. There is nothing fundamentally different about our system, where tax-paying whites produce while being attacked by blacks on behalf of the ruling elite, both groups enslaved—one through taking by and one through giving by—the very same system. This is true down to hijacking. Of the thousands of English ships hijacked by Moorish pirates over a roughly 200-year span, only a handful ever resisted! Many never set sail with weapons, trusting to their status as Englishmen to prevent attack, even though this very status made them desirable targets. Does this sound familiar, mister unarmed “privileged white American” in your expensive vehicle?

In 1715, two Barbary pirate ships, loaded with perhaps 100 savage sword and axe men, swooped down on two unarmed merchant ships with a combined crew of less than 20. There was no preparation or thought of defense. The slave instinct was as strong among English of 1715 as it is among Americans of 2016. Just as now, for a white man to fight outside of military service was utterly taboo. These Englishmen came from a disarmed society in which masters whipped servants continuously. The man who left us this account, Thomas Pellow, was the 11-year-old nephew of the captain of the Francis, who beat him with regularity, but did not have the balls to raise an oar or rigging pin in defense of his nephew, himself or his crew.

A whipped dog does not a warrior make. This is why American Indians did not beat their children and usually gave better than they got in engagements against whites.

Out of the blue came the Southwark, a lightly armed merchant ship commanded by a real man named Ferris. With only 19 men Ferris gave better than he got against 100 or so pirates for 10 hours, while Captain Pellow and the other cowards stood off and did nothing did not use their ships to ram, did not make fire pots of pitch to drop on the Barbary pirates, did not take up ours and sweeps and carpentry axes to fight, did not in any way attempt to sell their lives dearly—knowing full well what horrors awaited them from pamphlets published by escaped English slaves. After ten hours of epic battle and the repulsion of three boarding parties, the men of the Southwark were exhausted—how they might have benefitted from having an additional 15 men to load their weapons—and their heroic captain cut down.

But no, the slaves of England wished rather to be the slaves of the Sultan than to risk combat. England at the time was a nation of rough and ready go getters on the second tier, and a mass of victimized, disarmed, human livestock at its base. King James’ soldiers, a century earlier, had simply terrorized the country, taking food, lodging and sex by rude force, as the King could not pay them but would not let them go.

So in modern times, a person that believes the police, directed by the politician he voted for, are going to protect him, is unlikely to defend himself or others, while the criminal targeted by police will instinctively fight back, even against hopeless odds. This is one reason why I deny that most people are human, but rather animals. What we have is either a hopelessly domesticated beast [voter], a wild animal [thug], or an attack dog [cop]. I don’t see any of those types as human beings.

So, my answer is that nine out of ten white, American, suburban men, eight in ten urban white men and six in ten rural white men will sit by and watch as a white American woman is attacked by some foreigner. The good news is it only takes that one man to aid her. Protecting a third person is much easier than winning a fight. You just have to get in the way. Expect terror attacks by foreigners and indigenous Dindus to concentrate in the soft suburban zone. In the meantime, hopefully the remnants of the American culture that rejected the British slave matrix over 200 years ago will begin to regrow its collective balls—and a spine would be nice.