AMBUSH: 7 Police Officers Shot, 3 May Be Dead: Baton Rouge

obama with the Dems assisted in this mindset of negroes attacking police, specifically white officers, when he (they) provided a forum for the racists group BLM and the aid and comfort to anti American muslim groups in the country. His mindset is anti colonial and deep down wants payback on the White power structure. The attacks will continue. Trump will have to exploit this murder and anarchy and continue to push that he is the "law and order" candidate. Waiting to see if this scum attempts to attack the RNC convention starting tomorrow. If they do, they will die, but go down as martyrs, down with their misguided cause.
 
Ambrose said:
Is "war" is not some kind of contest between two sides? What is sometimes called a psy-war is really a psy-attack by one side onto another? "The blacks" means exactly what: which blacks? "The whites" means exactly what: which whites? Some blacks attacking some whites is a war? Which whites are fighting this war against blacks? Are most whites engaged in this war? Do most whites not engage with blacks to shun possible attacks?

Most of the whites of the many societies I exchange and interchange with of United States avoid contact with blacks and make void attempts by blacks to be lured into battles physical, legal, lawful, psychological, or social. I do agree with you though, it seems most -not all of course- blacks are ready at the drop of a hat to attack white men and white men or white structures of every kind. Because I anticipate trouble of some kind (attacks), I avoid almost all contact with blacks where possible.

What argument is there to win? To argue is to discuss, to reason, to express. As there is not a thing to win how can there be a thing to lose?:) Cheers.
Click to expand...

Right, because of the long-standing, one-sided racial conflict that you deny exists. You wrote that "If they start shooting mothers and fathers just walking around truck loads of white men will likely go on cockroach hunts to stamp out the vermin," but what you don't comprehend, or won't admit, is that this is what has been happening for the past half-century. Not exactly the way you stated it, but it has been happening nonetheless. To again quote a 20 year old article whose statistics should roughly be doubled to be current:

"These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960s, when there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge which, not coincidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning the modern civil rights movement.

"Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter-racial murders. By comparison 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean war.

"When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the reverse).

"When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans have commited at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the past 30 years. It is the great defining disaster of American life and American ideals since World War II."

That, Ambrose, is one-sided racial warfare, or if you prefer a one-sided racial conflict. The argument you are trying to make is that there is not a long-standing, one-sided race war taking place in America. I have no idea why you deny the undeniable, other than you are one of those people who will post endlessly, obsfucating the issue rather than admitting you might not be right about something. Cheers.
 
Don Wassall said:
Right, because of the long-standing, one-sided racial conflict that you deny exists. You wrote that "If they start shooting mothers and fathers just walking around truck loads of white men will likely go on cockroach hunts to stamp out the vermin," but what you don't comprehend, or won't admit, is that this is what has been happening for the past half-century. Not exactly the way you stated it, but it has been happening nonetheless. To again quote a 20 year old article whose statistics should roughly be doubled to be current:

"These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960s, when there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge which, not coincidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning the modern civil rights movement.

"Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter-racial murders. By comparison 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean war.

"When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the reverse).

"When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans have commited at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the past 30 years. It is the great defining disaster of American life and American ideals since World War II."

That, Ambrose, is one-sided racial warfare, or if you prefer a one-sided racial conflict. The argument you are trying to make is that there is not a long-standing, one-sided race war taking place in America. I have no idea why you deny the undeniable, other than you are one of those people who will post endlessly, obsfucating the issue rather than admitting you might not be right about something. Cheers.
Click to expand...

The "conflict" may have begun after the Civil War (1865); I don't know? Records show whites used to widely engage directly in an overt social conflict against Negroes up until the "civil rights" agitation of the 50s began. Once it became criminal for whites to engage in an overt social conflict, many whites quickly began to do -as they do now- to covertly make void all contact with Negroes (today known as Blacks). The area commonly known as Detroit City is a good example of covert social conflict by disengaging with blacks.

I don't use the word deny; I have asked questions. We already know blacks attack whites daily -who is denying that? Have I not posted numerous examples that show the pattern of behavior?

My points are, firstly, there is no white vs black war, but, yes, there is much black aggression and attacks on whites. There can't be a war with only one side fighting and the other not even defending. That is simply aggression A conflict of aggressors vs victims is not a war but a record of attacks. When whites are blindsided by groups of psychotic blacks that is not a battle but simply an attack. There are millions of whites that actively try to help blacks -that is not war; that is peace. Very few blacks put time from their lives to help whites.

Secondly, If whites went back to a positive, aggressive, daily approach, blacks would cower in their ghettos against an aggressive white majority. It doesn't take that much to put them on the run and keep vermin out of your life but most are so confused (by design) they don't act positively, and intelligently, against aggression.

Not trying to confuse this matter, merely trying to express my viewpoints which, albeit, are contrary to some. But that's what whites like you and I do, we discuss or write, to try to bring clarity to our lives.
 
Last edited:
Ambrose said:
The "conflict" may have begun after the Civil War (1865); I don't know? Records show whites used to widely engage directly in an overt social conflict against Negroes up until the "civil rights" agitation of the 50s began.before integration.
Once it became criminal for whites to engage in an overt social conflict, many whites quickly began to...
Click to expand...


What "overt social conflict" did whites "widely engage in" before the civil rights agitation and integration - before the borders of the country were thrown open to the non-white third world, before the welfare programs began force breeding the parasitic underclass by the millions? Race relations in this country were good. In fact negroes were the most rapidly advancing group in the USA - low crime rate - because black on white crime was not tolerated - low rate of illegitimacy, rapidly advancing literacy, many black owned businesses serving the black community, black professionals graduating from the black colleges. All that changed after the civil rights agitation and integration.
 
Last edited:
werewolf said:
Huh? The civil rights agitation began in the '60's. What "overt social conflict" did whites "widely engage in" before that? Before the civil rights agitation of the 1960's - before the borders of the country were thrown open to the non-white third world, before the welfare programs began force breeding the parasitic underclass by the millions - race relations in this country were good. In fact negroes were the most rapidly advancing group in the USA - low crime rate - because black on white crime was not tolerated - low rate of illegitimacy, rapidly advancing literacy - before the civil rights agitation, before integration.
Click to expand...

You never saw photos of "whites only"? You've no recollection of the distinct division between blacks and whites prior to the '60s? If it never existed, if there was no overt social conflict, there never would have been a "civil rights movement" in the '60s.
 
Ambrose said:
You never saw photos of "whites only"? You've no recollection of the distinct division between blacks and whites prior to the '60s? If it never existed, if there was no overt social conflict, there never would have been a "civil rights movement" in the '60s.
Click to expand...


Of course there were "whites only signs". That's what segregation meant. It worked well. The "civil rights movement" had nothing to do with whites only signs. It was a deliberate and concerted effort to destroy our race and civilization. Long before that the judeo-bolsheviks had perceived that the weak link in the USA might be the negro minority that they hoped to utilize to destroy it. One senator in the early part of the 20th century found their plan and even entered it into the congressional record.

Before the civil rights agitation and integration there was no question who ruled OUR civilization, and there was a genuine affection between the races, witness the tremendous popularity of radio and television programs depicting lovable negroes, like Amos 'n Andy, and Rochester on the Jack Benny program. Even back in the Civil War the great majority of negro slaves remained loyal to their masters, and far more negroes served the south than served the north.
 
Ambrose, ol' boxing forum buddy, I hope you're not getting your ideas of the old south from Hollywood movies or tv. Race relations in the old south were almost always casual and friendly. Nothing at all like it is today.

the_old_south_wallpaper__yvt2.jpg
 
These are difficult times, and sometimes its hard to know what the best decision is.
I see a lot of you guys here in this thread supporting law enforcement, and I get that. I 100% support the White officers who were killed by the criminal blacks and it is tragic. I would say that I support those individual officers, not all of law enforcement though. We should salute these officers and it is true that you presume the police are always there to protect us.

Here in Canada law enforcement has become something of a joke and the standards of law enforcement have taken a massive pounding. I've spent a lot of time in the Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto airports and I can say with certainty that about 85%+ of our national border security is staffed by nonwhites. Specifically there are a lot of South Asians, Africans, Hispanics, Asians, basically anyone as long as they are nonwhite. Quite literally, I've been in Pearson Airport (Toronto, Canada's largest city of 6 million people) and out of 20 or so border security and customs officials I didn't see a single white person. In Calgary, very similar, maybe I see 2 or 3 whites out of 20 border security staff, Vancouver maybe 1 or 2 whites out of 20 border security staff, and Montreal for some reason actually employs a good amount of whites, say 13 or 14 out of 20 (probably because of language law).

Here in Calgary, its truly amazing the number of women who work as cops, it's probably 33 to 40% of the force currently, and of course that number is growing every single day and they will eventually surpass male police officers. I also see a lot of obvious butch lesbians as police officers, and I've observed this trend in Calgary and Toronto especially. I almost want to say that 1 in 3 of women police officers is an obvious butch lesbian. And many of these women cops (especially the masculine butch lesbians) look god damn trashy, tattoos all over the necks, arms, faces (almost as though they used to be in a biker gang or former drug addicts or even former criminals but changed their life and now work as cops), and they look uneducated and like they just got out of fcuking bed in the morning. A lot of them look like complete retards, or likely former drug addicts from some sort of gutter. And this is society's way of saying these butch lesbians and former drug addicts are normal and should have some sort of authority over heterosexual men.

There was a time when cops were men of principle, tattoos were explicitly outlawed, and you had to be a man of tremendous character to geta job in law enforcement but today's cops look like something out of the local "Fred & Frank's" Gay bar, or a god damn freak show. Like something out of Jerry Springer, literally. They look like crap and it is hard to respect these freaks even though theyve been granted the title of "law enforcement" in this undeserving society.

I have a clean record, but over the years I've also had the immense displeasure of actually interacting with the Calgary Police and Toronto Police on numerous issues (nothing serious just fist fights, property disputes, threats, neighbor disputes etc.) and in my experience I would describe them as largely incompetent and to be frank: Not even eager to uphold the law as they are supposed to be doing. I had an incident where I was threatened by another male, and the police weren't even interested in pursuing my complaint and upholding the criminal code of Canada (the police also threatened me about giving me tickets for not having required documentation which i did have, but they seemed more interested in handing out tickets than actually fighting crime). That's all fine and dandy because my example is petty, but when the issues get bigger and are concerning drugs, fraud, assault and battery, or armed robbery you see these cops often doing the same thing, turning a blind eye and not pursuing criminals. It really just typifies the whole decline of society as a whole, zero accountability and a lack of standards. In my experience, you're almost better off not talking to them at all and involving them in issues as little as possible unless absolutely necessary. And naturally, don't ever get into a dispute with a woman, the facts don't matter, they will take her side. That may just be my experience with law enforcement, and other people may have had better interactions with law enforcement. I'd also like to point out that I am a friendly and respectful guy, I often get great reviews from clients I work with, so I'm certainly very talkable and sociable. So, I don't think the problem is me in these situations. But one thing is for sure: Law enforcement is just another branch of the system and the force is starting to show this. Affirmative action hires corrupts the end quality of the service being offered.

If thats the best we've got no wonder the west is fcuked. This society really is sliding into the proverbial crapper. There is no stopping this self destruction. Maybe China can just let go of a nuke in N America then we can start over? That's the only solution I see on the horizon.

Having said all of the above, it is important to support the White officers who were killed though. RIP.
 
Last edited:
Ha ha, that schizophrenic post was actually pretty good. I feel the same way. Most cops are bullies and a-holes, I've had problems with them and I'm a regular white guy. That and the fact they all think they are in some kind of military unit, especially with the equipment they are putting together. Not to mention they are the foot soldiers of the PC multi-cult, a role they have no problems filling. However the way a person reacts to the BLM/cop killing situation is a kind of status signal. It's anti-white vs. white. It's easy to see whose side one should be on. And I know a few cops, for the most part they are decent guys, a lot better then the blacks and white douche bags that are protesting them.
 
I'm from small town with a nonexistent crime rate, being a cop seems like one of the cushiest jobs in the world. You get good benefits, decent pay, a union that makes firing you damn near impossible, etc. Police unions also overwhelmingly support ******** like asset forfeiture. Every cop in my town is also obese, the only arrest they have to worry about is cardiac arrest. Apparently blue lives don't matter enough to put down the fork. Despite all this the whole town hero worships them.

Case in point we had an officer sexually proposition an underage girl to get out of a driving ticket. Police union protected him, got off with a suspension. Prosecutors are often afraid to go after cops because the whole goddamn police force will turn against said prosecutor. You know, I was trying to be tactful, but most cops can kiss my ass.
 
Last edited:
werewolf said:
Ambrose, ol' boxing forum buddy, I hope you're not getting your ideas of the old south from Hollywood movies or tv. Race relations in the old south were almost always casual and friendly. Nothing at all like it is today.

the_old_south_wallpaper__yvt2.jpg
Click to expand...
\\

I knew you would come back!
 
BoxingSpecialist2 said:
I also see a lot of obvious butch lesbians as police officers, and I've observed this trend in Calgary and Toronto especially. I almost want to say that 1 in 3 of women police officers is an obvious butch lesbian. And many of these women cops (especially the masculine butch lesbians) look god damn trashy, tattoos all over the necks, arms, faces (almost as though they used to be in a biker gang or former drug addicts or even former criminals but changed their life and now work as cops), and they look uneducated and like they just got out of fcuking bed in the morning. A lot of them look like complete retards, or likely former drug addicts from some sort of gutter. And this is society's way of saying these butch lesbians and former drug addicts are normal and should have some sort of authority over heterosexual men.
Click to expand...
Anecdotally, I was on my Saturday morning walk the other weekend, and there happened to be a 10-mile marathon going on at the same place. There were hundreds of people there participating in this. While walking far on the right-side of the track, trying to avoid any collisions with them, I started noticing that about 1 out of every 6 or 7 female runners had tattoos, way too many to obtain an actual count. Most of their tattoos were very large or up-and-down their arms, legs, neck, back, etc. I counted the number of tattoos on the male runners on one hand, five, with one of them being a crucifix. I didn't see any crucifixes on any of the female runners. The only conclusion I could come to after that experience was that females are far more susceptible to (((mainstream cultural propaganda))) than men are. I don't think I saw a single tattoo on a non-White female runner, but they only accounted for less than ten percent of the total female runners. It shows just how much the (((social engineers))) are specifically targeting White women.

Flint said:
However the way a person reacts to the BLM/cop killing situation is a kind of status signal. It's anti-white vs. white. It's easy to see whose side one should be on. And I know a few cops, for the most part they are decent guys, a lot better then the blacks and white douche bags that are protesting them.
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm pretty neutral on the police. If it weren't for all of their revenue-generating tactics, like hiding behind structures just to nail people for going five miles over the speed limit, I'd be more supportive of them. However, although one cannot be overtly unsupportive of "Black Lives Matter" (if you want to keep your job, life), one can be overtly supportive of "Blue Lives Matter", with a baseball cap, emblem, flag, patch, bumper sticker, etc. The overt support of "Blue Lives Matter" indirectly indicates that one does not support "Black Lives Matter", and no one can call you out on that.
 
Heretic said:
Anecdotally, I was on my Saturday morning walk the other weekend, and there happened to be a 10-mile marathon going on at the same place. There were hundreds of people there participating in this. While walking far on the right-side of the track, trying to avoid any collisions with them, I started noticing that about 1 out of every 6 or 7 female runners had tattoos, way too many to obtain an actual count. Most of their tattoos were very large or up-and-down their arms, legs, neck, back, etc. I counted the number of tattoos on the male runners on one hand, five, with one of them being a crucifix. I didn't see any crucifixes on any of the female runners. The only conclusion I could come to after that experience was that females are far more susceptible to (((mainstream cultural propaganda))) than men are. I don't think I saw a single tattoo on a non-White female runner, but they only accounted for less than ten percent of the total female runners. It shows just how much the (((social engineers))) are specifically targeting White women.


I agree. I'm pretty neutral on the police. If it weren't for all of their revenue-generating tactics, like hiding behind structures just to nail people for going five miles over the speed limit, I'd be more supportive of them. However, although one cannot be overtly unsupportive of "Black Lives Matter" (if you want to keep your job, life), one can be overtly supportive of "Blue Lives Matter", with a baseball cap, emblem, flag, patch, bumper sticker, etc. The overt support of "Blue Lives Matter" indirectly indicates that one does not support "Black Lives Matter", and no one can call you out on that.
Click to expand...

No question that White females have been the main target of the (((communist subversives))) for quite some time now. The contrived gender warfare is their ace in the hole as it has all but destroyed the traditional family and harmonious relations between men and women. And once that is accomplished, a society is utterly ruined.

Went to my small post office today and there was a substitute for the female postmaster, a middle-aged White woman with a large and hideous tattoo running the entire length of one arm. Probably were others not visible because of clothing. As I left and got back into my car, another customer pulled up, a White woman who had to have been at least 65, and she too had a tat on her neck and upper arm. And I live in a very suburban area, about as white bread as one can find on the outskirts of a big city these days.

Agree with you and Flint on the police. The main problem isn't the average policeman but rather the militarization of cops in equipment and training, and that has been a top-down change, per usual in this country.
 
Tattooes are a big indicator for women who are DTF. A long time ago it was a "tramp stamp" but that ante has been upped. To signal that you are a superslut a women has to really lay on the paint. Guys do it to appear more bad ass, women do it to try and increase their sexual market value. For guys in my generation it's a big turn off but for younger guys it's like a big green light.
 
Flint said:
Tattooes are a big indicator for women who are DTF. A long time ago it was a "tramp stamp" but that ante has been upped. To signal that you are a superslut a women has to really lay on the paint. Guys do it to appear more bad ass, women do it to try and increase their sexual market value. For guys in my generation it's a big turn off but for younger guys it's like a big green light.
Click to expand...

I am a younger male, mid 20's and have to say for the most part I find tattooes on women to be unattractive. Seldomly, one will actually look decent but many women today get an entire sleeve or half sleeve and usually don't stop at just 1. This is when it starts looking horrible.

You are 100% correct when you say that the presence of tattooes on a female indicates that in all likelihood she is more promiscuis. I've often posted about shooting porn and paying for sex on this site so take it from me I know what I'm talking about. When I pay for sex, I dont always use an out and out prostitute. Very often I proposition a normal girl, some I meet in real life (I will approach in real life and i usually say "give me your #, theres something id like to ask you but its probably better that i text it") but most I meet on online dating sites like tinder (I have no intention of actually dating, just finding normal girls I can pay for sexual favours). So what I will do is text or message them asking for sexual favours in exchange for money. Many normal, non-working women will say yes to my offers.

I can almost predict beforehand which girls will prostitute themselves out to me and which wont. Actually thats a bit untrue because *all* women will prostitute themselves out it just depends how much or what youre offering. Tattooes are a big indicator of how slutty a girl is, big time. With the emergence of weed as an accepted drug, this is also a huge indicator of how slutty a girl is. In my experience almost all girls who smoke weed will prostitute themselves out to me the easiest. I have a girl right now in Banff that I pay 50-100$ to everytime I go visit her on the weekends, she is very fit and sexy but smokes weed. I dont do any drugs. She gives me small sexual favours and I can come and go as I please, no headaches.

I mean I also use real, working girls who advertise themselves as prostitutes and the advantage with a real prostitute is they are generally better at sex and more open minded than normal girls. I enjoy paying both prostitutes and normal girls for sex.

Also, in my experience, maybe not a popular viewpoint here but white and black women tend to be the sluttiest. It is much harder, but not impossible for me to get most Asian, Middle Eastern, or Brown to prostitute themselves out to me for 100 $. These girls still have morals because they come from culture that is not totally corrupt. White girls and black girls will prostitute themselves out at very low prices, in fact a lot of White and Black girls will give you sexual favours for free if you can commit time and listen to their bullsh1t (which I cant, and I prefer to be more direct so i exchange $ for favours). Must be all that "female empowerment" here in the West that has lowered the inhibitions of these girls.

Im not complaining, as a male I see a situation that I can exploit so thats what I do. Same way a business or anything functions really. Id also like to add my actions are entirely legal.
 
Last edited:
Let's get back on topic.

BS2, this is the last time I'll ask you not to post on this site about shooting porn. Find a porn site to post on if you want to write about that topic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top