Do You Feel Like A Piss Ant?

Long ago, in the Blue Ridge, there lived a woman who was portrayed by Patrica O'Neil in a Christmas story called The Waltons.

They were crackers really as everyone was a cracker in the Franklin Roosevelt Dirty Thirties. There was something in this though what Mother Walton in her God given Wisdom of having a house full of Boy Bobs and Girl Bobs of multiple names said which is telling in the dark of Charles Barkley professing something about wanting the Nigger word to be not used any more.

You will remember the Waltons decorating the Christmas Tree when Mary Ellen called Elizabeth a "piss ant" and Erin told on her.

Mom Walton just asked the wee child, "Well do you feel like a piss ant?"

Elizabeth said, "No" after some thought and that pretty well ended the mob riot incited by a teenage girl with raging hormones.

The word cracker is as horrid as Nigger, and yet you never hear anyone wanting to stop the C word, unless it is Cunt in calling Sarah Palin that. Frankly Mrs. Palin has been acting like a cunt for the past few years in thinking people will have forgotten how she abandoned America in 2012  for a run for President as she was a coward.

For me, the Nigger words are in being called Born Again now or a Conservative or a Patriot, but you never hear people complaining about that, but it is always about Nigger.

The problem as I know it, is that most Afroids feel like Niggers and that is why it is such a fixation for them. Nothing like a black boy with his underwear hanging out, more gold than Fort Knox, slumped down in a car, with a white woman he is fucking to really set home the definition of Nigger, while they are all Obama Chin in not doing a days work and thinking being black is some trump card in everything they do is cool, when it is just juvenile half brain stupid.

If white people rapped, they called it Blondie and people knew it was a joke and never took it serious. For the Afroid they create an entire genre for it..........instead of saying the incompetent who can neither sing nor play an instrument.


I like the word Nigger. If it was not around, there would have to be new words invented, and there certainly are words like jungle bunny, coon, darkie, and I forget now as I do not make a catalogue of race references, and usually just use the term "dumb ass".

Mother Walton  though had it right as did Elizabeth, in people could call her a piss ant, and as long as she knew she did not feel like one, she had to rise above it in character and she turned out just fine.

So what are you going to call a Nigger, but some other name. It does not make them stop being Niggers, and that is the point of it all, is society calls people names who deserve to be castigated and  so they stop wasting their lives and amount to something.

I have numbers of assholes call me names and I do not say, "Well we have to stop with that bitch word". That is stupid as hell as what on earth are you going to call a bitch when you come across one?

I know I'm not a bitch. I am a strong Christian, a hard ass, who will not be pushed around. So names do not bother me any more than Elizabeth Walton. Those who treat me bad are going to have hell to pay and that is the way it should be.

If Charles Barkley wants to make a difference, he with other large blacks should go around and beat the bajesus out of all these Niggers and then that will stop the problem. The problem has always been that the Afroid male has not policed themselves and left it all to the black females, and the problem with that was most of them were hired out to have white babies like Chris Matthews suck tit until they reached college.

1. Charles Barkley Is Still Not a Role Model

   TIME (blog) ‎- by Jack Dickey ‎- 23 hours ago

   Thursday night, Charles Barkley went on Inside the NBA and delivered a commentary about the use of "nigger" in locker rooms. Anyone who ...

Mrs. Walton solved problems by growing character in children. That is what the black needs to do.

The day Niggers stop being Niggers is the first day that the word will lose meaning, and then those who use the word incorrectly due to lack of self esteem, will then be chastised, and in time it will disappear like Round Head is not in vogue.

You never hear the women of Martin Luther King ever referred to as Niggers, because they are not. When the word fits and when the Afroid enjoys using the slur it perpetuates.

1. Charles Barkley doesn't want White America dictating N-word rules (Video)

   Larry Brown Sports‎ - by Larry Brown‎ - 1 day ago

More wasted time and space upon the wall, and in typical Oprah fashion that problem in the White House called Obama never is castigated by the 98% voting block blacks, which plays further into the Nigger drama.

Charles Barkley got rich off of white people, due to white people breeding his parents to pick cotton as slaves. Thee entire sports millionaires club is from the benefits of slavery and being a Nigger.

That though never comes up in any discussions of Niggers, who do not work at normal occupations, but are instead still picking the cotton on courts and not fields......but this time they are being paid for it by the masters who own them for sport.



agtG

Cancer loves Liberals

I think about my cousin's wife in having a second round of cancer in they found a lump behind her  ear and a spot on her lungs. She had an original soft tissue cancer of one of her organs which made me think that she would not make it through the first time.

I never like these new cancers they developed as they are like anthrax in hiding in soft tissues, and for reasons of I have no clue to, the focal points are the lung and the brain.
That is what I wonder of in cancers, in the breeders always settle it eventually in the brain.

She has a husband who is a very good man. Three young boys and she is a very fine woman. None of it is fair. All I can ponder now though is the cartel really gave her one of the witches brew forms, as it is all the most horrendous of cruel things.

I remember my first contact with cancer as a child. It was a family friend who was a ranger. He had testicle cancer which really scared me. I watched him battle it and it kill him. I watched another friend in the same age group and a ranger have testicle cancer too. I knew then for certain that this was not a coincidence in  two males.
I will presume it was that polio vaccine.

Cancer amuses me in the profit structure as I remember as a child when everyone died of cancer. I remember a cousin with breast cancer who never took treatment and it killed her. Another cousin had colon cancer, and she never took treatment either as with the cure she would die in 18 months and without the cure she would die in 18 months.

When too many people figured out that puking your guts out, feeling like shit and losing your hair only was torture and you live as long in a better way without treating cancer, then suddenly the cancer survivors started appearing.
I have a neighbor who had cancer and she has been cured for years now.

I have written of a couple I knew in Ohio, whose brother in law had pancreas cancer, and it killed him from September to the first of December.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg had pancreas cancer and she is still alive on the Supreme Court ruining America.

Odd thing about cancer in the elite like the Kissingers never get it, and the elite who are connected like Ginsburg when they get it, get cured and it never comes back, but regular people who are Republicans seem to get it, and keeping getting it, until the 3rd round they just give up and die.

Odd how no one ever brings these facts up, as we all pink ribbon and Susan march our way around dumping millions of more dollars onto a situation that appears more specific culling of Americans and a torture to death which is criminal.

From my study of cancer, cancer is a hybrid of a virus which breeds within a fungal acidic environment. Take the host away and the cancer virus does. In some ways it is like the fungal of a mole, in a fungus creates a dark environment which is the mole to live, and when one takes the dark environment away, the fungus dies.

Is a remarkable thing really in hundreds of thousands of cases of cancer in America, that it is only Ruth Ginsburg who got cancer, out of all the liberal news media, actors, politicians and industrialists.
Cancer really does seem so very intelligent in it just hates some groups of people, and seeks them out, as cancer really loves liberals and protects them.

Odd how no one ever brings any of this up.

Yes let us forget that a cancer weapon murdered Hugo Chavez and that little Jewish diplomat was murdered in Afghanistan for knowing too much about it as she served in Venezuela.
You might notice Kim Jong Un has disappeared shortly after this blog stated he was infected after that Rodman visit.

When is someone going to ask, why is it that cancer hates people on the right wing, women's breasts, poor people, and loves liberals to such a benefit that a liberal actually lives longer after the get cancer.


Why does cancer love a liberal?



agtG

Waterloo

There never seems to be any time for anything really fun anymore for me. Not that I ever had time in almost being worked to death as a child literally in my first literal physical collapse, but at least then I still had some time to garden, build, train animals or read for fun.........I once had a time I could even think for fun.

At this moment, I sit on TL's love seat, and I ponder for fun, or more for setting the record straight as too much propaganda has ensued and now too much ignorance abounds on subjects which people should actually know something about.
It is not a great secret that I relish warfare in artistic forms from Chess to actual battle. One battle often spoken of in passing is Waterloo, where Napoleon met his ruling end.

Waterloo is interesting as Napoleon in all form is an archetype of the anti Christ as Adolf Hitler was, as Antiochos Epiphanes was. Napoleon applied the same measures of brilliant bribery statesmanship with annexation of territories while using his military most effectively.

Waterloo took place, because the Euroean powers had exiled Napoleon to his own island, where he escaped and appeared in Europe and overthrew the government and rallied his troops again.

The European powers at the time were led by the Duke of Wellington, who was a most capable general, but we focus upon Waterloo, that front before Brussels which the Duke was protecting in the lowlands from Napoleon's host.

Waterloo was a falling back point really, where the Duke of Wellington had spied out the year previously as a very choice location for the defense of Brussels. The battlefield is a small valley one half mile wide and several miles long going east west.
Napoleon was on the north hills and Wellington on the south. The flanks were formed by small hamlets and in Wellington's rear was an open forest most effect for retreat of cannon and cavalry if it came to that with infantry holding the retreat.

On the British left miles away were the Prussians. A most effective group of Soldiers, and finding that Napoleon was not to attack them, almost wholly arose under their fine General Blucher to come to Wellington's aid at Waterloo.

Wellington as did Napoleon, lost around 1/3rd of their armies, which was a horrific slaughter, and Wellington in reality had no real battle plan, except to hold his ground to the last man, and in some cases it almost came to that, as the Duke bravely rode up and down the lines of battle encouraging his men.
The last assault on the British center had Wellington giving the command to rise to attack. Only one of his aids was still with him at the end of the battle, as all were dead or wounded.

Napoleon spent his infantry, his cavalry and his cannon on Wellington who absorbed his own losses in the struggle. The French heavy cavalry was wasted in charges of the British formations in square.

A square is just that in armed infantry with bayonet fixed outward, where cavalry rides up and is shot, or they try to back their horses into the bayonet to break the ranks. All horrid warfare in the waste for horse flesh.

Wellington after Napoleon was last neutralized at approximately 6 pm, ordered the advance, before Napoleon could order another organized fierce attack, and that is where the rout began. It was though not before grape and cannister had blown gaping hopes time and again in the British ranks.

As stated too much has been written about this battle, including Napoleon's critique, and all were wrong. It was a savage fight, but it did not need to be, but was given to Wellington as God had promised this in the Bible that the sons of Joseph would rule the world in the British and Americans.

The key to the battle was the British left. It had the worthless Belgium troops who would have fought for Napoleon, and what required to be done was for Napoleon in the late start due to rains, only sent his cavalry wide for a rear attack on that flank.
Cannon would have pinned down the the Wellington lines, and a feint at the British center would have held them there, as the flanking operation took place on the left.

The French did hold ground eventually on the right flank, but the reality is that as General Thomas Jackson and General Nathan Bedford Forest proved in the American Civil War, that a force attack on flank and rear, would make a military line turn, and once in motion, that line would then begin to roll up on itself for a rout.

I do not state the Wellington and the English would have simply ran away, as the English never did such things in that era, but once outflanked, the English would have been in motion, and in turning, the Napoleon cannon would have chewed gaping holes in the lines, whereby having troops reeling back upon them, the cavalry would have cut through and devastated the lines front and back.

Doing this, the cannon of the English would have been ineffectual or lost. The forest retreat would have been cut off, and in regrouping Wellington could have held his right, but in flanked there, he would have been surrounded.

This would have taken place hours before the Prussians came up to join the battle with their army.

Wellington prepared for a frontal assault from Napoleon which took place, but if Napoleon would have instead followed a General George S. Patton doctrine as was in the operational plans of General Stonewall Jackson, of grabbing your enemy by the nose and kicking them in the pants or as stated Napoleon with artillery and infantry feint grabbed Wellingtons front, while the heavy French cavalry hit them on the left flank and rear, the immovable stone of Wellington would have become the shattered rock of Waterloo, and the effective end of the British empire.

Do not overlook that another General was on the field in that era, and he was facing the cream of the Wellington red coats, in the American, Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans.
Those were the troops who had ripped Napoleon's armies to shreds and his generals, but by effective surpise attack, effective cannon regulated fire, and most effective Kentucky and Tennessee riflemen, Old Hickory destroyed the best of Wellington's men ever to go to field in that epic battle and he set his tactics similar to the Duke of Wellington against Napoleon.

I am quite confident, that I could have with Napoleon's army, crushed Wellington at Waterloo with his entire military by 3 pm. I would have then wheeled on the fatigued Prussians and left them buried in the mud. It all had to do with flanking and rear attack, which Wellington could not have wheeled for, for if he did engage, the Napoleon infantry would have struck in the front fully creating two flanks on Wellington.

It is all the Lord of the Battle. The American House of Joseph was to rule that side of the Atlantic and the British House of Joseph was to rule the other side of the Atlantic. It is why the red coats prevailed at Waterloo and were wiped out at New Orleans. It was Jesus and that Heavenly host.

In any event, I am finished playing with this set of generals.


agtG








agtG

Crusades

As another Lame Cherry exclusive to drive into your bone heads just how ignorant you are and how much you have been manipulated and lied to.
Yes exclusive in matter anti matter as you will hear none of this from any other source.


If I were to say the word CRUSADE. You would cringe would you not involuntarily and have it seem a bad thing to you right?
CRUSADE is like the word COLUMBUS, NIGGER, PATRIOT, in you have been taught to recoil from it.

I am going to provide you a quote from Sir Edward Creasy, and I realize we have had a number of Sir Edward's quotes, but in 1850, there was real history still being written factually, and you must understand REAL HISTORY.

Quote:


Fortunate was it that those daring Saracenic cavaliers encountered in the East the impregnable walls of Constantinople, in the West the chivalrous valour of Charles Martel and the sword of the Cid. The crusades were the natural reprisals for the Arab invasions, and form the last epoch of that great struggle between the two principal families of the human race."

Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy. The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World: from Marathon to Waterloo (Kindle Locations 1518-1520).


UNQUOTE.

In case you speed readers missed it again, the CRUSADES WERE THE NATURAL REPRISALS FOR THE ARAB INVASIONS.

That would be plural in "ARAB" invasions, which if you knew history, started with the Persians in their empire, deciding to annex Asia minor and coming into contact with those Greek city states who struck back, and Xerxes invaded Greece for those epic battles where he was beaten back against all odds.

Alexander the Great would invade then Asia and gain victory, but history reveals a constant invasion of several thousand years from the Moors of Africa in the great Hannibal, that ugly Attila with the Huns, the Ottomans in constant rapine of Europe, and as stated a new race started in North Africa in all the white people kidnapped, inslaved and raped by the Moors.

If you desire reality, the immigration waves which came into Europe from the "Barbarians", were Israelite and Semitic exiles leaving Asia for peace in Europe, and what followed were the waves of these "Arabs" who degraded to Islamists bent on forcing all to be subjects of Islam to the Sword.

Only on this blog, has it ever been written of in Admiral Columbus' journals, the reason he was interested in a new trade route to Asia, and that was he fully intended to use that money to liberate the Holy Land and build Ezekiel's 3rd Temple so Christ would return.
That is in Columbus' personal papers and none of you lazy people ever bother to read anything in real history so you do not know.

Joan of Arc in her epic challenge to the English to leave France, invites the Duke of Bedford, Regent of France to accompany her on Crusade to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims, and not to fight her.

Joan's battle was in 1429. Columbus' epic voyage was in 1492. This period had already experienced the wholesale invasions from the Middle East with rape, robbery, murder, enslavement and taking of Christian lands for hundreds of years, and predated thousands of years before the Christian era began with conversion.

This clash of east west is nothing new. It arises again, because elements in Europe sought to use in Ashkenaz finance, Muslims in that Albert Pike prophecy, to destroy Christianity in this world and install the illuminated rites of satan. This  group funded with high priced oil, radical Islamic teachings and educating the Muslim in WMD warfare all the attributes of barbarity they were inflicting on the world for generations.

Yet, this same Ashkenaz media, is the one lying to the world that Islam is peaceful and the Crusades were an evil thing. THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN CRUSADES IF MILITANT ISLAM WAS NOT MURDERING CHRISTIAN EUROPE.

That is the reality in this, is Islam has been to blame for all of this. Christians were the ones being butchered, and Christians were not going to be  made victims, so they rose up and fought back and drove Muslims from the Christian lands.
Christians were the ones in the latter stages of this warfare who were raped, murdered, enslaved, deported, forced into Janisarrian or military service for Islam, and would never see their homes again or be allowed to worship Christ or be murdered for it. It was Islam in the Ottomans who harvested white children like a crop in a certain percentage were taken to the Islamic lands from their families every year.

That is a bit different is it not than the "peaceful Islam" propaganda and how Christians are the ones who started all of this is it not?

Yes this started, with the Persian Empire, before Jesus, before Alexander, before Rome, before Columbus. This was the Mideast invading for empire European lands and not Europe invading Asia.

What should have been accomplished after the 9 11 ruse by the cartel which Islamists carried out was what the Father of the Neutron Bomb advocated and that was a systematic extermination of the worst of these militants in the hinterlands. That message would have been cheaply done and sent the message of what would follow in all Islam.
Instead what will take place is a nuclear Islam being allowed to vaporize select western cities of America while the Muslim mob is unleashed to burn down Paris with fire bombs in revolution.

The Crusades were righteous and just. They were the self defense of the Christian against murderous Islam. The words of Sir Edward Creasy are correct, and not dismissed by racism or any other media propaganda, as he was relating exact history and the reason for the events.

The Crusades were the defense of innocent people in the west from criminal invaders of the east. That is the reality. I repeat that is the reality, and the Crusades were just, exactly as a Christophero Columbo was just in his undertaking, sailing for treasure in the New World to liberate the Old World from Islam.

Now you know why Christians, Columbus and the Crusades have been libeled. It is because they were the salvation of the western peoples, from the same hordes attempting the genocide of the western peoples today.



agtG