More socialist garbage: Another imbecilic rant in the Washington monthly

Published 14 years ago -  - 14y ago 14


newspapers-444447_1280

Note to readers: It’s been reported a frustrated DNC is consulting the Mod-squad to determine if they can prevent Kaliher from writing the truth.

Secondary note: Regular readers of my column realize I often scald left-wing writers for their preposterous ignorance. In this article that was my first inclination. However, as I read Mr. Lind’s fantasy, I became more concerned over the false/bad/peculiar history encompassed in his words and that the content made it past a fact checker or an editor with a minimal knowledge of the past. Because, of the totally false historical, political and cultural view introduced, I thought it best to cite raw truth in comparison to his delusional presentation. The discerning reader should keep in mind when I present truth against Lind’s disinformation campaign it should not be considered my final analysis. For example, I disagree with Lind’s take on the Southern agrarian aristocracy and present facts refuting his spin. The subject should be addressed accurately and more honestly than Mr. Lind is capable. I too would criticize that culture but my criticism would not be comparable to Mr. Lind’s for I would include negatives and positives and the points would be related to the facts.

The January/February 2003 issue of the Washington Monthly [SOURCE: www.washingtonmonthly.com Jan, 2003] contains one of the most inaccurate, misleading hit pieces I’ve seen. It is virtually impossible to find a word to adequately describe the lack of logic, truth or thought in Michael Lind’s sniveling titled, ” Deep in the Heart of Darkness Under George W. Bush, the worse of two Texas traditions is shaping America.” It is horrifying to consider the American educational system has failed so miserably there are actually graduates with so little knowledge they would not immediately recognize Lind’s ramblings as the horse hockey it is.

The liberal media shouldn’t wonder why their readership and viewer-ship is declining. Socialist media employees and especially the vacant talking heads and writers shouldn’t speculate why many Americans find them more odious than even Osama bin Laden. It is obvious they don’t realize the public is through putting up with the inanities and the filth promulgated and inspired by liberal propagandists. While bin Laden kills people, these liberal parasites kill culture, values, morality, truth and their civilization. This Michael Lind article is so inaccurate that titling it, “The Future of Space Travel,” or “How to Can Asparagus,” would have made as much sense as the title used.

Mr. Lind’s article is too long and foolish to read at one sitting. I have divided my critique of his swirling inaccuracies into several parts to be run by Ether Zone. The reader capable of thought would drop Lind’s rant after scanning a paragraph or two, recognizing nothing could be gained reading his childish gibberish. In my review of his idiocy I’ve tried to provide a bit of humor and facts to keep the reader alert. However, I urge the thinking reader to suffer through my review to discover and reflect on:

1. Are their really liberal writers this unaware of history and culture?

2. Has the public school system really produced defective students who would believe Lind?

3. This provides a good example of how much the left hates anything concerning traditional America.

4. This leftist article clearly defines what normal Americans face in trying to keep the nation.

5. Why does the left hate Christianity, conservatism and the American South? There are several other insights from Lind’s work that clearly demonstrates how perverted the American left has become.

There is an ugly reason America has long been subjected to the lies and filth of an article like Lind’s. With rare exceptions the dominant media does not consider work that is not from an acceptable politically correct person. Because I was critiquing a Washington Monthly article I gave them an opportunity to consider it. My e-mail note to one of their editors was:

Dear Sir or Madam:

I rarely contact a liberal publication, the “no conservative/libertarian need apply” signs have been clear for years . However, when I decide to challenge one of their articles I feel obligated to provide that publication an opportunity to run my counter point. I write a regular column for Ether Zone and understand I have a larger readership than the Washington Monthly could provide, so I will dispense with providing clips which are extensive.

To make a long story short, I am sending approximately half of the review I’m doing on the recent M. Lind article. This is a first draft and has not been checked or rewritten. It will be radically different in the viewpoint and beliefs you are familiar with. Additionally, it’s much more accurate than Lind’s article. If you have any interest in the finished complete and polished article let me know via e-mail by Wednesday. Please remember, this is a rough first draft, it is not finished, it is not for distribution and it is not a submission at this point. It is a query. (If you glance at some of the cutting I’ve done in Lind’s original piece, you’ll realize my finished product will be much tighter, but I haven’t yet had time to rework my part.) I will not sell exclusive rights.

Bill Kaliher

Needless to say they were not interested. It didn’t matter that I can write better than their author. It didn’t matter I use facts where he uses fantasy and lies. It didn’t matter I can out think their author. It didn’t matter my take on history and culture would withstand scrutiny and his wouldn’t. It didn’t matter his convoluted connections concerning Bush were absurd and never as strong as the connection I made concerning Lind and Hitler. Nothing of that nature matters to most leftist editors. They only want to reinforce their hate of America and the Constitution. Truth, quality and accuracy are always secondary.

Although, I will review Lind’s vomitus I do not recommend anyone read what the left would term his article. To call it silly would be kind. You would be much better off to spread some blank paper, give your dog a couple of quarts of Mad Dog 20-20 and dip his paws in India ink. The results of Fido walking on the paper won’t produce legible words but the content will be superior to Lind’s ejaculation. If you do read Lind’s mess be warned it is so sad, it will not always produce the gut busting laughter most liberal thesis ensure.

I am not certain a Gonorrheal infected zygote could have produced less content than Lind. From his preposterous assault it’s obvious he has an unwholesome hate of the South, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, common decency, America, Republicans and Christians. Making his banal hate filled article even less meaningful are an obvious lack of knowledge concerning American history, culture and the overwhelming depression associated with the shallowness of his insights. The irony is he occasionally forms a sentence someone with intelligence could agree. However, Lind never manages to connect logic, reason or another accurate thought when on occasion he mistakenly writes something true. The only conclusion concerning Lind is he is either evil, a trained socialist spinner or exceedingly stupid.

Lind opens his assassination by trying to draw a parallel between the presidency of Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush concerning Texas and the Western White House. Lind refers to, “–the Johnson ranch on the Pedernales River west of Austin, in the heart of his beloved central Texan hill country,” versus Bush’s ranch, “–this one north of Austin in Crawford, Texas.” It was a bit difficult to get through this opening. This stretch Lind is making, as are all his attempts, is far too wide for even Elastic-man to reach. Lind is attempting to reconstruct LBJ. I was fearful three violin players might appear playing heartbreaking music as I marveled at Lind’s renovation of Johnson. However, I quickly discovered Lind could pile farce upon absurdity when my eyeballs bulged at: “–there could be no doubt that Bush was an authentic cultural Texan. Although born in New Haven, Conn., George W. Bush grew up in West Texas, absorbed the Texas folk culture, and in most ways is as authentically a Texan as was Johnson.”

Reading Bush “is as authentically a Texan as was Johnson,” made me wonder if Lind had been raised in the same hotel room where Albert Gore spent his youth. It was clear Lind possessed no understanding of the world and in his entire 4,000 words he never disabused me of that conclusion. How can anyone have the limited scope Lind enjoys continues to ring through my mind. Although, I dislike both Bush and Johnson it’s patently absurd to paint G. W. Bush as an authentic Texan. Of course, retreads like Lind probably think Hillary Clinton is an authentic New Yorker.

Given Mr. Lind’s previous isolation and ignorance of the United States I can understand why he lacks an American perspective concerning authentic. Mr. Lind, I’ll use myself as an example despite probably being atypical. I grew up in a military family. I truthfully have more hometowns, in more states, than the first President Bush claimed. My father was a Northerner and my mother a Southerner. I had ancestors that fought on both sides during the Civil War. I’ve lived in every section of the United States and one foreign nation. I didn’t come from as wealthy a background as Johnson, Bush and apparently you did. Before attending college I hobo-ed around the U.S.A. and then worked hanging iron to construct water towers for four years. I’m comfortable talking with and mixing with Americans of every color and social strata. I can thankfully talk with a mechanic on his terms or a professor in his nomenclature. I am a real conservative, someone you need to be afraid of mentally and if society breaks down physically. I’m not like you in any manner. I don’t get my jollies and feel better about myself by denigrating those less fortunate as trailer-trash. In fact, I prefer so-called trailer-trash to liars and cowards such as yourself. I also don’t need to feed my ego by thinking the negro couldn’t make it if there weren’t swell, elite white liberals like myself to help them. I’ll always take a man with calloused hands or a woman waiting tables to keep a family together and raise a couple of kids to the Linds of this world who have so little content to their souls and minds they make the void of deep space seem crowded in comparison.

Now Lind, Lyndon Baines Johnson wasn’t typical of Texans but he was a Texan. G. W. Bush ain’t a Texan, except by address. He may be on his way to being a Texan. He may even now be accepted as a Texan, but I’d be surprised if one percent of Texans would yet term Bush an authentic Texan. Try to look at it this way, Bush probably has less in common with the average Texan than I have with the average Australian. Unless, of course, the Aussie was born into one of the wealthiest most powerful families on earth and got to attend elite schools in the Eastern United States.

I know towns like Midland and Crawford, Texas and beyond Bush being married to a Texan and owning a ranch, I can go to Texas tomorrow and have more ties to–more in common with 99% of the people than G. W. Bush. You see Lind, I’d have to worry about the money to travel there. I’d have to watch the motel prices and budget my food expenses. These are a few experiences I’d have in common with most citizens. Never once did my dear old dad buy me a baseball team in Texas or anywhere else, so I could be authentic. I admit, like most Americans he bequeathed me sufficient funds so I could attend a couple of games.

The odd thing is a person could come from Australia and have more in common with 90% of their citizens — white, black and Mexican – than does G. W. Bush You see Lind, authentically Bush is less a Texan than I am an Australian. He wasn’t educated as 99% of American citizens are. He doesn’t know our land or our traditions from Texas or from any part of this nation, as a regular citizen does. G. W. Bush is part of and the offspring of the elite American Eastern establishment. Yet, I pray, despite his wealthy upbringing he has absorbed some of what it means to be an authentic Texan or American. But, you’re right about LBJ. He was an authentic Texan. He was born and raised there. He grew up with and knew Mexican-Americans, black and white Americans all of whom were authentic Texans. [Keep the following for reference Lind. It will aid you in future attempts at defiling and defining the South. No one will ever call daddy Bush or G.W. “Tex. No one will ever call either of them “Bubba.” Yet, one of your idols, an elite leftist traitor named Clinton will always be a “Bubba.”]

This critique will be continued in Part II.

Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

14 recommended
comments icon 0 comments
0 notes
505 views
bookmark icon

Write a comment...

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *