Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America

In Demonic, Ann Coulter examines how mob mentality damages causes of social change (using the works of Gustave Le Bon as a base), her prime example being the horrors of the French Revolution. However, she then blames "liberals" for all mob thought and action, sending her argument right into the mud pit of name-calling and snide commentary.

Apparently, liberals (meaning all Democrats throughout time, because party interests apparently never shift) are the sole cause of all mob mentality in America. Republicans are reasoned and reserved, but Democrats? A bunch of angry, irrational, rabble-rousers. What makes for such a stark difference? Well, Republicans respect law and order and believe in God.

Coulter creates a fact-based argument that show more liberals are Godless, communist-loving heathens who want to kill your babies and force you to have premarital gay sex with as many partners as they deem fit... if by "fact-based" you mean a series of quotes from the media and certain individuals who happen to call themselves Democrat (a term, like Republican, that has lost all significant meaning over the years). Add to that tagging in the acts of every disturbed individual from John Wilkes Booth, to Charles Manson, to Timothy McVeigh (all card-carrying liberals, according to Coulter), and there you have it, Democrats are the party of Lucifer (this is actually the argument she makes in the final chapter, I'm not even kidding).

The main issue I have with this book, other than rejecting the overall premise, is that denying that conservatives (or Christians in general) are exempt from any sort of mob mentality denies that they are just as human and just as capable of being misled. Of course, that kind of admission could cost her book sales and TV appearances, so best not. Shall we note the lack of mention of the Salem Witch Trials? No mob mentality there, surely.

Reading past her attempts at vilifying the vast majority of my friends and family (liberals all) with blanket statements meant to rile her base, her main complaint seems to be with the media (but only the "Liberal Media"). If the premise of this book had been that the media can often lead to the baiting of the mob, I would wholeheartedly agree with her. I stopped following TV news because of the fearmongering engaged in almost nightly by most presenters. Unfortunately, Ms. Coulter is just as guilty of fearmongering and inciting a potential mob mentality in this very book (and numerous TV appearances) when she claims that liberals are going to destroy America and conservatives need to "overreact." (That is the final line of the book, by the way)

The real problem with this book and others like it, from either side of the aisle, is that the two party system has turned into a shouting match of "our side is better than your side, nyah, nyah, nyah." It's almost impossible to tell moderate left from right anymore and those on the fringes of each party are so crazy, nobody wants anything to do with them (unless it'll really piss off the other guys). The real solution here is to dissolve the two existing parties and start over with something new (this idea will only add fuel to Ms. Coulter's fire of a "liberal attempt to destroy the existing, working system," but c'est la vie). Actually, why not return to something old? When Washington was first elected President, there were no parties, and even when the parties did first form, the rule was that the guy with the most votes became President, runner-up was VP. Let's try that. You have to admit, it would be interesting.

Also, while both Democrats and Republicans yell at each other about who is better, they forget that Jefferson's original party was called the "Democratic-Republicans." So hey, maybe those names aren't really working the way you want them to.

I just wonder what would happen if the only side to the argument was the American side with a healthy difference of opinion intended for rigorous debate, you know, like the Founders envisioned.

Oh, and in the unlikely event of Ms. Coulter actually reading this review, and your editor is still looking for those commas, you can probably find a few extra right here in this review (I often feel I overuse them, but perhaps not). show less

Of the Coulter books I've read, this one is the best. Coulter's realization that liberals think like a mob comes as a revelation. Starting with Gustave Le Bon's pioneering work on mob psychology, The Crowd, she notes the similarities between a rabble mob and the ways liberals think. It's an intriguing thesis, and this serious undergirding makes this her best book yet.

In a world where Republicans feel compelled to seem reasonable, acquiescing to admit ~ gasp ~ George W. Bush made a few mistakes, Ann Coulter refuses to play nice. And how refreshing it is!

In her signature fact-laden sardonic style, Ms. Coulter lays out the facts and proves that Liberals have been the violent and irascible upstarts.

Demonic is a chronology of mob action carried out by the Left. Beginning with the serial revolutions of the French, as a pale imitation of the American Revolution, she provides two chapters detailing the misguided and meandering venture of murderous mayhem in the guise of liberty. Outlining French attempts at recreating man and society, practically all its leaders were engulfed by the mobs they helped rile show more and executed. The next chapter is a side-by-side comparison of the reasoned and debated, transparent shedding of British monarchy from American shores.

The book is fueled by an undercurrent of French psychologist Gustave Le Bon and his seminal work, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Le Bon's notions of mob action and mindset are applied to Ann Coulter's view of modern day Leftists and politicians. Her use of the 1896 book was so convincing, I purchased a copy for myself.

What is lamentable is that she argues Liberals are unreasonable, which only means they will not be able to see her profile of them is spot-on. show less

Ms. Coulter’s “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America” was inspired by Gustave Le Bon’s 1896 book “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind” and is a surprisingly entertaining (for a conservative) and informative book that is well researched, well documented and laced with witty, sarcastic humor throughout. A fast read, especially through the history of the French Revolution, which Ms. Coulter correctly claims is not properly studied in our classrooms, and, when mentioned at all, is improperly likened to our American Revolution. She correctly points out that the only thing the two had in common was the word “revolution:” complete opposites otherwise.

Theirs was a centralized governmental bloodbath that show more attempted to destroy the Monarchy (they succeeded), to outlaw Christianity and any non-state religion, (they failed) and eventually wound up devouring their own. Maximilien Robespierre, one of the early, prominent leaders of the French Revolution, was summarily declared an outlaw on July 27, 1794 and was sent to the guillotine with 21 others the following day, just two weeks past the fifth anniversary of the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789. The American Revolution on the other hand was, as Lincoln said, “dedicated to the proposition that all men were created equal" with the rights of the individual at its core. Night-and-day difference.

She goes on to validate LeBon’s observations with examples from SEIU rallies, Wisconsin teacher’s protests and the mass media’s sycophantic and sometimes mindless support of leftist views despite contradictory information: Clarence Thomas was a misogynistic sex fiend while Ted Kennedy was merely “playful.”

However, as entertaining as it was, Ms. Coulter is, unfortunately, preaching to the choir. For a liberal/leftist to read this would be like me plunking down my hard-earned bucks on a Michael Moore “documentary.” Not a chance, but it’s on the best seller list for a reason. Four stars for good information and many laughs. show less

Докато следя отблизо американската вътрешна политика и медийното й отразяване там и в Европа, за мен става съвсем очевиден т.н. liberal bias (в САЩ liberals викат на социалистите)- т.е. че всичко, свързано демоктатическата партия, социализма и лявото бива рисувано от медиите в положителни краски, докато дори същото нещо, свързано с републиканците и с дясната политика бива игнорирано или демонизирано като зло. Ан show more Коултър е посветила последната си книга Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America именно на отношението към тълпите и политическото насилие…

О, не само в САЩ е така – вижте отношението на медиите тук (даже сравнително уважавани като Дневник и Капитал) към Чаеното парти: стотици хиляди хора се събираха по американските улици на протести срещо политиката на Барак Обама да раздава милиарди долари на закъсали банки. Медиите у нас първите месеци игнорираха случващото се, а после инцидентно пускаха по някоя статия, намекваща, че протестиращите са богати расисити и предупреждаваха за „опасността от насилие ако тези настроения продължат„.

Американските медии бяха абсолютно същите, само дето по-дълго и продължително се подиграваха на протестиращите и още по-паникьорски плашеха с „ескалиращата опасност от насилие„. Разбира се, излишно е да казвам, че нито един инцидент, свързан с насилие нямаше на чаените партита – хората се събираха, слушаха речи, скандираха и се разотиваха, като даже си изчистваха отпадъците след това.

За сметка на това, когато станаха протестите на Уолстрийт, чието основно послание е практически същото, медиите и оттатък и отсам океана, просто избухнаха с множество възхваляващи публикации за „младите хора с активна гражданска позиция“, на които им е писнало… правителството да дава милиарди на банките. Че чупят, бият се с полицията и серат на публични места се споменава между другото, с извинителен тон, един вид тия действия са оправдани.

Именно за това говори Анн Коултър в Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America - за левичарските вандалски тълпи от Френската революция до синдикалните протести в Гърция, за левичарското насилие от Културната революция в Китай до бомбените атентати в САЩ. За това как в съвремието медии и политици непрестанно се опитват да насаждат страх от „опасността от крайнодясно насилие“, докато всъщност 99% от политическото насилие идва от лявото и никой не го обвинява за това – дори напротив, то бива поощрявано.

Барак Обама стартира политическата си кампания в дома на Бил Айерс, член и активист на марксистката терористична групировка Weather Underground, залагала бомби в правителствени сгради и военни бази през 60-те. Абсолютно всеки член на тази групировка (дори тези които са били в затвора за атентатите си) в момента са университетски преподаватели – но привързаността на академичните среди към марксизма и насилието е отдавна известна. Излишно е да казвам, че ако който и да е политик или университет беше свързан по какъвто и да е начин с някаква групировка, поощряваща християнско фундаменталистично или дясно насилие, щяха да го изядат с парцалите…

Политическото насилие в свързано изцяло с лявото – демократическата партия е анти-негърската партия в САЩ до към 1960-та – последния им сенатор, член на Ку-Клукс-Клан почина наскоро. Линчуването, недопускането на черни ученици в училищата, сенатори с расистки кампании – всичките демократи. Но благодарение на непрестанната медийна промивка, малко хора помнят това.

Примерите са безброй и Анн Коултър е решила да изброи голяма част от тях в Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America – книгата има изключително интересни уроци за френската и американската революция и коренната разлика между двете и резултатите от тях, примери от политическата история на борбата на чернокожите за равни права … но и типично за стила си, Анн Коултър цитира, цитира, цитира. Може би за да избегне постоянните нападки от страна на медии и свои противници, че говори неверни неща, Коултър пълни книгата си с факти, дати, публикации, имена – в този вестник на тази дата този човек каза това. през тази година този университет в тази своя публикация написа това… и така до безкрай, което прави книгата изключително добре аргументирана, но и доста мудна за четене. show less

Excellent research and well written as usual but the comparative thinking is expertly done!

Ann Coulter compares the liberal left, rather persuasively, to a mob. She makes a specially strong comparison between the modern left and the mob that enacted the French Revolution, with extensive reference to Gustave Le Bon's 1895 work "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind."