What do you think?
Rate this book
Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America
The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. The Democratic Party activates mobs, depends on mobs, coddles mobs, publicizes and celebrates mobs—it is the mob. Sweeping in its scope and relentless in its argument, Demonic explains the peculiarities of liberals as standard groupthink behavior. To understand mobs is to understand liberals.
In her most provocative book to date, Ann Coulter argues that liberals exhibit all the psychological characteristics of a mob, for
Liberal “The same mob mentality that leads otherwise law-abiding people to hurl rocks at cops also leads otherwise intelligent people to refuse to believe anything they haven’t heard on NPR.”
Liberal “No matter how mad the plan is—Fraternité, the ‘New Soviet Man,’ the Master Race, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, Building a New Society, ObamaCare—a mob will believe it.”
Liberal “Instead of ‘counterrevolutionaries,’ liberals’ opponents are called ‘haters,’ ‘those who seek to divide us,’ ‘tea baggers,’ and ‘right-wing hate groups.’ Meanwhile, conservatives call liberals ‘liberals’—and that makes them testy.”
Liberal “In the world of the liberal, as in the world of Robespierre, there are no crimes, only criminals.”
Liberal “If Charles Manson’s followers hadn’t killed Roman Polanski’s wife, Sharon Tate, Clinton would have pardoned him, too, and he’d probably be teaching at Northwestern University.”
Citing the father of mob psychology, Gustave Le Bon, Coulter catalogs the Left’s mob the creation of messiahs, the fear of scientific innovation, the mythmaking, the preference for images over words, the lack of morals, and the casual embrace of contradictory ideas.
Coulter traces the history of the liberal mob to the French Revolution and Robespierre’s revolutionaries (delineating a clear distinction from America’s founding fathers), who simply proclaimed that they were exercising the “general will” before slaughtering their fellow citizens “for the good of mankind.”
Similarly, as Coulter demonstrates, liberal mobs, from student radicals to white-trash racists to anti-war and pro-ObamaCare fanatics today, have consistently used violence to implement their idea of the “general will.”
This is not the American tradition; it is the tradition of Stalin, of Hitler, of the guillotine—and the tradition of the American Left.
As the heirs of the French Revolution, Democrats have a history that consists of pandering to mobs, time and again, while Republicans, heirs to the American Revolution, have regularly stood for peaceable order.
Hoping to muddy this horrifying truth, liberals slanderously accuse conservatives of their own crimes—assassination plots, conspiracy theorizing, political violence, embrace of the Ku Klux Klan. Coulter shows that the truth is the Political violence—mob violence—is always a Democratic affair.
Surveying two centuries of mob movements, Coulter demonstrates that the mob is always destructive. And yet, she argues, beginning with the civil rights movement in the sixties, Americans have lost their natural, inherited aversion to mobs. Indeed, most Americans have no idea what they are even dealing with.
Only by recognizing the mobs and their demonic nature can America begin to defend itself.
In her most provocative book to date, Ann Coulter argues that liberals exhibit all the psychological characteristics of a mob, for
Liberal “The same mob mentality that leads otherwise law-abiding people to hurl rocks at cops also leads otherwise intelligent people to refuse to believe anything they haven’t heard on NPR.”
Liberal “No matter how mad the plan is—Fraternité, the ‘New Soviet Man,’ the Master Race, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, Building a New Society, ObamaCare—a mob will believe it.”
Liberal “Instead of ‘counterrevolutionaries,’ liberals’ opponents are called ‘haters,’ ‘those who seek to divide us,’ ‘tea baggers,’ and ‘right-wing hate groups.’ Meanwhile, conservatives call liberals ‘liberals’—and that makes them testy.”
Liberal “In the world of the liberal, as in the world of Robespierre, there are no crimes, only criminals.”
Liberal “If Charles Manson’s followers hadn’t killed Roman Polanski’s wife, Sharon Tate, Clinton would have pardoned him, too, and he’d probably be teaching at Northwestern University.”
Citing the father of mob psychology, Gustave Le Bon, Coulter catalogs the Left’s mob the creation of messiahs, the fear of scientific innovation, the mythmaking, the preference for images over words, the lack of morals, and the casual embrace of contradictory ideas.
Coulter traces the history of the liberal mob to the French Revolution and Robespierre’s revolutionaries (delineating a clear distinction from America’s founding fathers), who simply proclaimed that they were exercising the “general will” before slaughtering their fellow citizens “for the good of mankind.”
Similarly, as Coulter demonstrates, liberal mobs, from student radicals to white-trash racists to anti-war and pro-ObamaCare fanatics today, have consistently used violence to implement their idea of the “general will.”
This is not the American tradition; it is the tradition of Stalin, of Hitler, of the guillotine—and the tradition of the American Left.
As the heirs of the French Revolution, Democrats have a history that consists of pandering to mobs, time and again, while Republicans, heirs to the American Revolution, have regularly stood for peaceable order.
Hoping to muddy this horrifying truth, liberals slanderously accuse conservatives of their own crimes—assassination plots, conspiracy theorizing, political violence, embrace of the Ku Klux Klan. Coulter shows that the truth is the Political violence—mob violence—is always a Democratic affair.
Surveying two centuries of mob movements, Coulter demonstrates that the mob is always destructive. And yet, she argues, beginning with the civil rights movement in the sixties, Americans have lost their natural, inherited aversion to mobs. Indeed, most Americans have no idea what they are even dealing with.
Only by recognizing the mobs and their demonic nature can America begin to defend itself.
354 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
179 people are currently reading
1427 people want to read
About the author
Ann Coulter
30 books449 followersAnn Hart Coulter is an American conservative media pundit, author, syndicated columnist, and lawyer. She became known as a media pundit in the late 1990s, appearing in print and on cable news as an outspoken critic of the Clinton administration. Her first book concerned the impeachment of Bill Clinton and sprang from her experience writing legal briefs for Paula Jones's attorneys, as well as columns she wrote about the cases. Coulter's syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate appears in newspapers and is featured on conservative websites. Coulter has also written 13 books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 253 reviews
October 6, 2013
This is one opportunistic, two-faced, idiot of a bitch.
August 17, 2011
Some will look at this book, see Ann Coulter's name and decide they don't like it, sight unseen, book unopened it's very existence will annoy, anger, even infuriate them. Okay my nod to reality. My suggestion, try reading it before you hate it.
Ann Coulter is without a doubt an "in your face" sort of debater. Her books and her speaking style leave us in no doubt as to what she thinks. The fact that her facts are generally always "actually facts" and that her arguments are in general logical and well supported (even if a bit aggressive or even abrasive) in no way takes away from the fact that many will dislike her and decide in advance that they disagree with anything she has to say.
To those who can read this with an open mind you will find here an interesting book with arguments based on well founded material. The look here in this book of/at group think is insightful, informative...and a bit "in your face", often with cause. It is logical and interestingly supported by much of the reaction to the book... IE, if you can't argue an idea down logically try to stop the argument or shut the other side up. If you can't attack the facts or that argument itself try to discredit background thinking.. etc.
The book's look at group think vs. thought is (are you ready)..."thought provoking" and I like it. Try to allow those thoughts to percolate, who knows what might happen. :)
I got this one from the library, it's now on my "to buy" list...in my cart at Amazon, waiting till I can afford it. :)
Ann Coulter is without a doubt an "in your face" sort of debater. Her books and her speaking style leave us in no doubt as to what she thinks. The fact that her facts are generally always "actually facts" and that her arguments are in general logical and well supported (even if a bit aggressive or even abrasive) in no way takes away from the fact that many will dislike her and decide in advance that they disagree with anything she has to say.
To those who can read this with an open mind you will find here an interesting book with arguments based on well founded material. The look here in this book of/at group think is insightful, informative...and a bit "in your face", often with cause. It is logical and interestingly supported by much of the reaction to the book... IE, if you can't argue an idea down logically try to stop the argument or shut the other side up. If you can't attack the facts or that argument itself try to discredit background thinking.. etc.
The book's look at group think vs. thought is (are you ready)..."thought provoking" and I like it. Try to allow those thoughts to percolate, who knows what might happen. :)
I got this one from the library, it's now on my "to buy" list...in my cart at Amazon, waiting till I can afford it. :)
August 1, 2011
This was given as a gag gift to a friend (not from me!) and out of curiosity I decided to give it a look. OMG -- For the first hour it was hysterically funny in the way a Monty Python spoof would entertain but after a while the bad writing and the delusion, distortions of truth, personal opinions put forth as truths, and the bald faced lies got to be too much to be entertaining. Did I mention narcissistic arrogance?
Here is one short example that may say it all:
"If Charles Manson's followers hadn't killed Roman Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate, Clinton would have pardoned him, too, and he'd be teaching at Northwestern University."
Another jaw dropper:
"Instead of 'counterrevolutionaries,' liberals' opponents are called 'haters,' 'those who seek to divide us,' 'tea baggers,' and 'right-wing hate groups.' Meanwhile, conservatives call liberals 'liberals'--and that makes them testy.
There is no way to indicate how low a rating this piece of fiction deserves.
Here is one short example that may say it all:
"If Charles Manson's followers hadn't killed Roman Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate, Clinton would have pardoned him, too, and he'd be teaching at Northwestern University."
Another jaw dropper:
"Instead of 'counterrevolutionaries,' liberals' opponents are called 'haters,' 'those who seek to divide us,' 'tea baggers,' and 'right-wing hate groups.' Meanwhile, conservatives call liberals 'liberals'--and that makes them testy.
There is no way to indicate how low a rating this piece of fiction deserves.
May 28, 2012
I read this book mostly as a joke, expecting to laugh at the outrageous things she would say. I expected a lot of crazy comments from the woman that said, "That's why our blacks are better than their blacks." A statement that landed her the #10 spot on the list "most racist comments in 2011" according to Colorlines. I would have to say, she didn't disappoint:
Pg. 29 "When Obama came along, guess who liberals started having sex dreams about? Yes, the big-eared beanpole."
Pg: 45 "Ironically, Liberals love actual sodomitic tea bagging, but use the term derisively when talking about ordinary Americans protesting a Democratic president's policies. "
Pg. 42 "When Clinton was caught ejaculating on interns..."
Her statements were often rude, crass, outrageous, over-generalizations or lies completely unsupported by facts. She cites a lot of things, but she cites the irrelevant part of her points and then goes on to make outrageous claims as if those were supported as well. She will present an Arguments that is made up of A, B, & C. She will then cite B, and act as if A & C are also true.
The most heinous example of this is when she blamed the mass witch-hunt for child molesters in the 80's and 90's on Liberals. This happened all over the country, she leaves out so many details, like how the scare originated in Texas with a crazy mother leaving her kid on the lawn of a Day Care Center. She says, without supporting this claim, that it was mostly liberal therapist that coerced the children into making false claims and liberal prosecutors that sentenced innocent people to prison. ALL of her statements were not cited EXCEPT a "Republican district attorney discovered that the charges were utterly baseless" in Pennsylvania.
The worst part of this book was that she constantly references LE Bon, a psychologist in the late 1800's early 1900's, who wrote about "Racial superiority." But what's pertinent to Anne Coulter is that he also wrote about herd behavior. But, I guess it didn't matter to her that Le Bon was racist, that Mien Kampf drew mostly off of his works, and that Moussolini kept his books by his bedside. But, Anne Coulter doesn't care about the characters or the reputation of the person she is citing, she just cares that it provides smart-sounding material to faux-substantiate her claims that Liberals act as mobs.
Anne Coulter just came off as conniving, childish, hateful women who twists facts or flat out lies. I think she just wants to be media figure and knows that if she's crazy enough people will read her books. I did.
Pg. 29 "When Obama came along, guess who liberals started having sex dreams about? Yes, the big-eared beanpole."
Pg: 45 "Ironically, Liberals love actual sodomitic tea bagging, but use the term derisively when talking about ordinary Americans protesting a Democratic president's policies. "
Pg. 42 "When Clinton was caught ejaculating on interns..."
Her statements were often rude, crass, outrageous, over-generalizations or lies completely unsupported by facts. She cites a lot of things, but she cites the irrelevant part of her points and then goes on to make outrageous claims as if those were supported as well. She will present an Arguments that is made up of A, B, & C. She will then cite B, and act as if A & C are also true.
The most heinous example of this is when she blamed the mass witch-hunt for child molesters in the 80's and 90's on Liberals. This happened all over the country, she leaves out so many details, like how the scare originated in Texas with a crazy mother leaving her kid on the lawn of a Day Care Center. She says, without supporting this claim, that it was mostly liberal therapist that coerced the children into making false claims and liberal prosecutors that sentenced innocent people to prison. ALL of her statements were not cited EXCEPT a "Republican district attorney discovered that the charges were utterly baseless" in Pennsylvania.
The worst part of this book was that she constantly references LE Bon, a psychologist in the late 1800's early 1900's, who wrote about "Racial superiority." But what's pertinent to Anne Coulter is that he also wrote about herd behavior. But, I guess it didn't matter to her that Le Bon was racist, that Mien Kampf drew mostly off of his works, and that Moussolini kept his books by his bedside. But, Anne Coulter doesn't care about the characters or the reputation of the person she is citing, she just cares that it provides smart-sounding material to faux-substantiate her claims that Liberals act as mobs.
Anne Coulter just came off as conniving, childish, hateful women who twists facts or flat out lies. I think she just wants to be media figure and knows that if she's crazy enough people will read her books. I did.
February 11, 2014
(In lieu of an actual review for this book, I had some fun coming up with potential Coulter titles, utilizing her trademark vitriol and hyperbole. I posted this in June, 2012 and have since added some new ones. Feel free to add your own.)
Titles of potential future books by Ann Coulter:
1) "Rapists: The Liberal Conspiracy to De-Virginize All Women Everywhere"
2) "Warmongers: The Secret History of How Liberals Have Started Every War in History"
3) "Unintelligent Design: The Science of Liberal Stupidity and How God Made Liberals Stupid So That I Could Look Really Intelligent on Shows Like "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher""
4) "Ugly: Why Liberals Are So Ugly and Why Republicans (LIke Me) Are So Hot"
5) "Go Ahead, Shoot A Liberal: They Won't Feel It Anyway"
6) "Slave Trade to Day Trade: The History of How Democrats and Liberals Went From Being Racist Anti-Abolitionists to Rich Civil Rights Activists"
7) "Oops: Those Stupid Liberals Did It Again!"
8) "Ann Coulter, Liberal Vampire Hunter"
9) "Satanic: How Liberals Are, In Fact, the Living Embodiment of Pure Evil"
10) "Darth Liberal: Liberalism's Very Dark Side and How the Sith Lords Have Infiltrated the Democratic Party"
11) "How The F**k Does She Have A Show And I Don't: Why I Hate Rachel Maddow"
12) "Did I Mention How Hot I Am?"
13) "Fatty: The Liberal Agenda of the American Obesity Movement"
14) "Pinkos: How Liberals Are Turning Our Children into Homosexual Socialists"
15) "It's Awesome Being Rich, Republican, and Hot"
16) "Heroic: Why I love George Zimmerman, Big guns, and Florida"
17) "Goddammit: Why God Needs to Destroy Obama, Liberals, Muslims, Homosexuals, Michael Moore, and Rachel Maddow... NOW!"
Titles of potential future books by Ann Coulter:
1) "Rapists: The Liberal Conspiracy to De-Virginize All Women Everywhere"
2) "Warmongers: The Secret History of How Liberals Have Started Every War in History"
3) "Unintelligent Design: The Science of Liberal Stupidity and How God Made Liberals Stupid So That I Could Look Really Intelligent on Shows Like "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher""
4) "Ugly: Why Liberals Are So Ugly and Why Republicans (LIke Me) Are So Hot"
5) "Go Ahead, Shoot A Liberal: They Won't Feel It Anyway"
6) "Slave Trade to Day Trade: The History of How Democrats and Liberals Went From Being Racist Anti-Abolitionists to Rich Civil Rights Activists"
7) "Oops: Those Stupid Liberals Did It Again!"
8) "Ann Coulter, Liberal Vampire Hunter"
9) "Satanic: How Liberals Are, In Fact, the Living Embodiment of Pure Evil"
10) "Darth Liberal: Liberalism's Very Dark Side and How the Sith Lords Have Infiltrated the Democratic Party"
11) "How The F**k Does She Have A Show And I Don't: Why I Hate Rachel Maddow"
12) "Did I Mention How Hot I Am?"
13) "Fatty: The Liberal Agenda of the American Obesity Movement"
14) "Pinkos: How Liberals Are Turning Our Children into Homosexual Socialists"
15) "It's Awesome Being Rich, Republican, and Hot"
16) "Heroic: Why I love George Zimmerman, Big guns, and Florida"
17) "Goddammit: Why God Needs to Destroy Obama, Liberals, Muslims, Homosexuals, Michael Moore, and Rachel Maddow... NOW!"
November 6, 2021
Ann Coulter is an American lawyer, columnist, media contributor, and conservative author.
Drawing on French psychologist Gustave Le Bon's work on group psychology, Ann compares liberalism to an enraged mob.
Dating far back to the French Revolution, Ann explains how Liberalism came to be the most aggressive ideology of the century. But it doesn't stop there. Here you'll find several contemporary examples of terrorism and mob mentality that come from the Left.
The only drawback for me was that Ann quotes numerous sources and cases that I am simply unaware of because I am not an American, so it was difficult for me to clearly catch most of the references she gives, but nonetheless, she demonstrates having an in-deep knowledge of how the Left operates.
Drawing on French psychologist Gustave Le Bon's work on group psychology, Ann compares liberalism to an enraged mob.
Dating far back to the French Revolution, Ann explains how Liberalism came to be the most aggressive ideology of the century. But it doesn't stop there. Here you'll find several contemporary examples of terrorism and mob mentality that come from the Left.
The only drawback for me was that Ann quotes numerous sources and cases that I am simply unaware of because I am not an American, so it was difficult for me to clearly catch most of the references she gives, but nonetheless, she demonstrates having an in-deep knowledge of how the Left operates.
March 4, 2012
In a battle between liberal science and republican Ann Coulter I wrote a dueling review pitting this book against Denying Science here: http://www.adventuresinpoortaste.com/...
Ann Coulter is an amazing herald of our time. Many people make this point, not least of which is Coulter herself. She brings together a great ability to tie quotes and opinions together in order to create credible arguments. Unfortunately, many of her arguments are not very believable.
I find many of her points school yard in nature. She brings in many good quotes and good evidence to back up her arguments, but more times than not she tends to belittle the subjects she doesn't agree with in order to defame their point of view. This is a false way of proving a point. It’s especially true when some of her arguments are thin and are padded with emotionally charged language so people fail to see the argument isn’t very strong. I understand her intentions, but I like to hear an opinion that has clear minded points of view.
An example I can give is page 257 when a "boston radio host" that is not named stumps George W. Bush on the names of "obscure" foreign political leaders. She frames this interaction as a "no name" host, as if it doesn't matter, and ends the paragraph stating, "He was a star for a week...and then was never heard from again. But for a brief shining moment this punk was part of the herd! The Joy" The language she uses is very angry, very manipulating. I understand her intentions are to persuade her audience, but to do so without facts and hotty language is unnerving. This is precisely why I disliked parts of "The Wrecking Crew", a political nonfiction on the history of conservatives and their “evil” intentions. I want facts and quotes, not persuasive language as it wrongfully attempts to manipulate my reasoning with peer pressure speak.
The overall point of this book though, is one to almost laugh at. Quoting Mark 5:2-9 Coulter explains,
“The Demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. It is the nihilistic mob of the French Revolution;...”
She then gives examples of nihilistic mobs finishing off explaining how the Democratic Party is defined ultimately as a mob. Thus, if you’re following along with this logic, the Democratic Party are demons. I’m not sure how literal she’s thinking when it comes to demons, but she definitely intends to demonize the Democratic Party.
Its an interesting argument, mostly because it’s a crazy far out imaginative way to think about a group of people. Unfortunately it all serves as a front to rant about Democrats sucking for 250 pages. There comes a point where the reader realizes even though she spends a lot of time setting up her argument, its’ not the point of the book, and that weakens the impact of the book.
I'm sure most fans of her writing are looking for a political book that will get them hot and bothered about the issues, and it does that very well. This book is not a good source for political ammo. If someone took these arguments into a debate most of them could be refuted with some simple questions or evidence. She frames her subjects and arguments well, but much of her evidence is empty. I like my political commentary with no spin.
Ann Coulter is an amazing herald of our time. Many people make this point, not least of which is Coulter herself. She brings together a great ability to tie quotes and opinions together in order to create credible arguments. Unfortunately, many of her arguments are not very believable.
I find many of her points school yard in nature. She brings in many good quotes and good evidence to back up her arguments, but more times than not she tends to belittle the subjects she doesn't agree with in order to defame their point of view. This is a false way of proving a point. It’s especially true when some of her arguments are thin and are padded with emotionally charged language so people fail to see the argument isn’t very strong. I understand her intentions, but I like to hear an opinion that has clear minded points of view.
An example I can give is page 257 when a "boston radio host" that is not named stumps George W. Bush on the names of "obscure" foreign political leaders. She frames this interaction as a "no name" host, as if it doesn't matter, and ends the paragraph stating, "He was a star for a week...and then was never heard from again. But for a brief shining moment this punk was part of the herd! The Joy" The language she uses is very angry, very manipulating. I understand her intentions are to persuade her audience, but to do so without facts and hotty language is unnerving. This is precisely why I disliked parts of "The Wrecking Crew", a political nonfiction on the history of conservatives and their “evil” intentions. I want facts and quotes, not persuasive language as it wrongfully attempts to manipulate my reasoning with peer pressure speak.
The overall point of this book though, is one to almost laugh at. Quoting Mark 5:2-9 Coulter explains,
“The Demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. It is the nihilistic mob of the French Revolution;...”
She then gives examples of nihilistic mobs finishing off explaining how the Democratic Party is defined ultimately as a mob. Thus, if you’re following along with this logic, the Democratic Party are demons. I’m not sure how literal she’s thinking when it comes to demons, but she definitely intends to demonize the Democratic Party.
Its an interesting argument, mostly because it’s a crazy far out imaginative way to think about a group of people. Unfortunately it all serves as a front to rant about Democrats sucking for 250 pages. There comes a point where the reader realizes even though she spends a lot of time setting up her argument, its’ not the point of the book, and that weakens the impact of the book.
I'm sure most fans of her writing are looking for a political book that will get them hot and bothered about the issues, and it does that very well. This book is not a good source for political ammo. If someone took these arguments into a debate most of them could be refuted with some simple questions or evidence. She frames her subjects and arguments well, but much of her evidence is empty. I like my political commentary with no spin.
November 29, 2011
Anyone who could actually make reading about the French Revolution interesting has to be a hell of a good writer. I also enjoyed reading how democrats hijacked the civil rights movement after many decades of oppressing African Americans. How many people today know that the republican party was created for the express purpose of ending slavery or even that Lincoln was a republican? How many people know that: The KKK was invented by democrats to attack republicans who were fighting for the rights of blacks, how democrats were responsible for Jim Crow laws, poll taxes and intimidation, lynchings, resisting Republican efforts to overturn Jim Crow laws, that prominent democratic president Woodrow Wilson praised the KKK movie "Birth of a Nation" and showed it in the white house, that Barry Goldwater was a champion of civil rights and a founding member of the NAACP in Arizona, that republican president Eisenhower integrated the military and Richard Nixon integrated the schools and created affirmative action and that republicans overwhelmingly voted for the civil rights act of 1964 while a much smaller percentage of democrats voted for it.
July 12, 2011
I read Ann's books for the hilarity. This book is a non stop onslaught of the Demonic MOB called the Democratic Party. Harsh? Not even in the same ball park with the HARSH actions of the MOB she is condemning. Ann is communicating to the reader that if sane people don't start to overreact, the unintended consequences of MOB rule will drastically change what fair minded people enjoy about America, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Her use of hyperbole is sometimes a bit much, her ability to gloss over many stumblings in her own party are unfortunate. I enjoy most everything she writes, and this book, which covers the leftist Mob mentality mainly from the French Revolution forward is convincing.
I seldom refrain from confrontation with liberals and they are more often than not, this way, even without the Mob. The book goes into many details, rambling at times, but none the less effective in their abundance. I would say that you really need to like Ann and/or conservative politics/history to enjoy this thoroughly. However, if you need a good laugh or cry and some amunition for the water cooler debates, read on.
Her use of hyperbole is sometimes a bit much, her ability to gloss over many stumblings in her own party are unfortunate. I enjoy most everything she writes, and this book, which covers the leftist Mob mentality mainly from the French Revolution forward is convincing.
I seldom refrain from confrontation with liberals and they are more often than not, this way, even without the Mob. The book goes into many details, rambling at times, but none the less effective in their abundance. I would say that you really need to like Ann and/or conservative politics/history to enjoy this thoroughly. However, if you need a good laugh or cry and some amunition for the water cooler debates, read on.
July 6, 2012
Here's what we can take away:
Democrats = Liberals = Leftists = Anarchists = Unthinking Mobs = Violence. Therefore, every mob ever is Liberal, and every act of violence on Coulter's list is therefore attributable to Liberalism. Every act of rebellion or revolution that turned out well was due to responsible, calm, clear-thinking, reasonable conservatives. In a stunning act of rhetoric Ann takes real, actual facts and assembles them into a picture of history where everything bad that happened, when you look at it, was actually done by Liberals, making room for Conservatives to do everything that has ever gone well for us. Here's a list of violent and disruptive people from the Left. Oh you think you have an example from the Right? It turns out they were INSANE, and also Liberal. She also reminds us that the French Revolution was an action of unruly, unthinking Liberals against the poor blameless victims in the aristocracy. I had never though of the French Revolution that way. Thanks, Ann! If you, like me, occasionally like to read books by people you hate, this book will remind you why that's a stupid idea.
Want some direct quotes? OK:
- "Conservatives don't cotton to slogans."
- "Republicans are baffled by mobs, opposed to disorder but paralyzed with indecision about what to do. Meanwhile, Democrats are hurling bricks from the barricades."
- "Christianity is never trendy, which is one reason Christians can never be a mob."
- "The mob mentality is irresistable to those with a desperate need to be popular, those who are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. This is why Conservatives can never be a mob."
- "Anyone who doesn't mind being sneered at by the daily show and other temples of the status-anxious is not susceptible to groupthink."
- "Politics for liberals is "our mass vs. their mass," but conservatives don't have a mass, liberals do."
- "Republicans are the Party of decorous order. Democrats are the party of noisy, violent mobs."
- "This nation's heroes knew what Louis XVI did not: A mob cannot be calmly reasoned with, it can only be smashed. When faced with a mob, civilized society's motto should be "overreact.""
These are her exact words, and this last one to me suggests that liberals should be smashed into submission.
The last portion of her books is explaining we people become Liberals in spite of how annoying and stupid they are. Here's a suggestion to those who are not Liberals and who somehow have never met one: Everything after "The key to understanding Liberals is…" is made up. Completely fabricated. She paints a picture of Liberalism that is completely unrecognizable. I think she's never actually met a Liberal in person, so don't take her word on what they're like.
Democrats = Liberals = Leftists = Anarchists = Unthinking Mobs = Violence. Therefore, every mob ever is Liberal, and every act of violence on Coulter's list is therefore attributable to Liberalism. Every act of rebellion or revolution that turned out well was due to responsible, calm, clear-thinking, reasonable conservatives. In a stunning act of rhetoric Ann takes real, actual facts and assembles them into a picture of history where everything bad that happened, when you look at it, was actually done by Liberals, making room for Conservatives to do everything that has ever gone well for us. Here's a list of violent and disruptive people from the Left. Oh you think you have an example from the Right? It turns out they were INSANE, and also Liberal. She also reminds us that the French Revolution was an action of unruly, unthinking Liberals against the poor blameless victims in the aristocracy. I had never though of the French Revolution that way. Thanks, Ann! If you, like me, occasionally like to read books by people you hate, this book will remind you why that's a stupid idea.
Want some direct quotes? OK:
- "Conservatives don't cotton to slogans."
- "Republicans are baffled by mobs, opposed to disorder but paralyzed with indecision about what to do. Meanwhile, Democrats are hurling bricks from the barricades."
- "Christianity is never trendy, which is one reason Christians can never be a mob."
- "The mob mentality is irresistable to those with a desperate need to be popular, those who are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. This is why Conservatives can never be a mob."
- "Anyone who doesn't mind being sneered at by the daily show and other temples of the status-anxious is not susceptible to groupthink."
- "Politics for liberals is "our mass vs. their mass," but conservatives don't have a mass, liberals do."
- "Republicans are the Party of decorous order. Democrats are the party of noisy, violent mobs."
- "This nation's heroes knew what Louis XVI did not: A mob cannot be calmly reasoned with, it can only be smashed. When faced with a mob, civilized society's motto should be "overreact.""
These are her exact words, and this last one to me suggests that liberals should be smashed into submission.
The last portion of her books is explaining we people become Liberals in spite of how annoying and stupid they are. Here's a suggestion to those who are not Liberals and who somehow have never met one: Everything after "The key to understanding Liberals is…" is made up. Completely fabricated. She paints a picture of Liberalism that is completely unrecognizable. I think she's never actually met a Liberal in person, so don't take her word on what they're like.
November 7, 2011
I've read a lot about Ann Coulter but I had never read anything by her. Finally I picked this one up and did my best to remain open minded. Unfortunately not only was it very hard to get through, but quite simple it's fulled of half-truths and manipulations that make it darn near impossible to finish. In Kim's words "This bitch be crazy, and that's all." The book compares all liberals to a mob from the very beginning and it never really make any solid points. A waste of paper only useful to incite her crazy followers. Even thinking conservatives think that she's crazy.
July 5, 2016
"The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. It is the nihilistic mob of the French Revolution; it is the revolutionaries who seized control of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century; it is the Maoist gangs looting villages and impaling babies in China; it is the Ku Klux Klan terrorizing Republicans and blacks in the South; it is the 1992 Los Angeles riot that left fifty dead and did $1 billion of damage after the first Rodney King verdict; it is the bloody riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention; it is the masked hoodlums smashing up Seattle when bankers came to town; it is the 500,000 illegal aliens marching under a foreign flag in Los Angeles; it is throngs of Islamic fanatics attending the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's funeral, tearing his body out of its coffin; it is left-wing protesters destroying property and attacking delegates at the 2004 and 2008 Republican National Conventions."
-- Ann Coulter, chapter one, of Demonic
The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. It is the nihilistic mob of the American Revolution; who threw tea in Boston Harbor (ingrates that they were) to oppose what they childishly believed were oppressive British rules. The United States should not exist, because it does so as the result of this demonic mob mentality. The mob is the 700-strong militia of white men who attacked and destroyed a village of Cheyenne and Arapaho in southeastern Colorado Territory killing and mutilating an estimated 70–163 Native Americans, about two-thirds of whom were women and children. The mob is the Bonus Army of War War I veteran rabble who during the Great Depression threw up their dirty tent city to intimidate our government into giving them the compensation for their service that the demonic ingrates had the temerity to think they deserved. The mob were those Bible-obsessed Christian warrior Crusaders of the Middle Ages who thought they had the right to invade other peoples' territories to take their gold, kill them or force conversion on their stupid resistant asses. The mob is a U.S. Army that walked into a village of My Lai and massacred innocent women and children just because they could. The mob is bunch of dumb Egyptians and Syrians who were tired of being murdered by their autocratic leaders and rose up. The mob was a bunch of Spaniards led by Cortés who went into someone else's homeland and killed untold indigenous peoples...." (Shall I go on with this parlor game?)
--Evan Gilling, chapter one, of Deluded: (The Lies of Anne Coulter)
Ann Coulter is a dissembler of the truly stupid. And as I've just demonstrated, it takes very little effort -- as long as someone knows something about history -- to plug in alternate examples using her own formula of half-baked, a-historical assertions. The very notion that oppressed peoples throughout history are simply violent ingrates who should shut up and sit down and enjoy whatever crumbs they are lucky to have thrown at them by powerful kings, oligarchs, theocratic dictators, corporate wealth-concentrators and the like, is one that denies the imperatives of history itself. If masses of humans throughout history had simply sat meekly by and let themselves be rolled over by those in power, we'd still be living in the Dark Ages. She is so simple-minded that she can't conceive or think through the notion that the system has its own reactionary violent modes of repression in place to keep the mob, as she calls them, in place. The mob, those demons, those people that she demonizes by calling them a mob and by calling them demons, are humans who usually have reasons behind their angers and frustrations. But those reasons cannot be brought up and honestly explored in Ann Coulter's simplified universe, where the only duality is liberals (bad) versus conservatives (good, always), or Democrats (bad) versus Republicans (good, naturally).
In her very first paragraph that I've cited, she proffers one of the most truly idiotic talking points that "on-message" conservative minions -- on marching orders from their Koch Brothers think-tank masters -- have been sent out to spread in conservative media outlets recently. Let me see if I can explain this mind-bogglingly wacky nonsense. First, she says the KKK harassed blacks *and* Republicans. Having established this true but irrelevant pairing of victims, the basic charge is that the KKK was founded by Democrats. So, by inference, Democrats are violent racists, who attack blacks, and Republicans, in the bargain. The assertion is completely a-historical, ludicrous and wrong. The Democratic and Republican parties of the South have completely flip-flopped their political platforms since the time of the founding of the KKK, but these lying Republican pundits simply hope you know nothing about history and lap up this complete doggerel. Yes, the liberal Democratic partly of the mid-1800s founded the KKK. Or not. There was no liberal Democratic party in the 1800s. Coulter doesn't care if you know this or not.
Keep 'em dumb, confused and angry. And direct their anger to the wrong enemies, or even themselves.
No, I didn't read this whole thing. I know Ann Coulter's shtick. I've seen her in debate a million times. She knows just enough to hold her own and knows how a well-aimed half-truth or outright lie out of context can sound valid to enough people to keep the suckers' money coming in.
(KR@KY 2016)
-- Ann Coulter, chapter one, of Demonic
The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. It is the nihilistic mob of the American Revolution; who threw tea in Boston Harbor (ingrates that they were) to oppose what they childishly believed were oppressive British rules. The United States should not exist, because it does so as the result of this demonic mob mentality. The mob is the 700-strong militia of white men who attacked and destroyed a village of Cheyenne and Arapaho in southeastern Colorado Territory killing and mutilating an estimated 70–163 Native Americans, about two-thirds of whom were women and children. The mob is the Bonus Army of War War I veteran rabble who during the Great Depression threw up their dirty tent city to intimidate our government into giving them the compensation for their service that the demonic ingrates had the temerity to think they deserved. The mob were those Bible-obsessed Christian warrior Crusaders of the Middle Ages who thought they had the right to invade other peoples' territories to take their gold, kill them or force conversion on their stupid resistant asses. The mob is a U.S. Army that walked into a village of My Lai and massacred innocent women and children just because they could. The mob is bunch of dumb Egyptians and Syrians who were tired of being murdered by their autocratic leaders and rose up. The mob was a bunch of Spaniards led by Cortés who went into someone else's homeland and killed untold indigenous peoples...." (Shall I go on with this parlor game?)
--Evan Gilling, chapter one, of Deluded: (The Lies of Anne Coulter)
Ann Coulter is a dissembler of the truly stupid. And as I've just demonstrated, it takes very little effort -- as long as someone knows something about history -- to plug in alternate examples using her own formula of half-baked, a-historical assertions. The very notion that oppressed peoples throughout history are simply violent ingrates who should shut up and sit down and enjoy whatever crumbs they are lucky to have thrown at them by powerful kings, oligarchs, theocratic dictators, corporate wealth-concentrators and the like, is one that denies the imperatives of history itself. If masses of humans throughout history had simply sat meekly by and let themselves be rolled over by those in power, we'd still be living in the Dark Ages. She is so simple-minded that she can't conceive or think through the notion that the system has its own reactionary violent modes of repression in place to keep the mob, as she calls them, in place. The mob, those demons, those people that she demonizes by calling them a mob and by calling them demons, are humans who usually have reasons behind their angers and frustrations. But those reasons cannot be brought up and honestly explored in Ann Coulter's simplified universe, where the only duality is liberals (bad) versus conservatives (good, always), or Democrats (bad) versus Republicans (good, naturally).
In her very first paragraph that I've cited, she proffers one of the most truly idiotic talking points that "on-message" conservative minions -- on marching orders from their Koch Brothers think-tank masters -- have been sent out to spread in conservative media outlets recently. Let me see if I can explain this mind-bogglingly wacky nonsense. First, she says the KKK harassed blacks *and* Republicans. Having established this true but irrelevant pairing of victims, the basic charge is that the KKK was founded by Democrats. So, by inference, Democrats are violent racists, who attack blacks, and Republicans, in the bargain. The assertion is completely a-historical, ludicrous and wrong. The Democratic and Republican parties of the South have completely flip-flopped their political platforms since the time of the founding of the KKK, but these lying Republican pundits simply hope you know nothing about history and lap up this complete doggerel. Yes, the liberal Democratic partly of the mid-1800s founded the KKK. Or not. There was no liberal Democratic party in the 1800s. Coulter doesn't care if you know this or not.
Keep 'em dumb, confused and angry. And direct their anger to the wrong enemies, or even themselves.
No, I didn't read this whole thing. I know Ann Coulter's shtick. I've seen her in debate a million times. She knows just enough to hold her own and knows how a well-aimed half-truth or outright lie out of context can sound valid to enough people to keep the suckers' money coming in.
(KR@KY 2016)
September 1, 2011
The shame of this book is that only fans of Ann Coulter will bother to read it. Her research is excellent, and her comparison between the American Revolution and the French revolution should be required reading in any history class. Ann makes the point that the difference between those two revolutions is that the Americans based their revolution on the Rule of Law, and that lead to George Washington and the US Constitution, while the French revolution was based on mob frenzy and that led to Robespierre, the Reign of Terror, and eventually Napoleon. Throughout the book, she makes the point that the only possible outcome of the mob is chaos - and from a political standpoint, she makes the point that the political modus operandi of the far left has always been mob rule.
From my point of view, the only problems with this book are that the title is provocative to the point that it will stop many people from reading and learning something of value. And, while Ann has many good points to make, on many occasions, she makes those points over and over again, when she could have stopped with just saying it once or twice. However, all in all, I would recommend this book to anyone with an open mind and a desire to understand mob influence on politics.
From my point of view, the only problems with this book are that the title is provocative to the point that it will stop many people from reading and learning something of value. And, while Ann has many good points to make, on many occasions, she makes those points over and over again, when she could have stopped with just saying it once or twice. However, all in all, I would recommend this book to anyone with an open mind and a desire to understand mob influence on politics.
December 21, 2025
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 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.
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.
August 12, 2011
Amazon review:
The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. The Democratic Party activates mobs, depends on mobs, coddles mobs, publicizes and celebrates mobs—it is the mob. Sweeping in its scope and relentless in its argument, Demonic explains the peculiarities of liberals as standard groupthink behavior. To understand mobs is to understand liberals.
In her most provocative book to date, Ann Coulter argues that liberals exhibit all the psychological characteristics of a mob, for instance:
Liberal Groupthink: “The same mob mentality that leads otherwise law-abiding people to hurl rocks at cops also leads otherwise intelligent people to refuse to believe anything they haven’t heard on NPR.”
Liberal Schemes: “No matter how mad the plan is—Fraternité, the ‘New Soviet Man,’ the Master Race, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, Building a New Society, ObamaCare—a mob will believe it.”
Liberal Enemies: “Instead of ‘counterrevolutionaries,’ liberals’ opponents are called ‘haters,’ ‘those who seek to divide us,’ ‘tea baggers,’ and ‘right-wing hate groups.’ Meanwhile, conservatives call liberals ‘liberals’—and that makes them testy. ”
Liberal Justice: “In the world of the liberal, as in the world of Robespierre, there are no crimes, only criminals.”
Liberal Violence: “If Charles Manson’s followers hadn’t killed Roman Polanski’s wife, Sharon Tate, Clinton would have pardoned him, too, and he’d probably be teaching at Northwestern University.”
Citing the father of mob psychology, Gustave Le Bon, Coulter catalogs the Left’s mob behaviors: the creation of messiahs, the fear of scientific innovation, the mythmaking, the preference for images over words, the lack of morals, and the casual embrace of contradictory ideas.
Coulter traces the history of the liberal mob to the French Revolution and Robespierre’s revolutionaries (delineating a clear distinction from America’s founding fathers), who simply proclaimed that they were exercising the “general will” before slaughtering their fellow citizens “for the good of mankind.”
Similarly, as Coulter demonstrates, liberal mobs, from student radicals to white-trash racists to anti-war and pro-ObamaCare fanatics today, have consistently used violence to implement their idea of the “general will.”
This is not the American tradition; it is the tradition of Stalin, of Hitler, of the guillotine—and the tradition of the American Left.
As the heirs of the French Revolution, Democrats have a history that consists of pandering to mobs, time and again, while Republicans, heirs to the American Revolution, have regularly stood for peaceable order.
Hoping to muddy this horrifying truth, liberals slanderously accuse conservatives of their own crimes—assassination plots, conspiracy theorizing, political violence, embrace of the Ku Klux Klan. Coulter shows that the truth is the opposite: Political violence—mob violence—is always a Democratic affair.
Surveying two centuries of mob movements, Coulter demonstrates that the mob is always destructive. And yet, she argues, beginning with the civil rights movement in the sixties, Americans have lost their natural, inherited aversion to mobs. Indeed, most Americans have no idea what they are even dealing with.
Only by recognizing the mobs and their demonic nature can America begin to defend itself.
The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. The Democratic Party activates mobs, depends on mobs, coddles mobs, publicizes and celebrates mobs—it is the mob. Sweeping in its scope and relentless in its argument, Demonic explains the peculiarities of liberals as standard groupthink behavior. To understand mobs is to understand liberals.
In her most provocative book to date, Ann Coulter argues that liberals exhibit all the psychological characteristics of a mob, for instance:
Liberal Groupthink: “The same mob mentality that leads otherwise law-abiding people to hurl rocks at cops also leads otherwise intelligent people to refuse to believe anything they haven’t heard on NPR.”
Liberal Schemes: “No matter how mad the plan is—Fraternité, the ‘New Soviet Man,’ the Master Race, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, Building a New Society, ObamaCare—a mob will believe it.”
Liberal Enemies: “Instead of ‘counterrevolutionaries,’ liberals’ opponents are called ‘haters,’ ‘those who seek to divide us,’ ‘tea baggers,’ and ‘right-wing hate groups.’ Meanwhile, conservatives call liberals ‘liberals’—and that makes them testy. ”
Liberal Justice: “In the world of the liberal, as in the world of Robespierre, there are no crimes, only criminals.”
Liberal Violence: “If Charles Manson’s followers hadn’t killed Roman Polanski’s wife, Sharon Tate, Clinton would have pardoned him, too, and he’d probably be teaching at Northwestern University.”
Citing the father of mob psychology, Gustave Le Bon, Coulter catalogs the Left’s mob behaviors: the creation of messiahs, the fear of scientific innovation, the mythmaking, the preference for images over words, the lack of morals, and the casual embrace of contradictory ideas.
Coulter traces the history of the liberal mob to the French Revolution and Robespierre’s revolutionaries (delineating a clear distinction from America’s founding fathers), who simply proclaimed that they were exercising the “general will” before slaughtering their fellow citizens “for the good of mankind.”
Similarly, as Coulter demonstrates, liberal mobs, from student radicals to white-trash racists to anti-war and pro-ObamaCare fanatics today, have consistently used violence to implement their idea of the “general will.”
This is not the American tradition; it is the tradition of Stalin, of Hitler, of the guillotine—and the tradition of the American Left.
As the heirs of the French Revolution, Democrats have a history that consists of pandering to mobs, time and again, while Republicans, heirs to the American Revolution, have regularly stood for peaceable order.
Hoping to muddy this horrifying truth, liberals slanderously accuse conservatives of their own crimes—assassination plots, conspiracy theorizing, political violence, embrace of the Ku Klux Klan. Coulter shows that the truth is the opposite: Political violence—mob violence—is always a Democratic affair.
Surveying two centuries of mob movements, Coulter demonstrates that the mob is always destructive. And yet, she argues, beginning with the civil rights movement in the sixties, Americans have lost their natural, inherited aversion to mobs. Indeed, most Americans have no idea what they are even dealing with.
Only by recognizing the mobs and their demonic nature can America begin to defend itself.
February 15, 2012
Ok so don't judge me for reading an Ann Coulter book...I got it on loan from the library. Rather than review this book (I didn't buy into the whole premise that liberals are like a demon possessed mob from biblical times)...I would prefer to review the process I had for checking out this book at our local Albuquerque LIbrary.
I picked the book off the shelve and the cover was half covered...and the Librarian said pleasantly "Oh is this a new book by Ann Mathers" then looking a little closer she noticed it was an Ann Coulter book. She recoiled in horror..withdrew her hand as if she had approached a rattle snake. I said, "Oh its a new Ann Coulter book..." Nothing more said by the librarian..just scanned by book and off I went.
I think I should do an experiment and see what type of reaction I get if I check out a Al Franken book.
And to those that read with a Kindle, Nook, etc....you will miss the all they joy of letting others around you judge you for what book you are reading!
I picked the book off the shelve and the cover was half covered...and the Librarian said pleasantly "Oh is this a new book by Ann Mathers" then looking a little closer she noticed it was an Ann Coulter book. She recoiled in horror..withdrew her hand as if she had approached a rattle snake. I said, "Oh its a new Ann Coulter book..." Nothing more said by the librarian..just scanned by book and off I went.
I think I should do an experiment and see what type of reaction I get if I check out a Al Franken book.
And to those that read with a Kindle, Nook, etc....you will miss the all they joy of letting others around you judge you for what book you are reading!
July 11, 2011
I have never read Ann Coulter book before. I must say that I thought the parts of the book focused on the mob psychology and the comparison of the French revolution to the American revolution was fascinating. These parts of the book were well researched and her points clearly made.
I thought the contrast she painted between the two revolutions and mob psychology's involvement in the French version was strong and an insightful lesson from history in human behavior. I think the book could have been better if it were more focused as a lesson for all and not so inflammatory and partisan in her modern examples. Overall a very interesting book and idea. The idea being that the mob mentality is demonic and was a major difference in the two revolutions, Conservative ideology is inherit of the American Revolution. While the Liberal ideology is inherit of the French Revolution.
I thought the contrast she painted between the two revolutions and mob psychology's involvement in the French version was strong and an insightful lesson from history in human behavior. I think the book could have been better if it were more focused as a lesson for all and not so inflammatory and partisan in her modern examples. Overall a very interesting book and idea. The idea being that the mob mentality is demonic and was a major difference in the two revolutions, Conservative ideology is inherit of the American Revolution. While the Liberal ideology is inherit of the French Revolution.
February 23, 2024
Excellent research and well written as usual but the comparative thinking is expertly done!
July 27, 2016
It's nearly impossible to find an honest review of an Ann Coutler book. Either you rabidly hate her or you love her. I'm in neither camp and tried to read this book with an open mind. What I liked best was the history contained within, in particular the disection of the French Revolution, the Civil Rights movement and the Central Park Rape. I think the she did a good job of examining these events and how mob mentality shapes violence.
What I didn't particular care for was how she plucked statements from LeBon's orignal work --the basis for her thesis-- and then went looking for bad behavior to support them. I also grew weary of the sarcasm. (There are plenty of reasons to distrust and question the Michael Moore, so could we all agree to leave the man's weight out the discussion?)
Coulter wrote this book pre-Occupy Wall Street. If there is a second edition of "Demonic" I'm sure the OWS movement will provide ample sources for her to say "I told you so."
What I didn't particular care for was how she plucked statements from LeBon's orignal work --the basis for her thesis-- and then went looking for bad behavior to support them. I also grew weary of the sarcasm. (There are plenty of reasons to distrust and question the Michael Moore, so could we all agree to leave the man's weight out the discussion?)
Coulter wrote this book pre-Occupy Wall Street. If there is a second edition of "Demonic" I'm sure the OWS movement will provide ample sources for her to say "I told you so."
June 27, 2011
Ann Coulter does fine work. With a few exceptions, a few historical glitches, she relates in a detailed way the connections between leftism and the power of the mob. This is what she means by "demonic." Though she doesn't cite him, she may be aware of some Girard's work on mimetic desire -- it is certainly relevant to her thesis here. She is certainly courageous, and probably lonely.
May 26, 2012
I am usually too busy reading to write book reviews; this book, however, merits a few words.
Whether or not you like Ann Coulter or her beliefs, I do believe this book—or at least a portion of it—is something everyone should read, particularly if you are an American. Her section on the French Revolution is a superb (if chilling) distillation of what happened during those horrific years. If my using the words "chilling" and "horrific" mystify you, well, there's my proof: you need to read that bit of "Demonic".
Here in the States, the French Revolution is glossed over as similar to our own, except the King and his Queen were beheaded. This could not be any further from the truth, and Coulter clearly shows us why, though I'd long ago realized the horror and, often, ugliness of the French Revolution. I will say I don't recommend reading those parts prior to bed, as you are sure to be left with, at the very least, a queasy feeling reading about the actions of the mob and the Sans-culottes.
The bookends surrounding Coulter's concise history of the French Revolution are typical Coulter—well, the first half, at least. The part following is, I think, better than the part prior to her discussion of the Terror. I do wish she'd spent more time on what happened in Cambodia, but you can learn more about that in Mona Charen's "Useful Idiots" (I believe—if not, it's "Do-Gooders"). That, too, will leave most readers shocked and horrified. Totalitarianism, also known as "for your own good"-ism or "for the common good"-ism is a deadly thing indeed, though that of course isn't Coulter's focus. Of course, it's very easy to use those phrases to whip up a mob, isn't it?
Of course, Coulter's whole point in delineating the Terror in France is to show how easily an easily influenced mob of people can allow dangerous and even evil men to take power (really, is Robespierre anything BUT evil?); these same men will use the mob to terrorize the non-supporting population, or at the very least, allow them to do so. Mobs are emotionally led, illogical, often thoughtless, and ultimately dangerous things (witness the slaughter of the royal guard and the gang-rapes of women that occurred during the French Revolution, for instance, or even the recent attack of an American journalist in, I believe, Egypt), and they can and will arise anywhere. So dangerous are mobs that they can lead to the collapse of the society in which they were born—witness France.
Again: you may not like Coulter at all, but her segment on the French Revolution really ought to be required reading.
Whether or not you like Ann Coulter or her beliefs, I do believe this book—or at least a portion of it—is something everyone should read, particularly if you are an American. Her section on the French Revolution is a superb (if chilling) distillation of what happened during those horrific years. If my using the words "chilling" and "horrific" mystify you, well, there's my proof: you need to read that bit of "Demonic".
Here in the States, the French Revolution is glossed over as similar to our own, except the King and his Queen were beheaded. This could not be any further from the truth, and Coulter clearly shows us why, though I'd long ago realized the horror and, often, ugliness of the French Revolution. I will say I don't recommend reading those parts prior to bed, as you are sure to be left with, at the very least, a queasy feeling reading about the actions of the mob and the Sans-culottes.
The bookends surrounding Coulter's concise history of the French Revolution are typical Coulter—well, the first half, at least. The part following is, I think, better than the part prior to her discussion of the Terror. I do wish she'd spent more time on what happened in Cambodia, but you can learn more about that in Mona Charen's "Useful Idiots" (I believe—if not, it's "Do-Gooders"). That, too, will leave most readers shocked and horrified. Totalitarianism, also known as "for your own good"-ism or "for the common good"-ism is a deadly thing indeed, though that of course isn't Coulter's focus. Of course, it's very easy to use those phrases to whip up a mob, isn't it?
Of course, Coulter's whole point in delineating the Terror in France is to show how easily an easily influenced mob of people can allow dangerous and even evil men to take power (really, is Robespierre anything BUT evil?); these same men will use the mob to terrorize the non-supporting population, or at the very least, allow them to do so. Mobs are emotionally led, illogical, often thoughtless, and ultimately dangerous things (witness the slaughter of the royal guard and the gang-rapes of women that occurred during the French Revolution, for instance, or even the recent attack of an American journalist in, I believe, Egypt), and they can and will arise anywhere. So dangerous are mobs that they can lead to the collapse of the society in which they were born—witness France.
Again: you may not like Coulter at all, but her segment on the French Revolution really ought to be required reading.
July 28, 2011
What I dislike most about the work of Ann Coulter is that one can't argue with the totally Ad Hominem nature of her critique...Liberals(by which she means anyone who disagrees with Ann Coulter)are,by definition,Demonic(of the Devil)and so,beyond redemption...after that,it just becomes a litany of the evil personalties and how they seek to destroy America out of a motiveless malignity...the selective quotes and risible reference section(her sources often draw the opposite conclusion than she asserts)all do a disservice to any substantive criticism about the failures of Liberalism...I realise that she is a "pot stirrer" who loves to annoy but her jejune invective is as insulting to her fans as it is to those she hates...Obama is a Marxist Idealogue is as pointless an "idea" as Bush is a Nazi...this tripe is what passes for political discussion these days...
November 14, 2011
No substance here. Instead of reading this book you might as well write down "liberals are stupid" on a piece of paper and read it repeatedly. I honestly feel bad for anyone that like this childish nonsense.
July 22, 2011
Her best work yet. She wonderfully compares and contrast the American and French revolutions making the point how the Liberals have a mob mentality which is putting this country at great risk.
January 6, 2014
Some people see Ann Coulter's name and may only be familiar with her from her media interviews where she can come across as a deeply partisan conservative attack dog. You will see her contentious, snarky, satirical style in her writings as well, but what you will also find is carefully documented facts, facts that liberal would prefer not to see so carefully displayed.
In this book Coulter makes a great case that our modern American liberal Democrats are the philosophical descendants of the French Revolution with all it's excessive violence, mob rule, hatred of religion, and clouded atheistic reasoning.
She outlines the history of liberal Democrats and cites example after example of their failings, lies, and crimes. Definitely red meat reading for conservatives. I am afraid that if you tied a liberal to a chair and made him or her listen to this book, it would cause much swearing and frothing at the mouth, but unwelcome facts are still too easy to ignore for liberals, so such an action would be a waste of time. Liberals will not be swayed by Coulter's airing of their considerable dirty laundry. Moderates may also be put off by Coulter's style and miss the message due to it's caustic tone.
Also be warned that some of the crimes attributed to liberals are quite graphic as quoted from court documents and other primary sources, plus, liberals are famous for using course language, so be ready to find such vulgar material in this book.
I do think Coulter is an interesting protagonist for conservatives, which is why I based the character of the defense attorney Nicole Duran in my book Inherit the Wind Overturned by Design on Coulter.
In this book Coulter makes a great case that our modern American liberal Democrats are the philosophical descendants of the French Revolution with all it's excessive violence, mob rule, hatred of religion, and clouded atheistic reasoning.
She outlines the history of liberal Democrats and cites example after example of their failings, lies, and crimes. Definitely red meat reading for conservatives. I am afraid that if you tied a liberal to a chair and made him or her listen to this book, it would cause much swearing and frothing at the mouth, but unwelcome facts are still too easy to ignore for liberals, so such an action would be a waste of time. Liberals will not be swayed by Coulter's airing of their considerable dirty laundry. Moderates may also be put off by Coulter's style and miss the message due to it's caustic tone.
Also be warned that some of the crimes attributed to liberals are quite graphic as quoted from court documents and other primary sources, plus, liberals are famous for using course language, so be ready to find such vulgar material in this book.
I do think Coulter is an interesting protagonist for conservatives, which is why I based the character of the defense attorney Nicole Duran in my book Inherit the Wind Overturned by Design on Coulter.
July 12, 2012
In Demonic, Ms. Coulter expends great effort dissecting the life of mobs; who is susceptible to them, how they act and why they have a proclivity to violence. Mobs can only respond to simplistic slogans and symbols and are always composed of liberals. As mobs are irrational and liberalism is always counter to rationality, by default the mob and violence is its natural result of liberalism. Ann gives plenty of examples with a particularly in-depth analysis of the French Revolution -- the template for liberal tyranny. Conversely conservatives are followers of the American Revolution – a revolt based upon ideals and the rule of law, not men. Think how liberal mobs express themselves when protesting NATO or the WTO. Conservatives on the other hand express their opinion by handing out copies of Friedrick Heyak. To my knowledge there has never been a conservative riot – after all we could scuff our wing tips.
Ann has a sharp and unforgiving wit. If you are a liberal this well documented book will make you angry. Since liberals tend to break windows and start fires when someone disagrees with them, for the sake of public safety no liberal should read this book unless they are properly restrained.
Ann has a sharp and unforgiving wit. If you are a liberal this well documented book will make you angry. Since liberals tend to break windows and start fires when someone disagrees with them, for the sake of public safety no liberal should read this book unless they are properly restrained.
July 16, 2011
In her typical acerbic wit, Ann Coulter provides another compelling case against the liberal left, providing copious self-incriminating stories and quotes from the many propagandists who despise the traditional values and beliefs upon which this country was founded. Edgy and forthright in her opinions, she never makes any claim that she cannot back up--which is why so many on the left loathe her. In the end, nonetheless, she does another masterful job exposing the mob-like mentality of those on the political left, demonstrating that when sound reason cannot prevail in convincing the majority to embrace radical leftist ideology, those same folks, in a pavlovian-like response, always seemingly resort to one final tactic in order to get their way--they become a mob.
July 18, 2011
This is a meticulously researched and persuasively written book whose arguments would be nearly impossible to refute if yours was the ox being gored here -- you would be left with no choice but to attack her personally, as it seems many are doing. Coulter's wit and humor help drive home serious points well worth considering and make her books enjoyable to read. Her analysis of the French Revolution and comparison of it to the American Revolution, and the vastly different legacies of each on today's politics, are alone worth the price of the book.
June 11, 2011
This is one of my guilty pleasures, reading Ann Coulter books. Yes, she's inflammatory, and I love it! While I don't subscribe to her views completely, she still makes some compelling, albeit partisan, arguments. Best of all, though, she makes me laugh! I listened to a colleague's audio version this week (which I believe is a great way to spend a daily commute).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 253 reviews