Demonic
Chapter 1 by Ann
Coulter
The Liberal Mob
2 When Jesus got out of
the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him.
3 This man lived in the tombs, and
no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain.
4 For he had often been chained hand
and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet.
No one was strong enough to subdue him.
5 Night and day among the tombs and
in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.
6 When he saw Jesus from a distance,
he ran and fell on his knees in front of him.
7 He shouted at the top of his voice,
"What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God's name
don't torture me!"
8 For Jesus had said to him, "Come
out of this man, you impure spirit!"
9 Then Jesus asked him, "What is
your name?" "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many."
-- Mark 5:2--9
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.
Everything else changes, but mobs are
always the same.
A mob is an irrational, childlike, often
violent organism that derives its energy from the group. Intoxicated by
messianic goals, the promise of instant gratification, and adrenaline-pumping
exhortations, mobs create mayhem, chaos, and destruction, leaving a smoldering
heap of wreckage for their leaders to climb to power.
The Democratic Party is the party of
the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents. Democrats activate mobs,
depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs -- they are the
mob. Indeed, the very idea of a "community organizer" is to stir up a mob
for some political purpose. "As so frequently happens when a crowd goes
wild," historian Eric
Durschmied says, "there is always one who shouts louder and thereby
appoints himself as their leader." Those are the people we call "elected
Democrats."
The Democrats' playbook doesn't involve
heads on pikes -- as yet -- but uses a more insidious means to incite the
mob. The twisting of truth, stirring of passions, demonizing of opponents,
and relying on propagandistic images in lieu of ideas -- these are the
earmarks of a mob leader. Over and over again, one finds the Democrats
manipulating the mob to gain power. It is official Democratic policy to
appeal to the least informed, most weak-minded and perpetually alarmed
members of the public.
Their base consists of soccer moms,
actresses, felons, MSNBC viewers (both of them), non-English speakers,
welfare recipients, heads-up-their-butts billionaires, and government workers
-- who can never be laid off. The entire party gave up on attracting the
votes of white men decades ago. It's easier to round up votes by frightening
women about "assault weapons" and promising excellent free health care
to non-English speakers. Yes, a free health care system that is so superior
that they exempt themselves and their friends from having to be in it.
Liberals frighten people about their health care in order to stampede through
ObamaCare. They claim the Earth is overheating in order to seize taxpayer
money for solar panels and compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
They call out union thugs to force politicians
to accede to insane benefits packages. They stage campaigns of calumny
to get their way on gay marriage. Faddish ideas that would never have occurred
to anyone fifty years ago -- or even twenty years ago -- are suddenly foisted
on the rest of us by the liberal mobs.
Although the left in America is widely
recognized as hysterical, unreasonable, and clueless, the "root cause"
of these traits has generally been neglected. More than a century ago,
Gustave
Le Bon perfectly captured the liberal psychological profile in his
1896 book, "The Crowd: A
Study of the Popular Mind." Le Bon -- a French physician, scientist,
and social psychologist -- was the first to identify the phenomenon of
mass psychology. His groundbreaking book "The Crowd" paints a disturbing
picture of the behavior of mobs. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini used
his book to learn how to incite a mob. Our liberals could have been Le
Bon's study subjects.
Even the left-wing Guardian has admitted
that Le Bon's study of crowd behavior was "possibly the most influential
work of psychology ever written." Presumably recognizing themselves in
his psychological profile, liberals have recently tried to undermine Le
Bon. They have complained that he merely "articulated the propertied classes'
fear of the mob." Who likes mobs? Renters? Window manufacturers? Rope salesmen?
Liberals also objected that Le Bon did not hold the police accountable
for a mob's behavior -- which is like demanding that we take into account
the length of the rape victim's skirt.
It is revealing that liberals so fear
Le Bon that they try to sully him as "controversial" and "reactionary."
(Those particular complaints, incidentally, were lodged by liberal activist
George Monbiot, who has called for "citizen's arrests" of former government
offiials from George W. Bush's UN ambassador John Bolton to former British
prime minister Tony Blair. No wonder he doesn't like psychological studies
of mob behavior.)
It was all the usual claptrap, but the
piercing truth of Le Bon's study speaks for itself. Liberals wouldn't go
after him if, even a century later, his theories didn't still ring true.
All the characteristics of mob behavior set forth by Le Bon in 1895 are
evident in modern liberalism -- simplistic, extreme black-and-white thinking,
fear of novelty, inability to follow logical arguments, acceptance of contradictory
ideas, being transfixed by images, a religious worship of their leaders,
and a blind hatred of their opponents.
Many of liberals' peculiarities are
understandable only when one realizes that they are a mob. For example,
a crowd's ability to grasp only the simplest ideas is reflected in the
interminable slogans.
Liberals have boatloads of them:
Bush Lied, Kids Died
Our Bodies, Our Selves
No Blood for Oil
No Justice, No Peace
Save the Whales
Love Your Mother (Earth)
Ban the Bomb
Make Love, Not War
Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Republican
Diversity Is Our Strength
Save the Planet
Pro-Choice, Pro-Child
Support Our Troops, Bring them Home
Co-Exist
Hey, Hey, LBJ, How Many Kids Did You
Kill Today
Dissent Is Patriotic
War Is Not the Answer
Go Green
Healthcare Is a Right, Not a Privilege
Imagine Peace
Celebrate Diversity
Beat the Bushes for Peace |
|
No Nukes
Give Peace a Chance
Think Globally/Act Locally
No Tax Cuts for the Rich
Save the Planet
Venceremos
One, Two, Three, Four, We Don't Want
Your F--King War
Bush = Hitler
Hell No, We Won't Go
Off the Pig
Eat the Rich
Die Yuppie Scum
Peace Now
We Are the Ones We've Been Waiting
For
Solidarity Forever
Bring America Home
You Can't Hug a Child with Nuclear
Arms
Meat Is Murder
Books Not Bombs
Fight the Power
Yes We Can |
And those are just the ones on my neighbor's
car.
What is the Tea
Party's slogan? There is none. Republicans almost never have slogans,
certainly none that even they can remember -- except when our presidential
candidates are forced to come up with some utterly forgettable catchphrase
for their campaigns.
There are only three memorable Republican
slogans in the past half century -- unless you count what Dick Cheney said
to Pat Leahy on the Senate floor in 2004, in which case there have been
four.
There was, "27 Million Americans
Can't Be Wrong," after Goldwater
lost in a historic landslide in 1964.
There were the YAF buttons made in tribute
to William
F. Buckley's mayoral campaign platform in 1965: "Don't
Let Them Immanentize the Eschaton!"
And when there were few other reasons
to vote for the reelection of the first President Bush in 1992, there was,"Annoy
the Media, Vote Bush!"
Republicans display crosses and fish, college
and sports decals, and a few parodies of liberal slogans ("Imagine an Unborn
Child"), but no bossy demands on our bumper sticker.
Conservatives don't cotton to slogans.
When they finally produce one, it's never the sort of rallying cry capable
of sending people to the ramparts, such as "Yes We Can!" or "Bush Lied,
Kids Died!" "27 Million Americans Can't Be Wrong" is a wry observation,
not an urgent call to battle. "Annoy the Media, Vote Bush!" -- barely qualifies
as a suggestion.
Conservatives write books and articles,
make arguments, and seek debates, but are perplexed by slogans. (Of course,
another reason Republicans may avoid bumper stickers is to prevent their
cars from being vandalized, which brings us right back to another mob characteristic
of liberals.)
By contrast, liberals thrive on jargon
as a substitute for thought. According to Le Bon, the more dramatic and
devoid of logic a chant is, the better it works to rile up a mob: "Given
to exaggeration in its feelings, a crowd is only impressed by excessive
sentiments. An orator wishing to move a crowd must make an abusive use
of violent affirmations. To exaggerate, to affirm, to resort to repetitions,
and never to attempt to prove anything by reasoning are methods of argument
well known to speakers at public meetings."
Liberals love slogans because the "laws
of logic have no action on crowds." Mobs, Le Bon says, "are not to be influenced
by reasoning, and can only comprehend rough-and-ready associations of ideas."
He could be describing the New York Times and other journals of elite opinion
when he describes periodicals that "manufacture opinions for their readers
and supply them with ready- made phrases which dispense them of the trouble
of reasoning."
You will see all the techniques for
inspiring mobs in liberal behavior.
There are three main elements to putting
an idea in a crowd:
affirmation,
repetition, and contagion.
The effects takes time, Le Bon says, but
"once produced are very lasting." It's the same reason annoying TV commercials
are so effective. "Head On! Apply directly to the forehead. Head On! Apply
directly to the forehead. Head On! Apply directly to the forehead."
Affirmation is the creation of a slogan,
free of all reasoning and all proof." Indeed, the "conciser an affirmation
is, the more destitute of every appearance of proof and demonstration,"
he says, "the more weight it carries." This is "one of the surest means
of making an idea enter the mind of crowds."
Affirmation only works if it is "constantly
repeated, and so far as possible in the same terms." The power of repetition
"is due to the fact that the repeated statement is embedded in the long
run in those profound regions of our unconscious selves in which the motives
or our actions are forged. At the end of a certain time we have forgotten
who is the author of the repeated assertion, and we finish by believing
it."
Short slogans endlessly repeated create
a "current of opinion" allowing "the powerful mechanism of contagion" to
operate. Ideas spread through the crowd as easily as microbes, Le Bon says,
which explains the mass panics common to rock concerts, financial markets,
street protests, and Dennis Kucinich rallies. "A panic that has seized
only a few sheep," he observes, "will soon extend to the whole flock."
Liberals have it down to an art: The
cacophonous method of yelling until conservatives shut up just because
they just want to go home, the purblind
assertions -- No WMDs in Iraq! Civilian Deaths! Violence at Tea Parties!
Head On! Apply directly to the forehead! -- and overnight the entire mass
of liberals is robotically repeating the same slogans.
It isn't only in their incessant street
demonstrations that liberals talk in slogans. This is how liberals discuss
serious policy matters with the public. It's as if they're speaking to
a vast O.J. Simpson jury, mesmerized by a pair of gloves and a closing
argument that rhymes ("If it doesn't fit, you must acquit").
Conservatives talk the same on TV as
off TV -- unless they are inarticulate politicians using sound bites to
avoid saying anything stupid. But regular conservatives talk on TV as if
they're having a normal conversation with their friends or neighbors.
Liberals don't know how to do this because
they don't have normal friends and neighbors -- only fellow demonstrators.
Their self-image is as little Lenins,
rousing the masses at the Finland
Station, which is why they always sound as if they've gotten control
of the PA system and are broadcasting from Big Brother, Inc. -- or if they're
Al Gore, addressing a kindergarten class.
Here, for example, is Stephanie
Bloomingdale, of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, being interviewed on MSNBC
about the union's beef with Governor
Scott Walker: "Well, America, we need all of you to help us with our
fight. Because this is a fight to reclaim the values of the middle class.
This is the movement of our time. And we need people all across America,
working people, to stand up and say, this is the time we need to restore
economic justice. And we know that the only -- that the union movement
is the only thing that stands between unbridled corporate greed and a true
economic democracy. And we -- what I would like to say is, America, stand
with us, stand with us who are fighting for justice and economic justice
in our society."
The next night, Katrina
Vanden Huevel was engaging in the same sort of "Internationale"
hectoring: "People are waking up. And they're in the streets. There are
going to be fifty rallies around this country. Maybe a million people in
the streets of this country. And what are they saying? Enough! You're giving
our people's money away. Invest in our country, invest in jobs, invest
in education. Keep cops on the street, keep teachers in the classrooms.
Enough with these perks for corporations. There's a
movement called U.S. uncut, which is inspired by an article in The
Nation.
"If we can recoup from the very richest
who brought us this financial crisis and from corporate tax dodgers, we
can balance budgets in a fair way. Justice, fairness, concepts that may
be coming back to America in this moment."
The advantage of slogans like these
-- "working families," "economic justice," "unbridled corporate greed,"
and "invest in our country, invest in jobs, invest in education" -- is
that liberals never have to talk about the actual issues being discussed.
You'd never know in the fog of jargon that the Republican governor of Wisconsin,
Scott Walker, was only asking government employees to start paying 6 percent
of their pension contributions (up from zero percent) and 12 percent of
their health care insurance (up from six percent).
Similarly, the pro-abortion movement
depends on never ever using the word "abortion" -- only cant, such as "choice,"
"family planning," and "reproductive freedom."
The Left's robotic speaking style helps
explain why liberals have never been able to make a dent in talk radio,
despite many tries. Apparently, even the people who get bused in to their
rallies can't be paid to listen to liberals hectoring them on talk radio.
Being endlessly lectured by deadly earnest liberals is boring. Ask any
Cuban.
Based on their public commentary, it
appears that not one liberal has the vaguest idea how the economy imploded.
The only thing liberals know is -- as President Obama explained -- "Republicans
drove the car into the ditch, made it as diffiult as possible for us to
pull it back, now they want the keys back. No! You can't drive. We don't
want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out." (It was
always a "ditch" and not a "lake" because a lake would have been offensive
to Teddy Kennedy.)
A liberal would stare at you slack-jawed
if you explained that the federal government, via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, forced politically
correct lending policies on the banks -- policies that were attacked by
Republicans but ferociously defended by Democrats -- and that the banks'
suicidal loans were then bundled into mortgage- backed securities and dispersed
throughout the entire financial system, which poisoned the economy, bringing
down powerful institutions, such as Lehman Brothers, and destroying innumerable
families' financial portfolios.
In light of the Democrats' direct role
in creating the policies at the heart of the nation's financial collapse,
it's not surprising that they prefer metaphors to facts. What's strange
is that the image of a car in a ditch is sufficient for the bulk of Democratic
voters and commentators to adjudge themselves experts on the economic crisis
and refuse to listen to explanations that aren't images of Bush driving
a car into a ditch. Image is all that matters to the mob. Obama can take
in the biggest campaign haul from Wall Street in world history, as he did
in 2008, but the mob will never believe he is in the pocket of Wall Street
bankers.
The top- three corporate employers of
donors to Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Rahm Emanuel were Goldman Sachs,
Citigroup, and JPMorgan. Six other financial giants were in the top thirty
donors to the White House Dream Team: UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley,
Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Credit Suisse Group.12 In 2008 alone,
Goldman Sachs employees gave more to Obama -- nearly $1 million -- than
any other employer, with the sole exception of the entire University of
California, which has 230,000 employees -- ten times more than Goldman.
And still Republicans are called the
Party of Wall Street. Bush let Lehman Brothers go under -- what else do
Republicans have to do? Liberals latched on to the image of Bush, Cheney,
and even Tom DeLay as "oilmen" to blame them for everything from Enron's
collapse to blackouts and high oil prices.
In 2006, Speaker Nancy Pelosi blamed
"oilmen" in public office for high oil prices -- and hearing Pelosi try
to craft a syllogism
is like watching Michael Moore attempt ballet. She said, "We have two oilmen
in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline.
It is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect." That's
all liberals needed to know. Two "oilmen" in the White House -- cause and
effect. Strangely though, a barrel of oil costs the same on the world market
for all those other countries that were not being run by "oilmen."
A few years earlier, she had blamed
Bush and Representative Tom DeLay for the blackout throughout the Northeast
United States and parts of Canada -- presumably because they are both from
Texas -- saying they had "put the interests of the energy companies before
the interests of the American people." In fact, the blackout was due to
a failure of humans operating electric power; it had nothing whatsoever
to do with oil.
The New York Times's Paul
Krugman has written more than a dozen columns making hazy connections
between Bush and the corrupt and collapsed Enron -- "Some cynics attribute
the continuing absence of Enron indictments to the Bush family's loyalty
code" -- despite Bush's having absolutely nothing to do with the
company, other than being from Texas.
By contrast, Krugman was on Enron's
advisory board while he was writing encomiums to Enron in Fortune magazine.
Once a year, when I don't feel like writing a column, I think I'll reprint
Krugman's column singing Enron's praises -- although, again, in fairness,
he was being paid by Enron at the time.
Democrats wouldn't make such absurd
statements if absurdity didn't seem perfectly logical to their base. This
is how Democrats communicate with their constituents: They use mob tactics
to rile up the irrational masses. Crowds can't grasp logic, only images.
"These image- like ideas," Le Bon says, "are not connected by any logical
bond of analogy or succession, and may take each other's place like the
slides of a magiclantern which the operator withdraws from the groove in
with they were placed one above the other."
Republicans love Wall Street -- oh look,
Wall Street just made historic campaign contributions to Obama; he must
be really cool. Republicans hate the poor because they're trying to block
government policies promoting easy mortgages. . . . Oops, I wonder why
the economy just tanked. It's because Bush drove it into a ditch! Enron
collapsed and Paul Krugman says it's Bush's fault. Krugman was paid by
Enron and Bush wasn't? Bush lied, kids died! Oil prices went up under Bush
-- it's his fault -- he's an oilman! Oh but then oil prices went down under
Bush. . . . Hey, look over there! A shiny object!
Despite their perennial enthusiasm for
revolution and "change" in almost any form, Le Bon says, crowds are wildly
conservative when it comes to scientific progress. Want to scare a liberal?
Mention nuclear power plants, genetically modified fruits, new pharmaceuticals,
food irradiation, or guns with plastic frames. We could probably get a
crowd of liberal protesters to scatter just by coming at them with a modern
vacuum cleaner.
It certainly works on dogs and cats.
The Left's abject terror of technological development is yet another mob
attribute. Le Bon says that the mob's "unconscious horror" of "all novelty
capable of changing the essential conditions of their existence is very
deeply rooted."
While mobs go about changing the names
of institutions and demanding radical changes to society, he says, when
it comes to scientific progress, crowds have a "fetish- like respect" for
tradition.
Thus, according to Le Bon, if "democracies
possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical
looms or of the introduction of steam- power and of railways, the realization
of these inventions would have been impossible." It is lucky "for the progress
of civilization that the power of crowds only began to exist when the great
discoveries of science and industry had already been effected."
Our liberals are even worse than Le
Bon imagined. Democrats don't merely want to block scientific progress,
they want to roll it back. Al Gore's global warming fantasy book Earth
in the Balance called for the worldwide elimination of the internal
combustion engine within twenty-five years. (Which, if nothing else, would
have ruined Obama's "car in the ditch" catch-phrase.)
In 2007, Democrats in Congress banned
the incandescent lightbulb, currently scheduled for elimination in 2014.
Indeed, banning Thomas Edison's invention was among the very fi rst acts
of the new House majority elected in 2006, in a bill cosponsored by 195
Democrats and only 3 Republicans (two of whom are no longer in office).
When Democrats came up with the idea of banning the lightbulb, what image
appeared in their heads? A litcandle? Only four Democrats voted against
the bill in both the House and then Senate, with the vast majority of Republicans
voting against it in both chambers.
Consider that the two industries that
provoke the most fear and loathing in liberals are two of the most innovative:
the oil and pharmaceutical industries. When a majority of the country objected
to national health care because, among other reasons, it would mean the
end of innovation in medicine once the government took over, liberals stared
in blank incomprehension. (It was almost as if they'd been drugged.) They
believe every drug, every diagnosis, every therapy, every cure that will
ever be invented has already been invented. Their job is to spread all
the existing cures, not to worry about who will discover new ones.
The only traditions liberals are eager
to smash are moral and sexual ones, such as marriage and protecting the
unborn. Crowds are too impulsive to be moral, according to Le Bon, which
explains why liberals are mad for innovation when it comes to thousands-year-old
institutions like marriage. Only when it comes to scientifi c innovation,
are they hidebound traditionalists.
Indeed, the only way to get liberals
interested in novel scientific research is to propose slaughtering human
embryos. When adult stem cell researchers had already produced treatments
for eighty different diseases, while embryonic stem cell researchers
were stuck in the dark ages, the failed researchers won liberal hearts
by pointing out that their method destroyed human fetuses, while adult
stem research did not.
As long as Democrats can win by demagoguing
the mob, they are perfectly happy to turn America into a banana republic.
With the country drowning in debt and Medicare and Social Security putting
us on a high-speed bullet train to bankruptcy, the entire Democratic Party
refuses to deal with entitlements. Instead, they will gin up the mobs to
throw out any politician who cuts these increasingly theoretical "benefits."
The country will have the economy of Uganda, but Democrats will be in total
control.
Rich liberals want chaos for everyone
except themselves, confident that they can afford a "green" lifestyle and
their children will still attend Sidwell
Friends. The rest of us are forced to live in a lawless universe of
no energy, gay marriage, girl soldiers, and marauding criminals because
liberals can't enjoy their wealth unless other people are living in complete
pandemonium. They promote anarchy, believing the middle class should live
in squalor, while liberals will be protected by their wealth against the
mob.
The seminal event of the New Testament
-- Jesus' crucifixion -- is a dramatic illustration of the power of the
mob.
When the mob was howling for Pontius
Pilate to sentence Jesus to death, even Pilate's wife couldn't convince
him to spare Jesus. After having a dream about Jesus, Pilate's wife sent
her husband a note saying Jesus was innocent -- a "just man." Pilate knew
Jesus was innocent and that the mob hated Jesus out of "envy." But not
his wife, not even his own common sense, was enough for him to resist the
mob.
Three times Pilate told the "multitude"
that Jesus was innocent and should be spared. He pleaded with the mob,
proposing to "chastise him, and release him." But the mob was immovable,
demanding Jesus' crucifixion. Pilate was required to release one of the
prisoners, so he gave the mob the choice of Jesus or Barabbas, a notorious
murderer and insurrectionist -- in other words, someone who incites mobs.
Again, the mob "spoke with one voice," demanding "with loud shouts" that
Jesus be crucified.
Capitulating to the mob, Pilate ordered
Jesus' death.
Even one of the mob's victims, a thief
being crucifi ed alongside Jesus, joined the mob's taunting, saying to
Jesus, "If thou be Christ, save thyself and us." The other thief rebuked
him, noting that they were guilty, whereas Jesus was not. He said to Jesus,
"Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." And Jesus said "Today
shalt thou be with me in paradise."
Pilate gave in to the mob out of fear.
The thief joined the mob to side with the majority. The mob itself was
driven by envy.
Although it all worked out in the end
-- Jesus died, darkness fell over the Earth, the ground trembled, and the
temple veil was ripped in two, and three days later, Jesus rose from the
dead, giving all people the promise of everlasting life -- here was the
stark choice, to be repeated like Nietzsche's eternal recurrence: Jesus
or Barabbas?
Liberals say Barabbas: Go with the crowd.
C'mon, everybody's doing it -- it's cool. Now let's go mock Jesus. (As
is so often the case, the mob said, "Kill the Jew.")
Conservatives -- sublimely uninterested
in the opinion of the mob -- say Jesus. |