What do you think?
Rate this book
Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama
“This isn’t a story about black people—it’s a story about the Left’s agenda to patronize blacks and lie to everyone else.”
For decades, the Left has been putting on a play with themselves as heroes in an ongoing civil rights movement—which they were mostly absent from at the time. Long after pervasive racial discrimination ended, they kept pretending America was being run by the Klan and that liberals were black America’s only protectors.
It took the O. J. Simpson verdict—the race-based acquittal of a spectacularly guilty black celebrity as blacks across America erupted in cheers—to shut down the white guilt bank.
But now, fewer than two decades later, our “postracial” president has returned us to the pre-OJ era of nonstop racial posturing. A half-black, half-white Democrat, not descended from American slaves, has brought racial unrest back with a whoop.
The Obama candidacy allowed liberals to engage in self-righteousness about race and get a hard-core Leftie in the White House at the same time. In 2008, we were told the only way for the nation to move past race was to elect him as president. And 53 percent of voters fell for it.
Now, Ann Coulter fearlessly explains the real history of race relations in this country, including how white liberals twist that history to spring the guilty, accuse the innocent, and engender racial hatreds, all in order to win politically. You’ll learn, for instance, how
A U.S. congressman and a New York mayor conspired to protect cop killers who ambushed four police officers in the Rev. Louis Farrakhan’s mosque.
The entire Democratic elite, up to the Carter White House, coddled a black cult in San Francisco as hundreds of the cult members marched to their deaths in Guyana.
New York City became a maelstrom of racial hatred, with black neighborhoods abandoned to criminals who were ferociously defended by a press that assessed guilt on the basis of race.
Preposterous hoax hate crimes were always believed, never questioned. And when they turned out to be frauds the stories would simply disappear from the news.
Liberals quickly switched the focus of civil rights laws from the heirs of slavery and Jim Crow to white feminists, illegal immigrants, and gays.
Subway vigilante Bernhard Goetz was surprisingly popular in black neighborhoods, despite hysterical denunciations of him by the New York Times.
Liberals slander Republicans by endlessly repeating a bizarro-world history in which Democrats defended black America and Republicans appealed to segregationists. The truth has always been exactly the opposite.
Going where few authors would dare, Coulter explores the racial demagoguery that has mugged America since the early seventies. She shines the light of truth on cases ranging from Tawana Brawley, Lemrick Nelson, and Howard Beach, NY, to the LA riots and the Duke lacrosse scandal. And she shows how the 2012 Obama campaign is going to inspire the greatest racial guilt mongering of all time.
For decades, the Left has been putting on a play with themselves as heroes in an ongoing civil rights movement—which they were mostly absent from at the time. Long after pervasive racial discrimination ended, they kept pretending America was being run by the Klan and that liberals were black America’s only protectors.
It took the O. J. Simpson verdict—the race-based acquittal of a spectacularly guilty black celebrity as blacks across America erupted in cheers—to shut down the white guilt bank.
But now, fewer than two decades later, our “postracial” president has returned us to the pre-OJ era of nonstop racial posturing. A half-black, half-white Democrat, not descended from American slaves, has brought racial unrest back with a whoop.
The Obama candidacy allowed liberals to engage in self-righteousness about race and get a hard-core Leftie in the White House at the same time. In 2008, we were told the only way for the nation to move past race was to elect him as president. And 53 percent of voters fell for it.
Now, Ann Coulter fearlessly explains the real history of race relations in this country, including how white liberals twist that history to spring the guilty, accuse the innocent, and engender racial hatreds, all in order to win politically. You’ll learn, for instance, how
A U.S. congressman and a New York mayor conspired to protect cop killers who ambushed four police officers in the Rev. Louis Farrakhan’s mosque.
The entire Democratic elite, up to the Carter White House, coddled a black cult in San Francisco as hundreds of the cult members marched to their deaths in Guyana.
New York City became a maelstrom of racial hatred, with black neighborhoods abandoned to criminals who were ferociously defended by a press that assessed guilt on the basis of race.
Preposterous hoax hate crimes were always believed, never questioned. And when they turned out to be frauds the stories would simply disappear from the news.
Liberals quickly switched the focus of civil rights laws from the heirs of slavery and Jim Crow to white feminists, illegal immigrants, and gays.
Subway vigilante Bernhard Goetz was surprisingly popular in black neighborhoods, despite hysterical denunciations of him by the New York Times.
Liberals slander Republicans by endlessly repeating a bizarro-world history in which Democrats defended black America and Republicans appealed to segregationists. The truth has always been exactly the opposite.
Going where few authors would dare, Coulter explores the racial demagoguery that has mugged America since the early seventies. She shines the light of truth on cases ranging from Tawana Brawley, Lemrick Nelson, and Howard Beach, NY, to the LA riots and the Duke lacrosse scandal. And she shows how the 2012 Obama campaign is going to inspire the greatest racial guilt mongering of all time.
326 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2012
93 people are currently reading
936 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 132 reviews
January 28, 2013
Horrors!!!!! Ann Coulter!!!!!
Are you aware that here at Goodreads we have a List titled "Books I'd Rather Die Than Read"? Well, these open minded literates have listed many, many books that they hate so much they refuse to find out what's in them or what the writers have to say. There are some people who's thoughts are so objectionable, so terrible and these intellectuals disagree with them so much that they refuse to actually read and find out what those thoughts are!
And all Ann Coulter's books end up on this list the day they are even rumored to exist. In a discussion of another of Ms. Coulter's works I was informed by one of her detractors that he didn't need to read her books, he'd heard her live once.
Well...how can I argue with that level of experience? He'd seen her live...once.
Look, I know that many of you grind your teeth at the way Ms Coulter writes (and speaks) she's in your face and in some cases a literary bomb thrower. It's popular to sneer at and call this writer names, evil, hateful. childish (if she is she is only childish in the way the child in the story The Emperor's New Clothes is childish in that she doesn't fear to point out that our "leaders" are naked even if everyone else is afraid or too brainwashed to speak). Many, many people on "political" or ideological grounds won't read her books. Still, this book is packed with facts...unpleasant facts, facts we've as a society refused to talk about but actual facts none the less.
Also if it helps you feel better my ox got a bit gored in this book as Ms Coulter discusses some of the more negative parts of my ancestry's "proclivities" (I'm from the Eastern Mountains...Hatfield and McCoy country. As a matter of fact my late wife was half Hatfield half McCoy). But facts are facts.
This is an excellent book and if you will try to read it with an open mind (and control your anger at phrasing and humor) I think there are some very thought provoking points here for anyone. The facts in this book are free for everyone to find (in spite of the movement to rewrite recent history as well as more distant history) I lived through much of it and I remember.
We are at a huge crossroad and all of us, each of us must decide where "we" where "all of us" will go now. Even if you leave this book disagreeing with it, give yourself the chance to disagree with it. I've read Marx, I've read Hitler, I've read Alinsky and others. How can I know whether I disagree without reading what they say? Give yourself a chance...read and look at it. What lines up with how you live and how you want to live. Do you agree or disagree? You can't KNOW till you consider.
Are you aware that here at Goodreads we have a List titled "Books I'd Rather Die Than Read"? Well, these open minded literates have listed many, many books that they hate so much they refuse to find out what's in them or what the writers have to say. There are some people who's thoughts are so objectionable, so terrible and these intellectuals disagree with them so much that they refuse to actually read and find out what those thoughts are!
And all Ann Coulter's books end up on this list the day they are even rumored to exist. In a discussion of another of Ms. Coulter's works I was informed by one of her detractors that he didn't need to read her books, he'd heard her live once.
Well...how can I argue with that level of experience? He'd seen her live...once.
Look, I know that many of you grind your teeth at the way Ms Coulter writes (and speaks) she's in your face and in some cases a literary bomb thrower. It's popular to sneer at and call this writer names, evil, hateful. childish (if she is she is only childish in the way the child in the story The Emperor's New Clothes is childish in that she doesn't fear to point out that our "leaders" are naked even if everyone else is afraid or too brainwashed to speak). Many, many people on "political" or ideological grounds won't read her books. Still, this book is packed with facts...unpleasant facts, facts we've as a society refused to talk about but actual facts none the less.
Also if it helps you feel better my ox got a bit gored in this book as Ms Coulter discusses some of the more negative parts of my ancestry's "proclivities" (I'm from the Eastern Mountains...Hatfield and McCoy country. As a matter of fact my late wife was half Hatfield half McCoy). But facts are facts.
This is an excellent book and if you will try to read it with an open mind (and control your anger at phrasing and humor) I think there are some very thought provoking points here for anyone. The facts in this book are free for everyone to find (in spite of the movement to rewrite recent history as well as more distant history) I lived through much of it and I remember.
We are at a huge crossroad and all of us, each of us must decide where "we" where "all of us" will go now. Even if you leave this book disagreeing with it, give yourself the chance to disagree with it. I've read Marx, I've read Hitler, I've read Alinsky and others. How can I know whether I disagree without reading what they say? Give yourself a chance...read and look at it. What lines up with how you live and how you want to live. Do you agree or disagree? You can't KNOW till you consider.
February 14, 2013
When Ann Coulter writes columns or speaks on television, I normally avoid it. She just has a smug arrogance that is very off-putting. But then when I read almost all her books (and Mugged is no exception), I come away educated, informed, and well armed.
Mugged is a reminder of the bizarre warping of history which has occurred in my lifetime. The Republican party was founded to fight slavery, and was historically the party that fought racism. All the way until 1964. Then suddenly the Democrats became the champions of the civil rights struggle, and that's the way I learned the history, that Democrats were now and always the champions of civil rights. Mugged does a FABULOUS job of devastating that false argument, and explaining how it happened (I'll give you a hint, look who's gotten rich because of the "civil rights movement" since 1964. I recommend it to anyone who has been mystified at the hijacking of the civil rights movement.
Would only be better if it contain more ideas on how to counter this.
Mugged is a reminder of the bizarre warping of history which has occurred in my lifetime. The Republican party was founded to fight slavery, and was historically the party that fought racism. All the way until 1964. Then suddenly the Democrats became the champions of the civil rights struggle, and that's the way I learned the history, that Democrats were now and always the champions of civil rights. Mugged does a FABULOUS job of devastating that false argument, and explaining how it happened (I'll give you a hint, look who's gotten rich because of the "civil rights movement" since 1964. I recommend it to anyone who has been mystified at the hijacking of the civil rights movement.
Would only be better if it contain more ideas on how to counter this.
February 2, 2022
In this book, Coulter asserts that liberals, especially Democrats, have taken credit for undeserved civil rights advances while Republicans are unfairly accused of being racists.
Of course, I was shocked when, thanks to Ann, I discovered the History of Liberals with her book "Demonic". I think this book goes deeper.
The high amount of cases, evidence, and data in this book is enough to convince anyone to never, ever talk to a Democrat again
Of course, I was shocked when, thanks to Ann, I discovered the History of Liberals with her book "Demonic". I think this book goes deeper.
The high amount of cases, evidence, and data in this book is enough to convince anyone to never, ever talk to a Democrat again
January 15, 2013
It is very, very hard to read a book that you know is reflective of a point of view that you do not share. I admit that I started reading this book knowing that I thought Ann's premise was false. I thought she was playing a cynical game to make a fast buck: writing easy drivel for an audience that has a very narrow, and unenlightened, world view and generally low expectations. I also have to admit that I only read the first two-thirds of it, and that I dumped it in an airport bathroom trash can. The fact that I purchased this book at (almost) full cover price and gave Ann and her publisher any of my money made me weep a little on the flight home. I wish I could have returned it for a refund. She makes even Bill O'Reilly seem sane and reasonable by comparison.
If you are already a paranoid, self-indulgent, poorly-informed and intellectually lazy bigot this is your kind of book. Otherwise, you probably won't enjoy it.
If you are already a paranoid, self-indulgent, poorly-informed and intellectually lazy bigot this is your kind of book. Otherwise, you probably won't enjoy it.
December 29, 2012
This book is much better than I anticipated. Ann has a sharp tongue at times and I was hoping that it would not get in the way and for the most part it doesn't.
I didn't so much read the book as study it. I found myself not only reading scores of paragraphs and whole section over again, but also frequently going on-line to validate resources that she used and to gather additional information from other sources. I personally didn't find any discrepancies.
I knew that Al Sharpton was/is quite a piece of work, but I didn't realize to what extent. Former New York mayor Lindsay is right up there with him.
I know that people from the liberal political persuasion consider themselves the champions of the minorities and the downtrodden but some of their claims are so divorced from reality as to be scandalous; not the least of which is civil rights.
After viewing the Movie "Lincoln" last week with the focus of that movie being the 13th amendment and how the republicans had to fight tooth and nail with the democrats to get the amendment passed, I was looking forward to reading this book.
Listening to the liberals rant today on the majority of the TV networks you would believe that they have long been the champions of civil rights. That simply isn't the case and "Mugged" will give you plenty of information to that end.
Does Ann Coulter come off with a right wing bias? Of course, she is a republican. That in itself certainly doesn't make her wrong.
I can think of a few folks who would benefit from reading this book though I doubt that they can get over themselves long enough to read it.
Check it out and check the sources. You may be surprised about civil rights legislation from the 1860's through the 1960's. You may also come to understand that the liberal movement has conceivably caused more harm to the minorities than good. At times, the way the story is told today reminds one of Orwell's "1984". "Mugged" may help to refresh your memory.
I didn't so much read the book as study it. I found myself not only reading scores of paragraphs and whole section over again, but also frequently going on-line to validate resources that she used and to gather additional information from other sources. I personally didn't find any discrepancies.
I knew that Al Sharpton was/is quite a piece of work, but I didn't realize to what extent. Former New York mayor Lindsay is right up there with him.
I know that people from the liberal political persuasion consider themselves the champions of the minorities and the downtrodden but some of their claims are so divorced from reality as to be scandalous; not the least of which is civil rights.
After viewing the Movie "Lincoln" last week with the focus of that movie being the 13th amendment and how the republicans had to fight tooth and nail with the democrats to get the amendment passed, I was looking forward to reading this book.
Listening to the liberals rant today on the majority of the TV networks you would believe that they have long been the champions of civil rights. That simply isn't the case and "Mugged" will give you plenty of information to that end.
Does Ann Coulter come off with a right wing bias? Of course, she is a republican. That in itself certainly doesn't make her wrong.
I can think of a few folks who would benefit from reading this book though I doubt that they can get over themselves long enough to read it.
Check it out and check the sources. You may be surprised about civil rights legislation from the 1860's through the 1960's. You may also come to understand that the liberal movement has conceivably caused more harm to the minorities than good. At times, the way the story is told today reminds one of Orwell's "1984". "Mugged" may help to refresh your memory.
August 11, 2014
I was thinking I needed to read a text from a viewpoint that is distant from my own. I have seen this author on a show or two and felt that she was always cast as the bad guy and that at intervals she might speak with some knowledge of the backstory of the inevitably controversial topics she explores, adding balance to my beliefs. I admire those who speak loud and swing hard. Surely there will be some well-supported assertions that will make me think twice about my political/social leanings. So I get the book in the light of not-rushing-to-judgment. I want to challenge my own tendency toward conclusions that are the proof of sloppy political thought. So I read “Mugged,” by the infamous Ann Coulter.
I must share the text is abysmal on every level. Her fact checking seems absent. Her organization follows the whimsy of a preteen’s BB gun next to a field full of squirrels: “So much to shoot and so little time.” Her callous disregard to common civility is at first bracing, but then becomes nauseating. Her humor, if it can be called that, is mean-spirited and vitriolic on every point. In short it is more negative than Kaczynski’s manifesto, and all while be shopped around by a chipper camera-ready spokesperson for disrespect.
The world that she apparently sees through her windshield is happily not the same one in which I reside. This hateful and overripe insult is the fertile soil in which one-sided seeds clamber up to give the dim witted a pat on the back to affirm the prejudiced plants still surviving after the fifties. The profound macular degenerated views are stated in the pithy language of the objective, only-sane-person-in-the-nuthouse tone, which might easily convince a person of like mind that this might pass for objective or true. Instead, to me, the text models candor but not honesty. It is direct but not fair. It is unflinching when the topic calls for respect.
The text is unrelenting by this apologist for the superior WASP class. I wanted to complete the book as one might want to withstand the cinnamon challenge: wondering if it’s possible to take so much of something so unpleasant in large doses, in the hopes that is does not cause pain or sickness.
Her repeated assertion that only folks who are minorities—or who run with minority pals—have any business addressing minority issues seems hypocritical at best and un-American at worst. Yet each “liberal” who does not possess the minority cred, she, Ann Coulter, determines adequate is dismissed as unqualified. Add to this the raft of straw men she sets up through each chapter, from any generation that passes through her mind, to knock down with her acerbic rebuttal: from Bernard Goetz, to Trayvon Martin, to the Black Panthers, to Rodney King, to Obama. Each a harbinger of the damage that MSNBC and NPR is wreaking on an unsuspecting nation where no racism exists. Page after page a lesson in common fallacy usage and character assassination. The common trope of “imagine if a white guy had done that” is used endlessly to conjure the sad burden white people are made face in the world of disempowered white folk embattled by pernicious liberal media.
Divisive does not really touch on the energy brought to bear in defining all of the boogeymen in her world. While I am happy that we live in a country that allows the fringe on both sides the right to publish their rants, it saddens me that one can get rich and even be seen as respectable when their claims are so damaging and the price they pay is wealth and fame.
I must share the text is abysmal on every level. Her fact checking seems absent. Her organization follows the whimsy of a preteen’s BB gun next to a field full of squirrels: “So much to shoot and so little time.” Her callous disregard to common civility is at first bracing, but then becomes nauseating. Her humor, if it can be called that, is mean-spirited and vitriolic on every point. In short it is more negative than Kaczynski’s manifesto, and all while be shopped around by a chipper camera-ready spokesperson for disrespect.
The world that she apparently sees through her windshield is happily not the same one in which I reside. This hateful and overripe insult is the fertile soil in which one-sided seeds clamber up to give the dim witted a pat on the back to affirm the prejudiced plants still surviving after the fifties. The profound macular degenerated views are stated in the pithy language of the objective, only-sane-person-in-the-nuthouse tone, which might easily convince a person of like mind that this might pass for objective or true. Instead, to me, the text models candor but not honesty. It is direct but not fair. It is unflinching when the topic calls for respect.
The text is unrelenting by this apologist for the superior WASP class. I wanted to complete the book as one might want to withstand the cinnamon challenge: wondering if it’s possible to take so much of something so unpleasant in large doses, in the hopes that is does not cause pain or sickness.
Her repeated assertion that only folks who are minorities—or who run with minority pals—have any business addressing minority issues seems hypocritical at best and un-American at worst. Yet each “liberal” who does not possess the minority cred, she, Ann Coulter, determines adequate is dismissed as unqualified. Add to this the raft of straw men she sets up through each chapter, from any generation that passes through her mind, to knock down with her acerbic rebuttal: from Bernard Goetz, to Trayvon Martin, to the Black Panthers, to Rodney King, to Obama. Each a harbinger of the damage that MSNBC and NPR is wreaking on an unsuspecting nation where no racism exists. Page after page a lesson in common fallacy usage and character assassination. The common trope of “imagine if a white guy had done that” is used endlessly to conjure the sad burden white people are made face in the world of disempowered white folk embattled by pernicious liberal media.
Divisive does not really touch on the energy brought to bear in defining all of the boogeymen in her world. While I am happy that we live in a country that allows the fringe on both sides the right to publish their rants, it saddens me that one can get rich and even be seen as respectable when their claims are so damaging and the price they pay is wealth and fame.
October 14, 2012
While I know this particular author is highly partisan and is known for her political stingers this book is a good look at what has happened politically with race in the past several decades. The left wants to label the right as a bunch of racists who want to put blacks back into the "chains of slavery" which is and never has been more further from the truth.
The Republican party has battled for civil rights going at least as far back as to Abraham Lincoln. It is a pity that more people no nothing of their country's history than what they hear from Liberal Democrats who seek nothing more than to provide free handouts for votes (Reminds me of the student body elections where they promise hamburgers and pizza for lunch, two hour recesses in high school, and no homework.).
What I found most interesting was that racial problems moved suddenly in the 1960s and 1970s to more liberal leaning areas such as California, New York, Chicago, Detroit, etc. away from the liberal leaning South. Still conservatives are blamed.
The only failing Ms. Coulter has given this book has been to cross historical timelines that do not relate to one another here and there and her abundance of name calling (Although my favorite is the Bob Beckel description as a "fatuous blowhard" on page 5 where he tries to justify criticizing Condie Rice's competency by emphasizing his involvement in the Civil Rights movement while he was still in school. If I had been drinking milk . . .) which from my point of view weakens the topic matter.
Take what you will (the history) and ignore the rest (personal ranting). Still a good book.
The Republican party has battled for civil rights going at least as far back as to Abraham Lincoln. It is a pity that more people no nothing of their country's history than what they hear from Liberal Democrats who seek nothing more than to provide free handouts for votes (Reminds me of the student body elections where they promise hamburgers and pizza for lunch, two hour recesses in high school, and no homework.).
What I found most interesting was that racial problems moved suddenly in the 1960s and 1970s to more liberal leaning areas such as California, New York, Chicago, Detroit, etc. away from the liberal leaning South. Still conservatives are blamed.
The only failing Ms. Coulter has given this book has been to cross historical timelines that do not relate to one another here and there and her abundance of name calling (Although my favorite is the Bob Beckel description as a "fatuous blowhard" on page 5 where he tries to justify criticizing Condie Rice's competency by emphasizing his involvement in the Civil Rights movement while he was still in school. If I had been drinking milk . . .) which from my point of view weakens the topic matter.
Take what you will (the history) and ignore the rest (personal ranting). Still a good book.
December 3, 2012
I never imagined myself reading Ann Coulter, but once I began, I could not put this book down. Her writing style is logical and humorous, but if you aren't familiar with her sarcasm, you may misinterpret her meaning. The premise of her book is very serious, though, and unless you have witnessed some of these events, you may find her premise hard to believe. But Coulter is right on in her interpretations of the cases she presents. It is fascinating to have the details of these under one cover. I suspect the general public may never read this. Their loss. May we never forget history.
November 23, 2013
On stylistic grounds alone, I do not like name-calling in political discourse, either from my side of the aisle or from the other side.
When a writer states "these people are stupid", then the other people fire back "here, this statement just made by the writer proves that those other people are haters and are stupid to boot".
The net result is the nearest thing to perpetual motion being set into effect, as both go on calling each other "stupid haters".
When re-acquainted with an old schoolmate, he indicated he had become very liberal. Over a period of weeks it became clear that he had no liberal views and knew nothing of a liberal philosophy, much less did he know anything of any noted liberal philosophers.
What he did have was obsessive contempt for conservatives that would seep into every opportunity. In effect what he had was hate.
I will state to my dying day that contempt for a position is not in itself any kind of position.
OK, now finally, on the the book itself and Coulter as a writer.
My quibble here is that after some few pages of assertions and analysis, points that may be well worth real consideration, she will drop into a talk-show style of name-calling in her writing. This is not directed towards blacks, but towards liberals.
Doing this detracts greatly from the presentation of possibly valid assertions or assessments that really should stand or fall on their own merits, and on the research and analysis behind them.
Moreover, doing this allows for the "stupid haters" cycle to start up in the mind of the reader and obliterate the point she just invested in making.
Here is the pivot: if the assertion at hand, the book, and the author do not find favor with a reader's existing mindset, the name-calling gives the reader an easy and clean-conscience way to dismiss the lot of them. "Coulter said something hostile towards somebody, so anything she says is automatically wrong. Any assertions she makes about arithmetic or gravity will be wrong - the inverse of correct." .... See, my problem is that Coulter herself opens the door to this kind of reaction.
I wish for the sake of a clear argument that an editor would have lined out some name-calling directed at liberals.
Perhaps I again find myself wanting a book to be something, but the book wants to be something else.
When a writer states "these people are stupid", then the other people fire back "here, this statement just made by the writer proves that those other people are haters and are stupid to boot".
The net result is the nearest thing to perpetual motion being set into effect, as both go on calling each other "stupid haters".
When re-acquainted with an old schoolmate, he indicated he had become very liberal. Over a period of weeks it became clear that he had no liberal views and knew nothing of a liberal philosophy, much less did he know anything of any noted liberal philosophers.
What he did have was obsessive contempt for conservatives that would seep into every opportunity. In effect what he had was hate.
I will state to my dying day that contempt for a position is not in itself any kind of position.
OK, now finally, on the the book itself and Coulter as a writer.
My quibble here is that after some few pages of assertions and analysis, points that may be well worth real consideration, she will drop into a talk-show style of name-calling in her writing. This is not directed towards blacks, but towards liberals.
Doing this detracts greatly from the presentation of possibly valid assertions or assessments that really should stand or fall on their own merits, and on the research and analysis behind them.
Moreover, doing this allows for the "stupid haters" cycle to start up in the mind of the reader and obliterate the point she just invested in making.
Here is the pivot: if the assertion at hand, the book, and the author do not find favor with a reader's existing mindset, the name-calling gives the reader an easy and clean-conscience way to dismiss the lot of them. "Coulter said something hostile towards somebody, so anything she says is automatically wrong. Any assertions she makes about arithmetic or gravity will be wrong - the inverse of correct." .... See, my problem is that Coulter herself opens the door to this kind of reaction.
I wish for the sake of a clear argument that an editor would have lined out some name-calling directed at liberals.
Perhaps I again find myself wanting a book to be something, but the book wants to be something else.
November 26, 2012
I like Ann Coulter's snarky, sarcastic, wry wit; it is similar to mine. I enjoyed the audio version of "How to Talk to a Liberal...If You Must" and I have heard her speak enough that it was as if she was reading it to me as I was reading. That said, I can say that her voice gets on my nerves after a while.
But the context of the book keeps that to a minimum distraction. Many of the examples she uses to cite the race-baiting and race-politics that the liberal establishment engages in daily I was already aware of in varying degrees (Rodney King, Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd and the KKK, Amadou Diallo, Tawana Brawley, Clarence Thomas, a couple of the incidents surrounding Farrakhan's "Nation of Islam" thugs). But there were quite a few examples of "boy who cried wolf" racism claims that frustrate the reader because we don't know more about them. (This Coulter pins effectively on the media which, after whipping itself up into a frenzy over every claim (mostly false) of racism, when the falsehood is exposed the lie and the media's expansion of the lie, the media drops like a hot potato.)
Coulter gives a litany of those responsible for exploiting racial and identity politics with examples and sardonic wit and style. She definitley has an axe to grind, and one gets the feeling that her frustration comes from the fact that the argument (discussion, debate, whatever you want to call it) about race is such an easy one for conservatives that she is flabbergasted liberals claim the mantle of civil protections. Her book is replete with examples of Democrats' overt and covert racism. The overarching theme of the book of course is that liberal mentality eliminates the possibility of liberals seeing anyone but themselves as enlightened or sympathetic/empathetic enough, and that we are all just children in need of their guidance and wisdom.
But the context of the book keeps that to a minimum distraction. Many of the examples she uses to cite the race-baiting and race-politics that the liberal establishment engages in daily I was already aware of in varying degrees (Rodney King, Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd and the KKK, Amadou Diallo, Tawana Brawley, Clarence Thomas, a couple of the incidents surrounding Farrakhan's "Nation of Islam" thugs). But there were quite a few examples of "boy who cried wolf" racism claims that frustrate the reader because we don't know more about them. (This Coulter pins effectively on the media which, after whipping itself up into a frenzy over every claim (mostly false) of racism, when the falsehood is exposed the lie and the media's expansion of the lie, the media drops like a hot potato.)
Coulter gives a litany of those responsible for exploiting racial and identity politics with examples and sardonic wit and style. She definitley has an axe to grind, and one gets the feeling that her frustration comes from the fact that the argument (discussion, debate, whatever you want to call it) about race is such an easy one for conservatives that she is flabbergasted liberals claim the mantle of civil protections. Her book is replete with examples of Democrats' overt and covert racism. The overarching theme of the book of course is that liberal mentality eliminates the possibility of liberals seeing anyone but themselves as enlightened or sympathetic/empathetic enough, and that we are all just children in need of their guidance and wisdom.
May 2, 2013
Well-documented and thorough, Coulter delivers a tirade on all the ways the left lies about and exploits race. There were a few ho-hum parts, as she has a tendency to trail off on tangents; otherwise it's informative. This is not a topic widely discussed, unfortunately, but Ann wittingly lays out the facts. I'm glad she had the guts to write it. I so tire of the mass media contorting the issues to fit their agendas and playing into the hands of those who invent ways for minorities to be offended. Political correctness and the race card have been exhausted; they are completely worn and threadbare. Time to uncover the truth about the harm being inflicted and the absolute madness that they are. Not to mention the realities of the Civil Rights movement (like who was actually behind it and who opposed it). Ms Coulter's book is a start.
February 2, 2013
A stellar compilation of deceitful racist rantings by an out-of-control media to feather their socialist agenda. The lies and accusations spewed by these America haters is reprehensible. Coulter has documented her research well in support of the truth. The Left and the media are orchestrating a sham upon the American people unprecedented in recorded history. The white hatred apparent in this fine work is very troubling and should make your blood boil no matter what race you are. What must be learned here is that these evil principles could be used on any race. None of is are safe.
March 25, 2013
I feel like it is always good to educate yourself on the feelings and ideas of your opposition, especially when referring to political leanings. That is why I decided to read this book and if anything it just reinforced my belief in the Democratic Party. There were some things I learned and many references I had to look up, which was something I enjoyed. Unfortunately. Coulter's hatred of the Democratic Party and liberals is spread so thick that it's hard to swallow. Not my cup of tea but I am glad that I read it.
October 7, 2012
Pretty much what we've come to expect from Ann over the years: humor, biting commentary, well-researched, heavily referenced facts, and unsparing truths told about the negative affects liberalism has had on the past few generations of blacks in this country. There was one huge surprise for me in the book though: she writes very complimentary towards one Democrat: mayor Cory Brooker of Newark, NJ. That has to be a first for Ann in any of her books. I'm not remembering any others.
By the way, this book is not anti-black, It's anti-white liberal guilt that has kept many blacks in this country as a permanent underclass. Yes, the race pimps such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson come in for their fair share of discussion, but this doesn't make up the main part of the book.
By the way, this book is not anti-black, It's anti-white liberal guilt that has kept many blacks in this country as a permanent underclass. Yes, the race pimps such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson come in for their fair share of discussion, but this doesn't make up the main part of the book.
snark-opportunity
July 2, 2016This doesn't really count as a "snark opportunity" because I think my "crazy white-hating leftist" brain would explode long before I'd ever finish it. But I could probably write a 20,000 character negative review just based off of the sample chapter-- it wouldn't be that hard. I read the sample chapter of one of Coulter's other books and I just couldn't continue. It made me cringe hard, not because I didn't agree, but because it didn't make any sense.
April 4, 2016
WARNING: If you do not read this book to the very end - Do not comment in the negative, or you are indeed AN IDIOT!
Such a depressing topic, and yet Ann Coulter is so much fun.
I would like to know what more Liberal Democrats think of these facts and research. Are the liberals endlessly declaring HATE CRIME and RACISM everytime they need to get in the news? It sure appears that way. Did Obama win his presidential campaigns based on being an oppressed black man in a White guilt society? This book certainly PROVES that.
But, what happens isn't only applied in the Democratic party. When Black Republicans run for positions - Any type of besmirching is more than appropriate based on the endless liberal media and lies.
_____________________
I was worried that Coulter was totally biased and assumed all Republicans were Saints. I was very glad for a healthy comment mentioned: (pg. 260)
"If your tastes run toward Democrats, there is Cory Booker, mayor of Newark and the most impressive elected Democrat in the nation. It wasn't white guilt that got Booker his job: In his first two mayoral runs, Booker ran against black Democrats and was attacked for not being black enough. The second time, in 2006, Booker won, becoming the nations's only postracial Democrat...Booker had reduced murders in Newark by 36 percent...his help getting downtown Newark its first grocery store in more than twenty years..."
As much as I cheer on Conservative folks. It is a fact that there are some great and wonderful liberals out there (confused and lied to of course). But the good people should be the first to rise up and challenge their own parties when things are getting stupid. (Or at least acknowledge stupid for what it is: Donald Trump for instance. He is what he is.)
This book takes us through the media insanity of O.J. Simpson, Rodney King, Jim Jones Peoples Temple, Edward Summers, Trayvon Martin ...too bad the book came out just before the horror and riots of Ferguson Missouri: that was a perfect example to justify and VALIDATE this entire effort by Ann Coulter. Black folks rioting to prove injustice??? Not very convincing. Actually proves the point against them. Thankfully there are always GREAT Black folks that stand strong as model citizens (and God Bless those African American police officers we can trust our cities to.)
Sadly, the history of the Klu Klux Klan and its Democratic connections is an endless embarrassment that seldom gets mentioned in the media. It's a common theme throughout this book. Seems like just digging up old dirt - and yet it's often perfectly applicable. Wonder how Oprah and Whoopie get around this Democratic insanity?
Non-connected interesting info to support Coulter: By Dan O'Donnell"
"in its early days, the group was loosely bound by one main principle: launching a reign of terror against Republican leaders black and white.
Racism was, of course, a guiding principle, but not quite as guiding as the hatred of the Republicans... Klan members knew that given the chance, the blacks in their communities would vote Republican...
Across the South, the Klan and other terrorist groups used brutal violence to intimidate Republican voters. In Kansas, over 2,000 murders were committed in connection with the election. In Georgia, the number of threats and beatings was even higher. And in Louisiana, 1000 blacks were killed as the election neared. In those three states, Democrats won decisive victories at the polls."
So...
Mugged doesn't fail to show us how the Democrats are endlessly using Blacks to continue their hatred of Republicans. And sadly, many African Americans are too filled with hatred to even comprehend who their real enemy is.
For them: I say, simply read this book. It's quite a history lesson.
I would love to read a book showing the OTHER side. If there is one. But i've seen enough embarrassing crap by Clinton, Obama, Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore and endless other democrats to even begin to believe in any non-abortion, Illegal drugs, Common sense laws, or values and goodness inherent in the liberal view.
WE have these same problems in Canada: Pot-smoking, baby-aborting, crime supporting/Cop hating, money wasting Liberals always focusing on the wrong things for a healthy country. Progressive and liberal often means: moving beyond the tried and true values a society SHOULD quest for...like spoiled teenagers who hate everything their parents valued.
Such a depressing topic, and yet Ann Coulter is so much fun.
I would like to know what more Liberal Democrats think of these facts and research. Are the liberals endlessly declaring HATE CRIME and RACISM everytime they need to get in the news? It sure appears that way. Did Obama win his presidential campaigns based on being an oppressed black man in a White guilt society? This book certainly PROVES that.
But, what happens isn't only applied in the Democratic party. When Black Republicans run for positions - Any type of besmirching is more than appropriate based on the endless liberal media and lies.
_____________________
I was worried that Coulter was totally biased and assumed all Republicans were Saints. I was very glad for a healthy comment mentioned: (pg. 260)
"If your tastes run toward Democrats, there is Cory Booker, mayor of Newark and the most impressive elected Democrat in the nation. It wasn't white guilt that got Booker his job: In his first two mayoral runs, Booker ran against black Democrats and was attacked for not being black enough. The second time, in 2006, Booker won, becoming the nations's only postracial Democrat...Booker had reduced murders in Newark by 36 percent...his help getting downtown Newark its first grocery store in more than twenty years..."
As much as I cheer on Conservative folks. It is a fact that there are some great and wonderful liberals out there (confused and lied to of course). But the good people should be the first to rise up and challenge their own parties when things are getting stupid. (Or at least acknowledge stupid for what it is: Donald Trump for instance. He is what he is.)
This book takes us through the media insanity of O.J. Simpson, Rodney King, Jim Jones Peoples Temple, Edward Summers, Trayvon Martin ...too bad the book came out just before the horror and riots of Ferguson Missouri: that was a perfect example to justify and VALIDATE this entire effort by Ann Coulter. Black folks rioting to prove injustice??? Not very convincing. Actually proves the point against them. Thankfully there are always GREAT Black folks that stand strong as model citizens (and God Bless those African American police officers we can trust our cities to.)
Sadly, the history of the Klu Klux Klan and its Democratic connections is an endless embarrassment that seldom gets mentioned in the media. It's a common theme throughout this book. Seems like just digging up old dirt - and yet it's often perfectly applicable. Wonder how Oprah and Whoopie get around this Democratic insanity?
Non-connected interesting info to support Coulter: By Dan O'Donnell"
"in its early days, the group was loosely bound by one main principle: launching a reign of terror against Republican leaders black and white.
Racism was, of course, a guiding principle, but not quite as guiding as the hatred of the Republicans... Klan members knew that given the chance, the blacks in their communities would vote Republican...
Across the South, the Klan and other terrorist groups used brutal violence to intimidate Republican voters. In Kansas, over 2,000 murders were committed in connection with the election. In Georgia, the number of threats and beatings was even higher. And in Louisiana, 1000 blacks were killed as the election neared. In those three states, Democrats won decisive victories at the polls."
So...
Mugged doesn't fail to show us how the Democrats are endlessly using Blacks to continue their hatred of Republicans. And sadly, many African Americans are too filled with hatred to even comprehend who their real enemy is.
For them: I say, simply read this book. It's quite a history lesson.
I would love to read a book showing the OTHER side. If there is one. But i've seen enough embarrassing crap by Clinton, Obama, Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore and endless other democrats to even begin to believe in any non-abortion, Illegal drugs, Common sense laws, or values and goodness inherent in the liberal view.
WE have these same problems in Canada: Pot-smoking, baby-aborting, crime supporting/Cop hating, money wasting Liberals always focusing on the wrong things for a healthy country. Progressive and liberal often means: moving beyond the tried and true values a society SHOULD quest for...like spoiled teenagers who hate everything their parents valued.
November 12, 2012
Ann Coulter might write deathless prose but for the fact that she is too amused by her own cutting humor and the zingers that she freely admits to collecting from like-minded friends. That said, "Mugged" remains an important and honest book, because Coulter looks searchingly at racial demagoguery and how it has been exploited as a political strategy.
If you think that Democrats have a better civil rights record than Republicans do, wonder whether the mainstream media can still be trusted, or suspect that baseless charges of racism have been leveled against conservatives too frequently, then you would profit from reading this book.
Coulter apparently wrote "Mugged" as an answer to demagoguery that did not happen. Except for a widely-mocked outburst from Vice President Joe Biden falsely suggesting to an African-American audience that Republicans would "put you all back in chains," President Obama's 2012 election campaign soft-pedaled racial demagoguery because it seemed smarter to sugar-coat his mixed record and lean hard on caricatures of Republican economic and social positions.
Coulter did not see that shift coming, but "Mugged" is not much hurt by that error. Her miscalculation is small beer when stacked against the rich brew of dishonesty that we actually *have* tasted: With high-profile examples like O.J. Simpson and Tawana Brawley backing her up, Coulter shows in a conversational way how charges of racism have been used as "argument enders" by Democrats since at least the Lyndon Johnson administration. The result is not a pleasant read, but it is brave, informative, and sometimes ruefully funny.
Highly recommended, with two caveats to keep in mind (one negative and one positive): You will not appreciate this book if you do not follow the news, or if you think Ann Coulter is irredeemably stupid.
If you think that Democrats have a better civil rights record than Republicans do, wonder whether the mainstream media can still be trusted, or suspect that baseless charges of racism have been leveled against conservatives too frequently, then you would profit from reading this book.
Coulter apparently wrote "Mugged" as an answer to demagoguery that did not happen. Except for a widely-mocked outburst from Vice President Joe Biden falsely suggesting to an African-American audience that Republicans would "put you all back in chains," President Obama's 2012 election campaign soft-pedaled racial demagoguery because it seemed smarter to sugar-coat his mixed record and lean hard on caricatures of Republican economic and social positions.
Coulter did not see that shift coming, but "Mugged" is not much hurt by that error. Her miscalculation is small beer when stacked against the rich brew of dishonesty that we actually *have* tasted: With high-profile examples like O.J. Simpson and Tawana Brawley backing her up, Coulter shows in a conversational way how charges of racism have been used as "argument enders" by Democrats since at least the Lyndon Johnson administration. The result is not a pleasant read, but it is brave, informative, and sometimes ruefully funny.
Highly recommended, with two caveats to keep in mind (one negative and one positive): You will not appreciate this book if you do not follow the news, or if you think Ann Coulter is irredeemably stupid.
April 9, 2013
What an education! Ann Coulter chronicles a lot of history & events that occurred before I was born and from when I was young. So many shameful actions by those who claim to be caring for and working on behalf of racial justice and equality.
I know that many are "offended" by Ann Coulter's style. I admit that her humor is dark and obviously not politically correct. But she speaks truth and she certainly has courage to speak out the way that she does.
Political correctness and the racial hate mongering of the Left- NOT the Right)is really doing, and has done, a tremendous amount of damage to our country.
At times this book had me near tears because of the dishonesty and dispicable acts of so many.
I know that many are "offended" by Ann Coulter's style. I admit that her humor is dark and obviously not politically correct. But she speaks truth and she certainly has courage to speak out the way that she does.
Political correctness and the racial hate mongering of the Left- NOT the Right)is really doing, and has done, a tremendous amount of damage to our country.
At times this book had me near tears because of the dishonesty and dispicable acts of so many.
October 3, 2012
Loved it. I was amazed at the amount of research that Ann and her staff have done to support the often-controversial parts of this book.
She's fun to read and extrememly informative.
This was not my favorite of all her books but I ended up reading much of it aloud to my husband, since much of her information supports what we have discussed.
She's fun to read and extrememly informative.
This was not my favorite of all her books but I ended up reading much of it aloud to my husband, since much of her information supports what we have discussed.
July 19, 2013
Here is Ann’s thesis:
For 100 years Republicans were accepted as the bulwark against racism – slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, black voter suppression were all supported by a faction of the Democrat party. Republicans were more likely to support civil rights legislation in the 50’s and 60’s and were virtually the sole supporters for 80 years following the civil war. A Republican desegregated the military (Eisenhower) and real desegregation was enforced by another (Nixon).
Fighting against harsh Democrat headwinds, by the mid 60’s government had done much of what it could do legislatively to reverse institutionalized racist policies (it can not change a man’s heart, this comes through societal and individual changes). Once the problem had been fixed Democrats claimed credit of all of the advances and began demagoging Republicans as racist while simultaneously setting about policies which destroyed the black family.
One would think that after electing a president of mixed race, it would be emblematic that racism is largely a thing of the past. However since the election of Obama race relations have deteriorated. Why? It is quite simple. Like any bureaucracy or institution, the race industry is doing everything it can to keep itself relevant. Al Sharpton and other race baiters will do whatever they can to keep strife between the races alive – if they acknowledge that there are more pressing issues than the largely dead white on black racism, Al and his ilk are in the unemployment office.
Great book.
For 100 years Republicans were accepted as the bulwark against racism – slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, black voter suppression were all supported by a faction of the Democrat party. Republicans were more likely to support civil rights legislation in the 50’s and 60’s and were virtually the sole supporters for 80 years following the civil war. A Republican desegregated the military (Eisenhower) and real desegregation was enforced by another (Nixon).
Fighting against harsh Democrat headwinds, by the mid 60’s government had done much of what it could do legislatively to reverse institutionalized racist policies (it can not change a man’s heart, this comes through societal and individual changes). Once the problem had been fixed Democrats claimed credit of all of the advances and began demagoging Republicans as racist while simultaneously setting about policies which destroyed the black family.
One would think that after electing a president of mixed race, it would be emblematic that racism is largely a thing of the past. However since the election of Obama race relations have deteriorated. Why? It is quite simple. Like any bureaucracy or institution, the race industry is doing everything it can to keep itself relevant. Al Sharpton and other race baiters will do whatever they can to keep strife between the races alive – if they acknowledge that there are more pressing issues than the largely dead white on black racism, Al and his ilk are in the unemployment office.
Great book.
October 8, 2012
This was an amazing book. Ms Coulter goes into great detail about numerous racial topics. From the civil rights days through the '70s, Rodney King, OJ, Jackson, Sharpton, all the way to Obama. Turns out Obama is a huge race-baiter. He uses the race card so much, he needs two decks. She points out how all the great racial progress happened because of Republicans. The Democrats jumped on the civil rights train as it was leaving the station, then hijacked the train and called it theirs. One thing that was enlightening was how she debunked that whole theory of the "Southern Strategy". The common misconception that the GOP appealed to racists to win the south.
There's so much information and so many "a-ha" moments, I couldn't begin to recite them all. If you want a clear picture of race in America's recent history, I'd encourage you to read this. Going with Ann's theme, me saying all this makes me a racist.
Then again, if you hate Ann and think she's a rude, disgusting person, then you'll think it's all a bunch of lies anyway.
There's so much information and so many "a-ha" moments, I couldn't begin to recite them all. If you want a clear picture of race in America's recent history, I'd encourage you to read this. Going with Ann's theme, me saying all this makes me a racist.
Then again, if you hate Ann and think she's a rude, disgusting person, then you'll think it's all a bunch of lies anyway.
January 4, 2013
This book covers an extremely important subject, and I applaud Ann Coulter for shedding light on it. However, given her obvious political leanings, I'm sort of wish it had been written by anyone but her. The problem is, she's preaching to the choir. Those who read her and take note of what she says are generally already inclined toward the right. This is a message that needs to be presented to the left in a less confrontational and political manner. Ann does mention or credit several times Thomas Sowell's book "White Liberals and Black Rednecks" which covers the same territory without all the partisan spirit that Ann puts into this book, and a much better history of the problem of racial pandering and the harm that does to ethnic groups. Had I read this book before I'd read Sowell's, I might have given it 5 stars. However, I just couldn't help compare the two, and as a result, this book came down a notch in my estimation. Slightly down, but down none the less.
January 14, 2013
Ann Coulter's sub title tells you all you need to know about this latest review of our nation's recent social history. Coulter makes two statements on pages 72 and 210 which could serve as answers to the question, "How does America overcome the racial demagoguery she reports on from the seventies to Obama?" Coulter writes, "In a society that has virtually no moral standards anymore, claims of racism are about the only thing that still get the moral-indignation juices flowing. But if a charge of racism is going to mean anything, the incessant false charges have got to stop." Coulter chronicles many of those charges that have been leveled at white conservative Americans over the past four decades. She also writes, "Liberals can never understand that their demented reactions to things doesn't constitute proof." It's too bad that the targets of Coulter's criticism will probably never read this. It might make all the difference in the world.
December 10, 2012
I understand that this book (and author) may be highly confrontational but all in all I think it was very informative. Ann proves how we as Americans have forgotten our history and how things really went. While I'm sure the only people to pick up this book will be conservative, I think the left should at least check into some of these facts because it's very interesting and I'm betting there's stuff in here that you don't know. Politics are so crazy right now, I definitely don't see these issues changing anyone's mind. But I still think it's very important to know both sides, so you can be objective. And conservatives aren't as evil as liberals make them out to be =)
November 17, 2012
As usual, a very interesting, well researched book. I found myself having to read it in small chunks because it was so upsetting to see the lies and mendacity of the left so plainly laid out.
If you want a point-of-view different from the pablum/propaganda spoon fed to the masses by the likes of NBC/CBS/MSNBC then, by all means read this book. If you like the propaganda then, although you need it more than anyone, don't bother.
If you want a point-of-view different from the pablum/propaganda spoon fed to the masses by the likes of NBC/CBS/MSNBC then, by all means read this book. If you like the propaganda then, although you need it more than anyone, don't bother.
January 18, 2015
Terrible book. Coulter could have presented us with a fresh and insightful look at US history, had she not spent the entire book defending right-wing hatred with evidence such as: Lincoln was a Republican, OJ Simpson was acquitted, Obama is not descended from slaves, and Ted Kennedy was crazy. Misinformed and disingenuous.
January 28, 2022
Liberals love telling blacks they are woebegone wretches horribly oppressed by whites. They love that.
As the most famous and influential political pundit of our age, Ann sometimes makes TV appearances outside the political chattering realm. She managed to steal the spotlight at Rob Lowe’s roast, even though she attended only to promote her book. She had an episode of Law & Order: SVU dedicated to her in which a character in her likeness was raped and killed. And recently, Ann was portrayed in American Crime Story: Impeachment by actress Cobie Smulders for her involvement in exposing where Bill Clinton’s third thumb had been.
But my personal favorite Ann depiction was in season 2 episode 11 of the Boondocks. In it, Ann is secretly in cahoots with an Al Sharpton-type to sell her books, has an unemployed black Muslim boyfriend, and says the word “ain’t.” But this is closer to a depiction of Milo Yiannoupoulos than it is Ann. How could this all be a ruse if she wins all her arguments?
Like that one time Alien Ant Farm crashed the BET Awards, Ann has come to tell us how black people think and end racism once and for all in Mugged! By now, you don’t even have to open the book to know what the thesis is.
But you do need to for the arguments and the footnote list that’s longer than Ahmaud Arbery’s toenails.
The OJ trial should have stopped the flow of white guilt splooging on Americans’ hair (here’s young Ann on the issue until 20:13, and here’s a caller’s rebuttal until 40:33). But the media “you can trust” has a taboo on reporting crime and a fetish for covering interracial fiascos. Ann isn’t the writer she thinks she is, but she’s good at compiling Nexus queries. So someone should rewrite this to be more boring so people will take it seriously, but Ann shuts down common historical myths and stupidity from journalists with some good jokes here and there.
It’s the timely debate of individualism versus collectivism. The framers of the Constitution chose the principle of individual rights as their moral underpinning, not rights based on group identities like race, sexuality, wealth, or Zodiac sign. And Ann, being a descendant of American settlers, strives to be the most diligent American she can be to preserve her heritage and the country she loves, which may have been one of the reasons she decided to litigate for the Center for Individual Rights after a stint on the Hill working on immigration and crime cases for former Senator Spencer Abraham (click here for more on that and watch until 11:45, and then move the video cursor to 14:55 if you’re curious about Mr. Rosen’s porn habits.)
Well, it turns out (and you wouldn’t know this if you currently get all your information from NBC, CNN, ABC) this was also a debate for black Americans post-Civil War, notably between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois:
Should blacks focus on owning private property and participating in the free market, or should they gain political power and demand the government to recompense for their predicament? Smith vs. Marx.
There’s been much recent ado about critical race theory being taught in schools. What we have in CRT is just a rehash of Doobie. Doobie was a Harvard PhD, which means there was a 90% chance he was gonna be anti-capitalist. After reading Capital and visiting the Soviet Union, he applied for membership into CPUSA at the height of the Civil Rights Movement. Kimberle owes her framework to the thought of Doobie who owes his politics to the writings of Marx.
People who oppose CRT are not strawmen who are scared that children are being taught about slavery, considering that literally everyone learns about it since lessons on the history of slavery and Jim Crow are mandated by the government. The issue is that retard public school history teachers are only teaching and implementing one side of the story. The people who took Book’s advice mostly do not exist in the Cathedral – they’re out on the field making money moves. But Doobieist careerist academics get off on oppression politics because they can claim to have some secret knowledge given their group identity for their hackneyed theses while using the same tired, dead-beaten-horse phrases like “appropriation,” “Black bodies,” “privilege,” “structures,” “discourses,” “equity,” “thinking about x,” “x-centric,” “x-normative,” “systemic,” “southern strategy,” "hierarchy," “trauma,” “BIPOC,” “that’s xist,” “I’m anti-xist,” “I have panic attacks every night,” “marginalized,” “disproportionate,” “gender,” "spaces," “hegemony,” “dog whistle,” and “dismantle.” And this philosophy propagates down to sycophantic grad students and future teachers who are too afraid to think outside the Ivory Tower paradigm.
If the goal really is to improve our teaching of black history in schools, let’s look at the diversity of black American thought. Let’s study the arguments for and against the Atlanta Compromise. Let’s look at the evolution of Malcolm X’s opinions. Let’s compare and contrast Martin Luther King Jr. and Huey P. Newton’s goals. Let’s take a look at a few opinions of the two black Supreme Court Justices, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. If you truly believe your ideology is the correct one, then you should have no fear teaching different viewpoints with good faith because your side will stand up to scrutiny. Let students decide through discussion which is better for the mind: to pick up a Book or smoke a Doobie. Oh look! There’s a recent debate right here!
The issue with the Democratic Party is that, in making their platform on minority rights, they have completely erased the diversity of black thought. Their politics is quite literally based on movie stereotypes. Liberals claim to speak for black Americans but….
The Democratic platform depends on every black person being Wanda LaQuanda. Luckily President Magoo and Willie Brown’s ex-mistress “CumQueenLa Emhoff” have decided to increase police funding instead of listening to Twitter accounts because, I mean, just duh.
Marxists will beat you over the head with the “the base is in a dialectical relationship with the superstructure” nonsense. And when you agree with them,
and say the Great Society subsidized single motherhood in the black community, they will begin to foam out the mouth so keep your Covid mask on. The left somehow thinks that libertarianism and fascism are both right-wing political systems. They are intellectually satisfied with the “the parties just switched sides on race after 1964” narrative. (A curious person’s antenna should start pinging, they just… “switched”?) After the whole summer of 2020 being full, free promotion for Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, the next summer critical race theory is “only taught at the graduate level.” They think they understand the inner motives of people based on their race and economic status:
We have come full circle in deciding what’s offensive language, that we’ve gone from “colored people” to “people of color.” Neuroses upon neuroses.
The left should love Ann because she…
Queen Bey who? We stan the Queen WASP.
Individualism is pretty terrifying. Having the freedom to choose how to live and what to believe opens so many unknowns and can be so crippling that it’s only natural that we quickly grab onto a group who has the answers to your questions and has people with whom you can immediately find camaraderie. The framers gave citizens freedom because they believed we were made in the image of God, so much so that a personal relationship with God is possible, without the need of the Magisterium, vicars, or anointed monarchs. Protestants have the fast track program. Each individual has a link to God. There is no individual greater than the other.
And while there are some historical edge cases glossed over in Protestantism, this gives each person so much power. If you’re fired from your company, you can apply for your own LLC. You can make a living off throwing a football, making ASMR videos, or writing book reviews.
With the freedom to choose, you have the right to believe in whatever you want. If you believe the white man is keeping you down, then the white man is keeping you down. If you believe you will always be poor by the powers that be, then you will always be poor. If you believe you’ll never be that true person that you always daydream about, then you will never be the true you. If you put yourself into a box, then you will stay in that box.
But if you believe “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me (Philippians 4:13)'' Well… it’ll shock you how much you can accomplish. You may even be the person who launches a movement to impeach one President and launches another to get one President elected. They say if you know history you’ll become a Catholic, but if Protestantism gives one superpowers like these, I may have to start sinning boldly.
As the most famous and influential political pundit of our age, Ann sometimes makes TV appearances outside the political chattering realm. She managed to steal the spotlight at Rob Lowe’s roast, even though she attended only to promote her book. She had an episode of Law & Order: SVU dedicated to her in which a character in her likeness was raped and killed. And recently, Ann was portrayed in American Crime Story: Impeachment by actress Cobie Smulders for her involvement in exposing where Bill Clinton’s third thumb had been.
But my personal favorite Ann depiction was in season 2 episode 11 of the Boondocks. In it, Ann is secretly in cahoots with an Al Sharpton-type to sell her books, has an unemployed black Muslim boyfriend, and says the word “ain’t.” But this is closer to a depiction of Milo Yiannoupoulos than it is Ann. How could this all be a ruse if she wins all her arguments?
Like that one time Alien Ant Farm crashed the BET Awards, Ann has come to tell us how black people think and end racism once and for all in Mugged! By now, you don’t even have to open the book to know what the thesis is.
...the entire history of civil rights consists of Republicans battling Democrats to guarantee the constitutional rights of black people. (p. 1)
It’s often said that those who are unduly bothered by gays are latent homosexuals. Isn’t it possible that people obsessed with racism are themselves racist? (p. 110)
But you do need to for the arguments and the footnote list that’s longer than Ahmaud Arbery’s toenails.
The OJ trial should have stopped the flow of white guilt splooging on Americans’ hair (here’s young Ann on the issue until 20:13, and here’s a caller’s rebuttal until 40:33). But the media “you can trust” has a taboo on reporting crime and a fetish for covering interracial fiascos. Ann isn’t the writer she thinks she is, but she’s good at compiling Nexus queries. So someone should rewrite this to be more boring so people will take it seriously, but Ann shuts down common historical myths and stupidity from journalists with some good jokes here and there.
...we got the first glimmerings of political correctness, leading to people praising “the men and women of the Green Bay Packers.” (p. 21)
It’s the timely debate of individualism versus collectivism. The framers of the Constitution chose the principle of individual rights as their moral underpinning, not rights based on group identities like race, sexuality, wealth, or Zodiac sign. And Ann, being a descendant of American settlers, strives to be the most diligent American she can be to preserve her heritage and the country she loves, which may have been one of the reasons she decided to litigate for the Center for Individual Rights after a stint on the Hill working on immigration and crime cases for former Senator Spencer Abraham (click here for more on that and watch until 11:45, and then move the video cursor to 14:55 if you’re curious about Mr. Rosen’s porn habits.)
Well, it turns out (and you wouldn’t know this if you currently get all your information from NBC, CNN, ABC) this was also a debate for black Americans post-Civil War, notably between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois:
Book: To those of my race I would say: “Cast down your bucket where you are” – cast it down in making friends with the Southern white man, who is your next-door neighbor. Cast it down in agriculture, mechanics, in commerce, in domestic service… No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem.
Doobie: Mr. Washington’s doctrine has tended to make the whites, North and South, shift the burden of the Negro problem to the Negro’s shoulders and stand aside as critical spectators; when in fact the burden belongs to the nation, and the hands of none of us are clean if we do not all work on righting these great wrongs.
Should blacks focus on owning private property and participating in the free market, or should they gain political power and demand the government to recompense for their predicament? Smith vs. Marx.
There’s been much recent ado about critical race theory being taught in schools. What we have in CRT is just a rehash of Doobie. Doobie was a Harvard PhD, which means there was a 90% chance he was gonna be anti-capitalist. After reading Capital and visiting the Soviet Union, he applied for membership into CPUSA at the height of the Civil Rights Movement. Kimberle owes her framework to the thought of Doobie who owes his politics to the writings of Marx.
People who oppose CRT are not strawmen who are scared that children are being taught about slavery, considering that literally everyone learns about it since lessons on the history of slavery and Jim Crow are mandated by the government. The issue is that retard public school history teachers are only teaching and implementing one side of the story. The people who took Book’s advice mostly do not exist in the Cathedral – they’re out on the field making money moves. But Doobieist careerist academics get off on oppression politics because they can claim to have some secret knowledge given their group identity for their hackneyed theses while using the same tired, dead-beaten-horse phrases like “appropriation,” “Black bodies,” “privilege,” “structures,” “discourses,” “equity,” “thinking about x,” “x-centric,” “x-normative,” “systemic,” “southern strategy,” "hierarchy," “trauma,” “BIPOC,” “that’s xist,” “I’m anti-xist,” “I have panic attacks every night,” “marginalized,” “disproportionate,” “gender,” "spaces," “hegemony,” “dog whistle,” and “dismantle.” And this philosophy propagates down to sycophantic grad students and future teachers who are too afraid to think outside the Ivory Tower paradigm.
If the goal really is to improve our teaching of black history in schools, let’s look at the diversity of black American thought. Let’s study the arguments for and against the Atlanta Compromise. Let’s look at the evolution of Malcolm X’s opinions. Let’s compare and contrast Martin Luther King Jr. and Huey P. Newton’s goals. Let’s take a look at a few opinions of the two black Supreme Court Justices, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. If you truly believe your ideology is the correct one, then you should have no fear teaching different viewpoints with good faith because your side will stand up to scrutiny. Let students decide through discussion which is better for the mind: to pick up a Book or smoke a Doobie. Oh look! There’s a recent debate right here!
The issue with the Democratic Party is that, in making their platform on minority rights, they have completely erased the diversity of black thought. Their politics is quite literally based on movie stereotypes. Liberals claim to speak for black Americans but….
- They don’t believe black people should handle arms
- They dumb down their language when speaking to black people
- They don’t care about the 30% increase in black people murdered after the BLM protests in 2020 compared to 2019
- They mostly nay-ed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 1960, and yes 1964
- They ran with the lie that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child
- They want to defund police departments even though 81% of black people disapprove
- They incite manufactured fear among black people— How many times is Chris Matthews–whose gay porn collection is way out of control–going to get away with this?...These claims are based on the precise quantum of evidence that they have for the claim that anyone at the anti-Obamacare rally called Rep. [John] Lewis the N-word… (p. 244)
- They dole out black oppression points to every non-white, non-male, non-straight Tom, Dick, and Harry
- They believe imprisonment for crack cocaine is racist, when it was the Black Congressional Caucus in the 80s that wanted tougher crack sentencing since it was destroying black communities— Jesse Jackson: “How many of you have seen a Klansman on your block, someone wearing a hood with a rope? But you have all seen somebody who sells dope.”
- They believe voter ID laws suppresses the black vote, when in 2012 Rhode Island’s black Democratic senator and black Representative passed an ID bill— Senator Harold Metts: “As a minority citizen and a senior citizen I would not support anything that I thought would present obstacles or limit protections.”
- They support amnesty even though this drives down resources and increases job competition in poor, black, working-class communities
The Democratic platform depends on every black person being Wanda LaQuanda. Luckily President Magoo and Willie Brown’s ex-mistress “CumQueenLa Emhoff” have decided to increase police funding instead of listening to Twitter accounts because, I mean, just duh.
Marxists will beat you over the head with the “the base is in a dialectical relationship with the superstructure” nonsense. And when you agree with them,
Subsidize something, and you will get more of it. Tax it and you will get less of it. (p. 13)
and say the Great Society subsidized single motherhood in the black community, they will begin to foam out the mouth so keep your Covid mask on. The left somehow thinks that libertarianism and fascism are both right-wing political systems. They are intellectually satisfied with the “the parties just switched sides on race after 1964” narrative. (A curious person’s antenna should start pinging, they just… “switched”?) After the whole summer of 2020 being full, free promotion for Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, the next summer critical race theory is “only taught at the graduate level.” They think they understand the inner motives of people based on their race and economic status:
The kulaks are bad; the proletariat, good. But wait! Some proletariat don’t listen to us–they’re bad! They’re “lumpen proletariat.” (p. 198)
We have come full circle in deciding what’s offensive language, that we’ve gone from “colored people” to “people of color.” Neuroses upon neuroses.
The left should love Ann because she…
- loves Jews: “we want Jews to be perfected”
- loves Muslims: “take a camel”
- hates white trash: “I do think we gotta have a white trash fee”
- loves gay people: “you can pray the gay away”
- loves black people: “our blacks are better than their blacks”
- loves black women: oh baby a triple!
- loves peasant cultures: “why are you here?”
- loves Santa: “you go find black Santa at the north pole. He’s white”
- loves Obama: “the Kenya jokes always kill”
- hates Richard Spencer: “an agent force for the Southern Poverty Law Center”
Queen Bey who? We stan the Queen WASP.
Individualism is pretty terrifying. Having the freedom to choose how to live and what to believe opens so many unknowns and can be so crippling that it’s only natural that we quickly grab onto a group who has the answers to your questions and has people with whom you can immediately find camaraderie. The framers gave citizens freedom because they believed we were made in the image of God, so much so that a personal relationship with God is possible, without the need of the Magisterium, vicars, or anointed monarchs. Protestants have the fast track program. Each individual has a link to God. There is no individual greater than the other.
And while there are some historical edge cases glossed over in Protestantism, this gives each person so much power. If you’re fired from your company, you can apply for your own LLC. You can make a living off throwing a football, making ASMR videos, or writing book reviews.
With the freedom to choose, you have the right to believe in whatever you want. If you believe the white man is keeping you down, then the white man is keeping you down. If you believe you will always be poor by the powers that be, then you will always be poor. If you believe you’ll never be that true person that you always daydream about, then you will never be the true you. If you put yourself into a box, then you will stay in that box.
But if you believe “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me (Philippians 4:13)'' Well… it’ll shock you how much you can accomplish. You may even be the person who launches a movement to impeach one President and launches another to get one President elected. They say if you know history you’ll become a Catholic, but if Protestantism gives one superpowers like these, I may have to start sinning boldly.
December 15, 2012
This book documents the numerous times over the years where phony charges of racism have been used as a political weapon, such as hoax hate crimes on college campuses to force dialogue about our racist society (until it is discovered that the victim was indeed also the perpetrator). It is mainly a criticism of the media and certain public figures who she accuses (and comes close to convicting) of being complicit in this effort. The stories and anecdotes on this subject are many - some are kind of stupid, but several are good and some are very good. She makes many strong points but strays from the topic too much to comment on other political stories of the day. She also tries to argue throughout that this trend was building up through the OJ trial, that it went away for over a decade, then it suddenly came back with Barack Obama - but since a number of the stories are from those intervening years, it kind of defeats her point, which was mostly stated without evidence to begin with. Overall, a pretty quick and mostly interesting read.
November 15, 2012
If you're a Democrat, you should just give this book a pass. Ann Coulter has nothing but contempt for liberals and it would be pretty hard to get her point through the insults. For everyone else, this is an extremely well-researched look at how politicians and the media have treated black/white race relations in the last 40 years. Sometimes there is so much research it borders on tedious, but she has covered her bases thoroughly. This book causes you to see racial policy (official and otherwise) in a new light.
April 13, 2013
Ann Coluter does a good job at exposing how Black "activists" and media have held blacks back in the USA over the last 40 years. It is great to see blacks breaking out of the repressive media culture and speak for themselves. There are many fine examples of blacks who do not buy into the repression such as Condolesa Rice, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Alan Keys, Herman Cain and many others.
Great insight of the way media tries (and succeeds at times) to manipulate public opinion in very damaging ways.
Great insight of the way media tries (and succeeds at times) to manipulate public opinion in very damaging ways.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 132 reviews