From God to Godless: The Real Liberal Terror

"The book is one which has the glow and appeal of a fiery cross on a hillside at night. There will undoubtedly be robed figures who gather to it, but the hoods will not be academic. They will cover the face," snarled one, ominously comparing it to a work of the Ku Klux Klan. "This fascist thesis," angrily spluttered another, "...This...pure fascism....What more could Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin ask for...?" Still others piled on. The book was dismissed as a series of "fanatically emotional attacks" that "succeeded in turning the stomachs of its readers." The author drew howls of outrage, the lesser of which focused on adjectives like "rude" and "obnoxious" before descending into cries of "fascist."

The name of the book was not Godless. And the author was not Ann Coulter. The book that drew such ferocious attention was God and Man at Yale. The author, a recent Yale graduate, was a precocious William F. Buckley, Jr.

God and Man at Yale, published in 1951, was a then-startling protest about the liberal bias of a major university, in this case Buckley's alma mater.

From Buckley to Goldwater, from Reagan to Gingrich, from Rush Limbaugh to Clarence Thomas and Ann Coulter, conservatives of different styles and mediums have been treated precisely the same. No matter the topic, no matter the personality, whether the year is 1951 or 2006 they are angrily assailed for their views.
-Snip
What seemingly frightens liberals is the penetrating questions and different policy proscriptions that challenge their once secure worldview. As time has moved on and liberal solutions have been tried and found drastically wanting, the American public quite naturally has looked elsewhere for answers.
-Snip-

Piece by piece, trench by trench, the empire that was once American liberalism is under assault by men and women of all ages, incomes, faiths, races and professions. From academia to politics to religion, the media and the law, the liberal Humpty Dumpty has fallen from its once dominant perch. No matter how hard they try, liberals will never be able to put it back together again. The venom spewed at Ann Coulter's demand to liberals to stop hiding behind grief or war records or illness in a debate is not really about Ann Coulter at all. It is one very influential section of American society realizing that their world, the world they created and ran for most of the twentieth century, is dying in front of their eyes.

This is the Left doing what it can to discredit the messngers of the Right so that people won't listen to their message. It is os typical of the Left to avoid debating the issues and instead to resort to name-calling. Unfortunately, many people who watch the MSM news don't realize this.

If you want to understand the lefts strategy for obtaining and retaining membership, simply review the following dysfuctions the leftist machine fosters and ask yourself where each is being emphasized today for maximum effect. I have highlighted the ones I believe apply directly to the current effort to keep the curious on the left from even entertaining the idea of reading her material. You may see a different stress pattern.

When viewed through these goggles, the left's coordinated activities (MSM + DNC + Ad Copy Writers posing as Credentialed Journalists) become transparent and predictable.

It begins here:
Symptoms of Groupthink are divided into three types in which they can manifest themselves:
Type I: Overestimations of the group's power and morality
Type II: Closed-mindedness
Type III: Pressure toward uniformity

Type I:
1. "An illusion of invulnerability shared by most members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks (Janis, 1982)."

2. "An unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions (Janis, 1982)."

Type 2:
3. "Collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings, or other information that might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their assumptions (Janis, 1982)."

4. "Stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purpose (Janis, 1982)."

Type 3:
5. "Self-censorship of deviation from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member's inclination to minimize to himself the importance of his doubts and counterarguments (Janis, 1982)."

6. "A shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgement conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviation, augmented by the false assumptions that silence means consent) (Janis, 1982)."

7. "Direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members (Janis, 1982)."

8. "The emergence, of self-appointed mindguards members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions (Janis, 1982)."

>"The book is one which has the glow and appeal of a fiery cross on a hillside at night. There will undoubtedly be robed figures who gather to it, but the hoods will not be academic. They will cover the face," snarled one, ominously comparing it to a work of the Ku Klux Klan. "This fascist thesis," angrily spluttered another, "...This...pure fascism....What more could Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin ask for...?">

Sounds like the voice of personal experience speaking in these matters.

Maybe they should axe Bobby Kleagle Bird what spf factor they should use on their hands to prevent klan tan! Or maybe they should axe Joisy Reps about banning political book sales!

Indeed personal and recent experience!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.