Rated by buyers 
-
I read this not expecting very much, thinking it might be a rehash of something like Bernard Goldberg's Bias or Arrogance (which are also worth reading). I expected it to focus mostly on media issues, and while that's a significant chunk of the book, Tammy Bruce has a wider scope, taking on the various large interest groups that plague our nation's politics...the Misery Merchants like Jesse Jackson who are quick to play the race card and can never acknowledge the tremendous progress America has made, and the new generation of "feminists" who have sold out their idealism to maintain political power. She hits especially hard when she uses her own experience to mobilize people against injustice WITHOUT trying to silence or intimidate the special interests. Here, the biggest and best example is how she led the Los Angeles NOW chapter in both candlelight vigils and marches to protest the OJ Simpson verdict. Her offices were overflowing with volunteers, and she welcomed them all, conservative and feminist, because she knew that unlike NOW leaders at the national level, who were afraid of upsetting the Misery Merchants, her volunteers were honestly trying to confront injustice. Her efforts helped prevent the media's intended goal of rehabilitating OJ as a public figure. Thank God for Tammy Bruce.
In fact, Tammy's stated principle of allowing expression by INDIVIDUAL action, rather than interest group intimidation, becomes the real theme of her book. She sees how our minds and spirits are manipulated by behind-the-scenes action in the media, in universities, and in politics, and she wants to sound the alarm. But since that leaves the question, how is progress supposed to happen when you have no special interests to defend you, she shows how through her own examples and theories for honest activists. She realizes nothing good will come from dishonest mind control; our bests hopes will be realized when individual people shrewdly use the power of the marketplace and free expression to get justice, without being told what to do.
Rated by buyers 
-
Not having any real attachments to either the Right or Left, I really enjoyed Bruce's book. I think its main strength is its description of the subversion of groups by pathological individuals (ponerization) and their activity. The very first clue that a group has undergone the initial stages of ponerization is a moral warping of its original ideology. Bruce shows that the rights groups she describes have ceased operating for their original principles, now using the banner of morality and civil rights in pursuit of power.
A small group of leaders "work to propagate divisions and hopelessness" and "their positions rely on a series of myths that relegate those they lead to perpetual victimhood". This exploitation is maintained by what Bruce calls "rubbing salt into the wound", which has the effect of inspiring primitive feelings of vengeance and a strong moralizing interpretation of perceived threats. Machiavellians rely on their ability to manipulate these emotions (e.g. Goring's quote about telling people they are being attacked and then denouncing critics as unpatriotic).
The problems with the book lie elsewhere: in Bruce's reliance on the "natural world view" and a lack of objective language and concepts. She does not factor psychopathology into her analysis, and thus, no matter how well she describes `symptoms', her efforts are futile, even harmful. Lacking an understanding of psychopathy, the general laws of ponerogenesis, and her own reality-deforming tendencies, she confuses concepts and has obvious blind spots.
First, she confuses ideology with essence. All other failings stem from this one. While she correctly identifies the similarities between these groups and pathocracy, she doesn't clearly distinguish between normal people, pathological ideologues, and psychopaths who operate under a mask of ideology to exploit `true believers'. Because of this error, she both fails to apply her observations to other relevant groups, and exaggerates the importance of her case studies.
Regarding the latter, she focuses on the perils of "socialism" instead ponerization of groups in general, which is inevitable in ALL groups without proper psychological knowledge. Thus, she views the "Right" ("capitalism and competition") as a healthy alternative, which, unfortunately, it is not. The "Right" is just as susceptible to the very first criterion of ponerogenesis (i.e. ignorance of pathological signs), and thus ponerogenic activity, as we can see now: exploitation of victimhood, assaults on free speech, "us versus them" mentality, free speech zones, provocation of primitive emotions, paramoralistic epithets, etc.
This is a common mistake of politicians and groups everywhere. They focus on symptoms and not causes. Thus we have "hate-crime laws" and "anti-terror laws" which are absurd and ineffective. Focusing on domestic violence would prove much more effective, and providing adequate psychological education would be even better. Instead we have "The War on Terror", "The War on Drugs", "The War on Communism"--all futile and hypocritical. In the Terror War, we have the same paralogicisms that Bruce identifies in civil rights groups: "in order to ensure civil rights and liberty, we must be silent and conform." In other words, in order to protect our rights, we must give them up.
The only effective "war" will be against ponerogenesis, and thus by definition, it must not include ponerogenic factors, like vengeance, moralizing, false divisions, etc. There is only one "monolithic conspiracy", and it is psychopathic: not Communist, Anarchist, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc. Any other focus is either misguided or a diversion purposefully created by Machiavellians to divert attention from themselves. At the psychopathic level, there are no ideological divisions.
"Divide and conquer" is simply a macrocosmic version of the two-party system. Paraphrasing Bruce, "If normal people can be divided, there will be no real threat to the Machiavellian-dominated status quo." If you can convince people they only have two options, most people will end up choosing one of them, believing it is a free choice. They will thus focus on partisan politics, ignoring real issues; or they will focus on an external threat, also ignoring real issues. For this reason--the blurring of ideological lines--we always see connections between, for example Mossad/CIA/MI5 and various Muslim terrorist groups; and between Western governments and third world dictators.
This ties into the former result of Bruce's error: under-applying her observations. This is where her hypocrisy (i.e. conversive thinking) is evident, and it is fairly obvious after viewing her website/blog. She fails to see the obvious application of her observations to groups such as: a) official government agencies (e.g. the CIA's long history of every crime imaginable) b) "Right" news agencies (e.g. Fox news), and c) the most obvious corrupt minority rights group: the ADL and the Israel lobby.
By attaching her criticism to an ideological, and not psychological, source (i.e. anti-"Islamofascism"), which is largely mythical, she rationalizes equally ponerogenic activity inherent in the anti-terror movement. In such a world, the CIA works for the good of America and its "excesses" are rationalized in typical conversive fashion.
Regarding Fox, she criticizes "Leftist" groups of exposing youths to pornography in her books, and yet is a regular contributor and supporter of Fox (google "fox attacks decency"). I find it no surprise, though Bruce might, that the one News organization she quotes as challenging the status quo (during Clinton) has turned itself into the propaganda arm of the Bush administration. It has, in Bruce's words, "morphed into a movement obsessed with identity politics, victimhood, and an us-versus-them mentality."
Regarding the Israeli lobby, it seems there are several myths that are inextricably intertwined with Bruce's natural world view, one of which is the legitimacy of Israeli occupation of Palestine and its ethnic cleansing of same. All other extrinsic belief systems follow from this myth. Contradictory information (e.g. the morally depraved treatment of Palestinians by the IDF) is rationalized, denied, or repressed. Because of such conversive phenomena, their analysis cannot be called "wrong"--it is "not even wrong". The initial assumptions are faulty on both factual and moral levels.
I think this excerpt from Bruce is relevant: "[T]he vast majority of those who commit crimes have experienced abuse in their own lives (personal hate directed at them) and disfranchisement (society's later hate). It is possible that, by targeting those who act out in tangible hate against a protected group, the hate-crime theory actually revictimizes those who were initially the victims of hate."
The material on her website is nowhere near the quality of her book: insults, crude humour, paramoralisms, paralogicisms, etc. She engages in the same attack mentality that she derided in 2001, even using the "favored Thought Police accusation" of racism: she frequently uses the label "Jew-hater" for anyone critical of Israel. She even has the movie 300, one of the most violent movies of the year, in her recommended reading/viewing list. This coming from the woman who championed the boycotting of American Psycho.
Overall a good, but misguided book.
Rated by buyers -
First, in reference to two earlier critics, Michelle Malkin was born in Philidelphia to parents on a work visa and would have little reason to "sneak in" from Mexico. Secondly, no, she doesn't head a chapter of the communist party. You are letting your dumb get in the way of objectivism. That's mighty liberal of you.
Thirdly, I wish liberal types would pay more attention to the actual content of a message rather than how pretty it is. If Ms. Bruce's sentence structure is not as advanced as yours, does that detract from the truthfulness of the message? Fortunately, most people are not as the trout, only interested in the shiny things. The rest are liberals, I guess.
I used to listen to Tammy. Loved it. Still would listen if my area got it. She is a hard working and passionate person. In a world of knee jerk conservative types, she offers something new, something the left uses and we desparately need: The ability to put down our colorful plume and egos and share with one another. Libs can get people together by the masses in hours. So they hire a few bums. As one who has been in charge of conservative political protests, getting cconservatives together is like herding cats. But Bruce is different. She is very open with her own and others intellectual happenings. She and Charles Johnson [...]. Brilliant!
This book is a good read. Read it.
Jake Freeman
Rated by buyers -
Tammy Bruce writes with an authenticity that comes from her work within the gay-feminist-liberal community. Her opinions forged from direct experience cannot be easily dismissed. She points out a clear distinction between the classical liberal and the liberal of today. The negative reviews you read here are written by those who do not want you to find out the truth about how the far left radicals have taken over the Democratic Party. They are enormously fearful that you will find out their agenda is to destroy individual liberty and impose their brand of group thought on us all.
I previously read Tammy's later books, The Death of Right and Wrong and The New American Revolution. These impressive books made me want to read her very first book and I found it to be excellent as well. Ms. Bruce is one of the best writers I've read. She writes in an easy style using powerful examples and fascinating experiences.
This book will shake you with a dreaded sense of where this country is headed if we don't wake up and actively fight for the freedom that is our heritage. Slowly but steadily our freedoms are being eroded by liberals attaching labels to anyone with whom they disagree. Their tactics are oppressive, punitive, and discriminatory. These so called champions of tolerance have become anything but tolerant. They want to silence anyone who does not conform to what they deem "right thinking".
Students on college campuses had better parrot the liberal professors or their grades will suffer. Universities and the mainstream media might as well hang out a sign saying "CONSERVATIVES NEED NOT APPLY!" You'd be ostracized by the feminists if you suggested that abortion should be restricted. You are a homophobe if you think marriage should be strictly between a man and a woman. You are a racist if you think college admission should be based on qualifications only and not on race. Attack people with labels and shut them up. If that doesn't work use other tactics-- lawsuits, threats of boycotts, even bomb threats.
It's all about what kind of country we want. It is clear that the modern day liberal wants a different country. They don't want equal opportunity; they want preferential treatment for some groups. They certainly don't want capitalism; they want socialism. They don't want to protect American sovereignty; they want world government. We Americans who want to preserve individual freedom had better get involved and fight for it.
Rated by buyers 
-
The New Thought Police is a well thought out book by Tammy Bruce, former chairwomen of the LA chapter of NOW who is pro-gun, pro-choice, and lesbian. I read her more recent book The Death of Right and Wrong on a recommendation from Amazon.com and was at very first taken aback by the author's own description of herself. This was not someone I expected to have much to agree with. Both in that book and The Thought Police I was surprised again and again at her matter of fact discussions of how liberalism is changing how we think about ourselves, our children and our country. One of the things I value most about her writings is that she is rarely vitriolic in her anger. Reading Michael Savage is also educational, but his insults and rage makes my stomach turn. Bruce turns much of her anger toward the organization of NOW, but considering how she has been burned by them, her anger is righteous. I find myself respecting Bruce and nodding my head in agreement with her often. More great reads in this style are Spin Sisters by Myrna Blyth and Bias by Bernard Goldberg. These books will change how you view the news.