Most Controversial Book Of The Decade Coming Early 2020!

Spread good cheer, the book is here! Well, not here, but it’s on its way.

I have decided to bring ”        [MYSTERY TITLE]                      ” out myself (title reveal coming soon). For these reasons:

You Need This Book

Not you, dear loyal reader, but your enemies need it. This will be the must buy book before the 2020 election, even though it has nothing to do with that bit of political theater. Not directly.

But there are in the book over five different versions of the Voting Fallacy exposed. These need to be known before anybody tries to convince the majority to vote.

There are also vivisected many other ideas held dear by most people. This is an all-in-one source to turn to discover why everything the majority believes is wrong.

I Get Great Rejections

To say that the book will be controversial is like saying Jeffrey Epstein enjoyed the company of women. To say that it will anger people is like suggesting Wellesley campus social justice warriors would be irritated to hear Trump will deliver this year’s commencement address.

The sure reception this book will receive disinclines many publishers from wanting anything to do with it.

From a prominent Catholic publisher:

I had a chance to read the book and it really is quite brilliant overall, but, alas, I really don’t think it is a good fit with our current readership. It is also the case that our publishing schedule is completely filled through 2020, so we have very few openings and I have to be extremely selective and can’t publish all the books I would like to.

From a well known conservative publishing house:

Please do not contact us again. Do not force us to employ lawyers.

This quote might not be 100% accurate.

The book has a healthy trail of rejections, always with nice compliments, but with the concern that nobody is going to buy it. One major conservative house said “It’s an impressive work, but we have found books with this theme…to be difficult to sell.”

I’m sure they’re right, but that’s because the people who need it most will be the least likely to part with the dear stuff to obtain. This is why we must rely on our side to buy the book and gift it to those most in need.

I’m Sick Of Thinking Of It

I want to start two others, one which will appeal to that conservative house, or similar outlets, and another about predictive modeling. But I can’t get too far on these until ”        [MYSTERY TITLE]                      ” is out the damned door.

When?

Probably end of March, early April, to be at the start of the election fever. Book is finished, but the cover is not. It’s all beautifully typeset in LaTeX.

I’ll use Amazon to produce both paperback and Kindle versions. Aiming for paperback cover price about $15, which makes the Kindle $9 or so (via Amazon’s rules). Effective royalties are about $1 a paperback, less for Kindle. Given the number of books that will probably sell and the amount of time I put into the writing, the hourly compensation rate will be well to the south of the pay of Thailand lady prisoners who make clothes for woke Western women.

What’s It All About

It’s about 314 pages, in paperback form. (Thank you.)

It’s a serious of humorous, plain language arguments showing why and how every major progressive idea is wrong.

For instance? Like there is no wisdom in crowds. Like animals have no rights. Like diversity is our weakness. That consent is BS. And so on. Here is a wee snippet from the Introduction:

The Controversial Fallacy is a version of Poisoning The Well. A reporter (it is almost always a reporter) will say, “The Congressman holds the controversial opinion that two men cannot be married to one another”, implying by the use of controversial that the Congressman’s opinion on this or some other matter is false. False the matter may be, but it is not proved false by noting that it is in dispute.

Using the word controversial is just one in a long list of ways reporters (and others) signal their virtue. The reporter wants to call the Congressman’s belief false, but he knows the rules say he should not interject himself into the story. He does it anyway, subtly, by using the word. If he is called on his fallacy, the weasel will escape with equivocation. He will claim there is a real controversy, and that he was only really reporting on this controversy. But of course he is lying: he used the word to flag his disagreement and to show his office mates he knows which way to think. It is true in some cases the controversy is the story, but when it is, sentences like the reporter’s are superfluous.

What specifically is it about? Stay tuned for more details….!

Late addition: It will be the polar opposite of the book The Chapo Book of Revolution: A Manifesto Against Logic, Facts, and Reason”.