ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

Cuckservative: initial responses

The sales have been exceptional. The reviews have been excellent, by which I don't mean that they said the book is great, although they mostly do, but in their attention to detail and their substance. Sadly, some observers are just not taking it well.
Phil Sandifer ‏@PhilSandifer
Man, Vox Day must be spending an awful lot of his daddy's money to drive up his new book's Amazon ranking this high.
To which there can really only be one response.


Otherwise, the usual SJWs have been stunned into silence; the observable fact that I not only have considerably more support than they do, but actually happen to be in harmony with the popular zeitgeist at the moment is rather more than they are equipped to rationally process. The success of SJWs Always Lie was bad enough, as far as they were concerned, but to follow it up with an even bigger success of broader appeal is simply beyond imagining.

There has been only one real criticism aimed at the book to date, namely, the absence of footnotes. It's a legitimate point, and I will address it, first as if I were Red Eagle, and second in my own inimitable fashion.
Cuckservative makes a strong rhetorical appeal to defend historic America, but its weak point is that you have to read it as an appeal addressed to you, the reader. It's not factual ammunition for you, the already-convinced reader, to use in a debate with the unconvinced, because the authors have omitted footnotes. Cuckservative uses a lot of facts, and Vox Day has said on his blog that he's got solid sources for everything, and that omitting references gives critics less to attack. That's fine if you believe he's not bluffing, and I do; but "one of the authors says he has a source for that, but he won't say what it is" doesn't fly in a serious argument.

Ann Coulter's Adios America will supply facts by the ton when it comes out on Kindle. Meanwhile Cuckservative is the best current statement of the militant right-wing case against mass immigration and against ineffective "respectable" conservative politics regarding it.
Imagine, if you will, that you are a married man. You've worked a long day. You're tired and you're not in the mood for explaining yourself or getting into an argument with your wife, so when she asks you if you want Chinese for dinner, you have two choices. Either A) you simply say no, or B) you tell her no and you explain why.

If you say no, that ends the debate. Perhaps she suggests something else, perhaps you do, either way, there is no need for discussion. But if you go with option B), you have given her the opening to take issue with why your position is incorrect and to attempt to convince you that you really do want Chinese. Whether she manages to convince you or not, you're in for an argument, and most likely, you'll end up eating Chinese even though you didn't want to.

Now, in case the analogy has escaped you, the reasons for not wanting Chinese food are the footnotes and the wife is the critics. Here endeth the lesson.

From my perspective, books are discourse. I expect and anticipate criticism both fair and foul. I remember when Ann Coulter was absolutely pilloried for having endnotes rather than footnotes. I also know that not having footnotes allows me, or the Cuckservative reader, to call out the critic who attempts to cast doubt on them.

The correct response to the critic who claims that something in Cuckservative is wrong is to ask him what the correct answer is. If he wishes to deny that the Danish army's measured average IQ has fallen by 1.5 points, ask him for the correct delta. Ask him if it has risen, fallen, or stayed the same. He will not be able to do so, thereby discrediting himself and revealing that he is not an honest interlocutor.

The only people who actually need the footnotes are those who are attempting to undermine the arguments presented in the book by disqualifying the source data. Red Eagle and I simply made their task more difficult by denying it to them. If you want to cite a source, then cite our book. That is sufficient.

But perhaps my chief reason for not providing my sources, which are, of course, impeccable, is my experience with TIA. Simply because I cited my source, many people who read the book took my original arguments and credited them to the source, who, ironically enough, made precisely the opposite argument in the face of the data they had collected.
For much of the world before the 17th century, these "reasons" for war were explained, and justified, at least for the participants, by religion.
- The Encyclopedia of Wars, p. xxii
No, they really weren't. I make mistakes, but I seldom make the same mistake twice.

UPDATE: My co-author speaks for himself:
This isn't an academic treatise, it isn't a book report we're submitting for approval and critique by authority, and it isn't a defensive, plaintive rearguard work in the cuckservative style.

We're on the attack. Let the lefties and cuckservatives be on the defense. Let them impotently quibble and whine about us failing to cite our sources. Let them do their own homework if they want to argue or nitpick, and let them be the ones who try to qualify themselves.
Preach, preacher!

Labels: ,

118 Comments:

Blogger The Other Robot December 08, 2015 12:19 PM  

The success of SJWs was bad enough, but to follow it up with an even bigger success of broader appeal is

Unfinished thought?

Blogger VD December 08, 2015 12:22 PM  

beyond imagining.

Blogger dh December 08, 2015 12:25 PM  

"Man, Vox Day must be spending an awful lot of his daddy's money to drive up his new book's Amazon ranking this high."

In the end it really comes down to jealously. PhilSandifer really believes himself to be your superior, and yet, he is essentially unemployed and writing literary critiques of TV shows. That cannot be squared without conspiracy.

Blogger White Devil December 08, 2015 12:31 PM  

Hey, I wanna publish a novel. Every time a character does something of significance, I want to put a footnote explaining the significance. Especially to the deep, psycho-sexual white-suprem-archy that underlies the entirely of the format.

That's really gonna sell!

Anonymous Soga December 08, 2015 12:33 PM  

Phil isn't a normal man like me, who can appreciate and watch in awe of what men like Vox, Cernovich, Roosh, and Milo are achieving. If being a mere footsoldier is all I can aspire to, then I shall aspire to that

Phil is an underachiever who envies these who can achieve. As a sick pervert who probably has an addiction to child porn, well, he lives in his own head. There is no reality but the leftist fantasy of an utopia of endless pederasty. Why bother with things like real work in the real world?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 December 08, 2015 12:34 PM  

I love the hand-wringing over footnotes or endnotes. Seriously, the only people who follow up with them are OCD scholars or critics looking to discredit the work. Pretty much everyone else ignores them.

Anonymous DT December 08, 2015 12:39 PM  

Man, Vox Day must be spending an awful lot of his daddy's money to drive up his new book's Amazon ranking this high.

The kicker is that these people level such accusations only because it's what they would do.

God bless your efforts Vox. Your work is having a much needed impact in the world.

Blogger CM December 08, 2015 12:42 PM  

My thought was that footnotes are just a lazy way for people who care to "legitimize" their views without doing their own research while being a circle jerk of "disqualify" by those who would never be persuaded.

If VD really has sources to back it up, the people who care for those things should be able to find them.

Anonymous WillBest December 08, 2015 12:42 PM  

I love the hand-wringing over footnotes or endnotes. Seriously, the only people who follow up with them are OCD scholars or critics looking to discredit the work. Pretty much everyone else ignores them.

Its a ritual from a bygone era where doing such was necessary if you wanted to be taken serious. And quite frankly, is still necessary when you are citing some ancient text you found in the basement of a dutch bakery from the 1430s. But in the modern world of google, people shouldn't have any issue finding the information you write.

The only reason you cite stuff to judges is because you want them to know what you are asking them to do is not too far off base from what other judges have done (or their "boss" wants them to do). I never understood why anybody cites anything to the Supreme Court other than we still pretend they care about the Constitution and precedent.

Blogger Danby December 08, 2015 12:48 PM  

PaedoPhil thinks he's smarter than we are, smarter than Vox is. He must be, he has the right opinions, that itself is proof of superiority. He has a doctorate, he absolutely must be smarter. But Vox is succeeding as a Writer, as an Editor, and as a Publisher.
Why can Vox succeed as a writer without even a degree in English? Why is Phil reduced to running a blog where he lists his favorite episodes of a foreign children's program for fat blue-haired lesbians and trans-abled she-twinks?
It must be because of White Privilege. Right? Oh, but Vox is not nearly as White as Phil is. But wait, Vox's father had money, before the feds jailed him on trumped-up charges! That's it, it's Class Privilege! Phil really is a Secret King of Writing and Pop Culture after all.

Whew, dodged a bullet there.

Blogger CM December 08, 2015 12:48 PM  

Every time a character does something of significance, I want to put a footnote explaining the significance.

I often wonder if writers who put a lot of thought into foreshadowing and plot planning are tempted to do that (look at this! IMPORTANT!)... you know... like in the Bible.

I know when I read my favorite stories to my kids or am watching a movie depiction, i can't help doing it for the author's benefit. I know I'm a real peach to watch movies with.

Blogger Daniel December 08, 2015 12:49 PM  

Phil Sandifer's dad must have blown all his money turning Phil into a girl.

Blogger Daniel December 08, 2015 12:51 PM  

I am a huge fan of footnotes. I made my own annotated Foucault's Pendulum once.

This is not that sort of book.

Blogger Daniel December 08, 2015 12:51 PM  

I am a huge fan of footnotes. I made my own annotated Foucault's Pendulum once.

This is not that sort of book.

Anonymous bw December 08, 2015 12:56 PM  

Ridgeback in the house

Blogger Timmy3 December 08, 2015 12:59 PM  

I agree that you don't need the footnotes. They don't need the footnotes. They argue rhetorically while you argue dialectically. Right?

Blogger LP999 December 08, 2015 1:00 PM  

You nitpicking, petty and jealous people inured in confusion, losing your country (freedom). Don't you know our host and Red Eagle are super intel, honest and trustworthy?

As for Phil I offer a question; would you like to play a game at twitter?

Anonymous Geoff December 08, 2015 1:02 PM  

Can't wait for a snarky witticism from Scalzi.

Blogger Salt December 08, 2015 1:03 PM  

Phil has a major crush on Vox. I don't think Milo even has anyone so enamored with him.

Blogger LP999 December 08, 2015 1:03 PM  

Vox and the staff are diligent and productive. They've undertook, created, CH.

CH has a future and again sjws, critics, etc., don't want anyone here to have anything. Meanwhile they want CH (or us/others here) to say sorry and bow down to their requests.

The answer is Nein and No.

Blogger RobertT December 08, 2015 1:10 PM  

When you're explaining you're losing.

Blogger MC227 December 08, 2015 1:11 PM  

Maybe Creepy Phil should have footnotes on his comments about Vox's Daddy's money buying up all the books.

Blogger David-2 December 08, 2015 1:12 PM  

The Skeptical Environmentalist - Bjørn Lomborg's book (has it really been 14 years?) - was pilloried for its footnotes, of which it has thousands.

The claim was they were all to newpaper articles or commentary or other spurious sources.

This lie stuck. But it was a lie.

Fully half the footnotes were in fact to newpaper articles and other "non official" sources. That is because a principal purpose of the book was to show "the way many environmental organizations make selective and misleading use of scientific evidence", and he did it by quoting their own documents and articles written by or for them and to make sure no one thought these quotes were made up or taken out of context he meticulously footnoted each one.

The other half the footnotes were all to authoritative sources: scientific journals, UN and government statistics, and recognized research institutes.

But you never heard about that.

(And that's also when I learned that my favorite magazine, as a kid - Scientific American - was fully SJW (though that term wasn't used at the time).

Blogger Cail Corishev December 08, 2015 1:13 PM  

Otherwise, the usual SJWs have been stunned into silence

I figure they looked at how their butt-hurt whining and one-star reviews only drew more attention to the last book, and decided to try ignoring this one. Never let it be said that SJWs can't learn, if you beat them hard enough. I doubt they'll be able to stick with it long, though.

Blogger ncartist December 08, 2015 1:15 PM  

Harry Potter has joined the fight against Trump

Blogger praetorian December 08, 2015 1:15 PM  

All these flavors, Phil...

Blogger Jeff Y December 08, 2015 1:19 PM  

Well, I don't know. I've purchased books for the bibliography alone.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz December 08, 2015 1:21 PM  

I must now ask for a meme:

"I don't make mistakes, but when I do I don't make them twice."

So much win by the dark master!

Blogger ajw308 (#98) December 08, 2015 1:22 PM  

If a reader is curious enough, and this counts for either side of the fence, there's always Google.

It's more likely the lack of footnotes is the first tripwire set to ID cucks seeking to disqualify.

Knowing Vox, there's an unpublished list of sources and ancillary material to back up the book.

Blogger Rabbi B December 08, 2015 1:23 PM  

Any whining for footnotes is a sign of laziness and another veiled attempt to impugn your character and disqualify, and not a sincere call for relevant factual support. They should know better by now.

Between WND, books, interviews, this blog, etc., how prolific have you been in the last decade alone? All of a suddne they really think you're going to start making stuff up? I think your credibility is well-established and unassailable.

And the damn train is fine.

Blogger John Red Eagle December 08, 2015 1:31 PM  

I will address it, first as if I were Red Eagle, and

Nice one.

To take the pseudo-Red Eagle's lesson of Chinese food a little further. By flatly stating your preference, you put your wife on the defensive - if she wants to argue, she has to qualify herself to you. By earnestly explaining your reasons, YOU go on the defensive and are qualifying yourself to her.

Remember, your goal is to win, not to have an extended, abstracted discussion about it. With that in mind, which position is stronger?

This isn't an academic treatise, it isn't a book report we're submitting for approval and critique by authority, and it isn't a defensive, plaintive rearguard work in the cuckservative style.

We're on the attack. Let the lefties and cuckservatives be on the defense. Let them impotently quibble and whine about us failing to cite our sources. Let them do their own homework if they want to argue or nitpick, and let them be the ones who try to qualify themselves.

Blogger F. Axe #437 December 08, 2015 1:33 PM  

I imagine that the progs and the shitlibs heads are going to explode...do they attack you, oh Supreme Dark Lord, and defend their "conservative" enemies? Or do they stand idly by, as your power and influence continues to wax, and the Mil-Right coalesces, forming their demise?

Blogger Rabbi B December 08, 2015 1:34 PM  

Vox should have duplicated every chapter and then we could really watch their heads explode.

Anonymous Susan December 08, 2015 1:37 PM  

slightly OT, but I am listening to Rush while reading here, and I just heard him alluding to Trump jumping in Cruz's chili.

Now I am wondering if Rush lurks here. I have never seen anything regarding chili jumping except here on this blog. If that is true, blog memes going national like that is very cool.

Anonymous fish December 08, 2015 1:38 PM  

Phil has a major crush on Vox. I don't think Milo even has anyone so enamored with him.

The submissive always craves the strong hand.

Blogger SirHamster December 08, 2015 1:40 PM  

4.9 out of 5 for 31 reviews. I would've expected a lot more trolling - Amazon deployed a better filter, or badfeels kept the rabbits away?

I love the hand-wringing over footnotes or endnotes. Seriously, the only people who follow up with them are OCD scholars or critics looking to discredit the work. Pretty much everyone else ignores them.

Some authors use them for amusing asides. I like reading the end/footnotes from Tom Kratman's articles.

Anonymous tublecane December 08, 2015 1:41 PM  

"The only people who actually need the footnotes..."

This I profoundly disagree with, depending on what you mean by "need," I suppose. In love footnotes, and love to get lost in them. Sometimes I ignore them completely, but in the best of books they're a gateway to other books. They don't serve only as checks against the author's point, like the literary equivalent of replication in science. They can help your allies by giving them new friends to agree with. I can't say how many footnotes are responsible for growing my book collection. Not as many as bibliographies, but enough.

Then again, not every book is the type of book that needs footnotes. I don't miss them in your average Thomas Paine-type work, for instance. Some books just don't have "scholarly" intentions, and don't need them.

Anonymous BigGaySteve December 08, 2015 1:43 PM  

Liberals don't even take an unedited video of a Gentle Giant beating up an Asian liquor store clerk with all the "hands up witnesses" participating in the robbery as evidence that Gentle Mike might have had something to do with his own death, because the unedited videos are only on HATEFACT SITES.

crush on Vox. I don't think Milo even has anyone so enamored with him....The submissive always craves the strong hand

Phil strikes me as a boot licker.

Anonymous Nxx December 08, 2015 1:47 PM  

Phil Sandifer ‏@PhilSandifer
Man, Vox Day must be spending an awful lot of his daddy's money to drive up his new book's Amazon ranking this high.


Ah, so communists are also envious of people whose parents aren't losers. I'll file it under leftist trivia.

Anonymous Wyrd December 08, 2015 1:48 PM  

Phil strikes me as a boot licker.

Boots are probably the most hygienic things he licks.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 08, 2015 1:50 PM  

This is a book of interpretation. Why would anyone care if it lacks footnotes?

If I suggest that any & all political parties or movements must be shades of the same underlying ethos, does it matter if I cite one or dozens of other writers for their parallel or perpendicular thoughts?

The "right" in the USA is a full member of the State Cathedral; its members either know this and celebrate it (e.g. George Will) or are ignorant, or simply lack a better place to go.

I'm not even sure it makes sense to label it, because for the foreseeable future it will not be a political movement, it will simply be the foe of this Universalist Theocracy. It is less defined by what it embraces than what it rejects: the denial-of-reality all-people-are-the-same, all-religions-are-the-same and all-cultures-are-the-same.

This Universalist dogma is the path to destruction of what we value (civilization, prosperity and peace...in that order.) It,and its promoters (knaves & useful idiots alike) are the enemy.

Anonymous Geoff December 08, 2015 1:52 PM  

@34 Susan, if Rush lurks here, hopefully he'll plug Vox's new book on his show.

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown December 08, 2015 1:52 PM  

The analogy would have been funnier if you'd substituted "kebab" for "Chinese".

Anonymous DT December 08, 2015 1:57 PM  

@25 - they couldn't declare that Trump is Hitler because that title is already taken by Putin.

Has anyone compared Trump to Emperor Palpatine yet? Because I'm pretty sure that one will be worth a 5 point boost.

Anonymous The other robot December 08, 2015 1:59 PM  

Maybe they can compare him with Nero?

Ooops, that would admit that the Empire is burning down.

Blogger ScuzzaMan December 08, 2015 2:01 PM  

How about the footnotes in a separate work, for twice the price?

With a special price for the brainstormers or something?

I'd buy them.

Anonymous Evolyn December 08, 2015 2:01 PM  

Yuck, footnotes. If it's interesting enough to be in the text, it should be part thereof. No need to make the reader skip around the page in order to read anecdotes/quotes/whatever.

The only exception: Citing a source or supplemental reading in a scholarly/technical text (which this book isn't).

Thank you for not vandalizing a good book!

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 08, 2015 2:07 PM  

@SirHamster

4.9 out of 5 for 31 reviews. I would've expected a lot more trolling - Amazon deployed a better filter, or badfeels kept the rabbits away?

I see Amazon using "Verified Purchase" above reviewers, so that might play a part. Also, this is a big Tar-baby for the SJW fuckers any way they attack it. Best to leave it alone for now and lie low, hoping the cucks get driven into their pozzed warren alongside them once and for all.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 08, 2015 2:08 PM  

@24 Cail Corishev

Otherwise, the usual SJWs have been stunned into silence
---

Remember that one guy had a website with this huge theory on how to beat VD? One of the points was they should ignore him so he becomes successful, and spends all his time counting money instead of kicking their asses :P

Blogger Bill December 08, 2015 2:10 PM  

Anyone have any thoughts about this?

Mass Shootings under the Last Five Presidents
Ronald Reagan: 1981-1989 (8 years) 11 mass shootings
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

George H. W. Bush: 1989-1993 (4 years) 12 mass shootings
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 3

Bill Clinton: 1993-2001 (8 years) 23 mass shootings
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 4

George W. Bush: 2001-2009 (8 years) 20 mass shootings
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

Barrack H. Obama: 2009-2015 (in 7th year) 162 mass shootings
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 18
(does not include Colorado Springs or San Bernadino)

http://truthstreammedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Mass-Murders-1981-2015-under-5-presidents.pdf

Blogger Bill December 08, 2015 2:10 PM  

(note that I footnoted that!)

Blogger Student in Blue December 08, 2015 2:17 PM  

@Bill
Anyone have any thoughts about this?

A hockey stick-like graph? Global warming must be the cause of these mass shootings.

Anonymous BN December 08, 2015 2:26 PM  

Maybe something for the errata, maybe I'm just not comprehending the sentence.

Kindle Locations 1788-1789

"However, the employment-population ratio dropped to 59.3, meaning that there were only 120,987,665 jobs in the United States, or 75,726,290."

I don't understand the ", or 75,726,290." portion of this sentence. Is that a mistake? If not, can someone point out what I'm missing?

Anonymous David of One December 08, 2015 2:31 PM  

Here cucky, cucky, cucky ... Cryin' Ryan is weaving, bobbing and a suckin' cuckin' ... cuck cuck a chooo! The train is fine!

Blogger ScottD December 08, 2015 2:31 PM  

This description fits PedoPhil to perfection (except he only thinks of himself as an intellectual):

As a direct result of their snobbery, intellectuals in capitalist society are, in the words of Joseph Schumpeter, ‘unsatisfactorily employed or unemployable.’ Those unable to obtain a poorly paid university post must seek some other job which is deemed to have a trace of intellectual respectability. A small number of them will manage to prostitute themselves in the oversubscribed, dumbed-down ‘culture industry’. (In television they constantly complain about the ‘tyranny’ of ratings, which forces them to pander to the tastes of the people who actually watch television). Many more join the massed ranks of failed intellectuals in public administration. In other words, they seek refuge in the arms of the State.

(Source left for searching.)

Anonymous Ryan December 08, 2015 2:35 PM  

I'm loving the book!!

Blogger wrangler December 08, 2015 2:45 PM  

Just picked up my copy on Amazon. There goes another sale, cha-ching!

Anonymous TS December 08, 2015 2:46 PM  

Vox, Cuckservative isn't at WND!?

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 08, 2015 2:47 PM  

Footnotes are important depending on the type of book. Geesh, imagine a debate where every point being made involved a parenthetical to cite a source? Ugh!

A book like, for example, America Betrayed by Herbert Hoover, footnotes are a must. He is documenting history, building a narrative based on information not commonly known and are contained in the documents cited.

I have not finished SJWs Always Lie, yet. Will get Cuckservative soon.

Blogger Salt December 08, 2015 2:55 PM  

A book like, for example, America Betrayed by Herbert Hoove

Good book.

Blogger Alexander December 08, 2015 2:56 PM  

Without footnotes, how can we point out the statistics that were compiled by a racist or a sexist or an Islamaphobe and thus do not count?

Anonymous Stephen J. December 08, 2015 2:58 PM  

You know what this represents, of course? A priceless marketing opportunity. Give the book about a year to get into its long tail and then re-release it, this time with the footnotes as the "Author's Preferred Edition". Bump in sales and profit, anyone who wanted to see the footnotes has them, and anybody who wants to disqualify based on them will only look hopelessly behind the times if they try.

Okay, that was mostly a joke, but something similar might be feasible. I confess I love footnotes and citations too. But not handing targets to eager opponents operating in bad faith makes sense.

Blogger Salt December 08, 2015 3:00 PM  

There's actually a bit of sourcing in the book.

Anonymous hardscrabble farmer December 08, 2015 3:02 PM  

"...is rather more than they are equipped to rationally process."

As my daughter would say, "No duh."

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 08, 2015 3:02 PM  

Correction, Vox:

The success of SJWs was bad enough, as far as they were concerned,

Should be SJWAL.

Blogger Torial (#170) December 08, 2015 3:13 PM  

Vox - Perhaps you could have some fun -- use a URL shortener with lots of different versions (e.g. http://vd.ay/ay1, http://vd.ay/cz3) that all point to this page. Then you'd also have the ability to track which things people (most likely cucks or sjws) are checking out on.

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 08, 2015 3:13 PM  

Without footnotes, how can we point out the statistics that were compiled by a racist or a sexist or an Islamaphobe and thus do not count?

Oh, good explanation. I like.

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 08, 2015 3:14 PM  

@59. Salt

My opinion of H. Hoover as POTUS is that he was not a good POTUS.

Man, but my estimation of Hoover as a documentarian and a historian went through the roof.

There is definitely more to Hoover than just a POTUS.

Blogger SirHamster December 08, 2015 3:17 PM  

Also, this is a big Tar-baby for the SJW fuckers any way they attack it. Best to leave it alone for now and lie low, hoping the cucks get driven into their pozzed warren alongside them once and for all.

Survival sense overriding desire for virtue signaling. That's a good point.

Anonymous Nxx December 08, 2015 3:18 PM  

@BN
I don't understand the ", or 75,726,290." portion of this sentence. Is that a mistake? If not, can someone point out what I'm missing?


Yes, there's a typo there that comes right at the argument's punchline.

It should say, "or 75,726,290 less than expected."

On the plus side it's the only typo in the book.

Blogger Tom K. December 08, 2015 3:26 PM  

SJWs Always Project.

Blogger Civis Silas December 08, 2015 3:28 PM  

@31

In other words, the Donald Trump approach to campaigning in book form.

...Oh my.

Blogger Tom K. December 08, 2015 3:30 PM  

I am ALWAYS tempted to do that. I WANT to be seen as the smart and clever author who put something smart and clever ony story and I want you to GET IT!

I resist, of course. And content myself with wallowing alone in my brilliance. But someday. . .

/facetious sign
/selfdeprecatiionnsign

Blogger Tom K. December 08, 2015 3:32 PM  

Exactly!

Blogger VD December 08, 2015 3:33 PM  

"or 75,726,290 less than expected."

Thanks, I'll fix it. Martin van Creveld spotted another error that I'll fix today. (shakes head) How cool is that?

Blogger Tom K. December 08, 2015 3:33 PM  

Exactly!

Blogger FP December 08, 2015 3:33 PM  

Heh, Ryan has grown a beard apparently to blend in with the people who cucked him.

Blogger Hammerli280 December 08, 2015 3:33 PM  

OK, I'll admit to being one of the advocates for footnotes - simply because I can wrap them around a pipe and beat Leftists over the head with facts. And I have the academic/scientific background that makes me accustomed to having the source materials identified.

But that doesn't affect the basic arguments.

Anonymous Scintan December 08, 2015 3:39 PM  

The footnotes should have been in there.

Blogger pyrrhus December 08, 2015 4:07 PM  

@78 Dipshit comments about footnotes are the hallmark of the SJW....

Blogger automatthew December 08, 2015 4:11 PM  

The footnotes should have been in there.

We should make the footnotes into another book. Charge $2.99 for them.

Blogger automatthew December 08, 2015 4:14 PM  

#9 in Kindle Nonfiction.

Awesome.

Blogger Anonymous Robot December 08, 2015 4:31 PM  

#9 in Kindle Nonfiction.

It will need to be called something like The Cuckservative Diet to get to #1!

Blogger Joshua Sinistar December 08, 2015 4:35 PM  

When SJWs ask for facts you know they're done. Since when do they need or use facts?
Its just not working anymore is it? They're out of reasons, used up all their excuses, namecalling just doesn't work anymore, and ole Saul Alinsky is still dead.
Thanks for playing. Its our turn now. Join the Mobile Infantry. I'm having a party. Voting is for wimps. That's not how the big boys do it.

Anonymous William Hodges December 08, 2015 4:42 PM  

Hah! What a joke. You didn't footnote the book or include full inline citations because you were to lazy to do so. If Bernie Sanders came out with a book full of stats and said, "oh, they're real stats, trust me, I just didn't include the footnotes because that would give fire to my enemies" you would excoriate him.

Lazy is as lazy does.

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau December 08, 2015 4:47 PM  

Google and Bing are your friends. I googled Danish Soldier IQ and it went directly to the article in that Right Wing Rag the Daily Mail.

Blogger Cail Corishev December 08, 2015 4:51 PM  

That's a great point I'd never thought of about footnotes. I'm going to stick with the Discworld kind from now on: parenthetical humorous asides.

Blogger Dexter December 08, 2015 5:12 PM  

@84,

So, we can expect your line-by-line, footnoted refutation of the book any day now?

Get on with it... don't be lazy!

Blogger Matamoros December 08, 2015 5:13 PM  

I am amazed that no one else has commented on the play on the flag on the cover.

The de-Whiting of the flag is indeed apropos of Cuckservatives.

Anonymous BGS December 08, 2015 5:16 PM  

The footnotes should have been in there....We should make the footnotes into another book. Charge $2.99 for them.

$40 was the pricepoint that leftists had to give "scholarships" for the Hugos, might as well make it hurt them

Anonymous tublecane December 08, 2015 5:16 PM  

@46-You're wrong, sometimes "interesting" things interrupt the flow of the writing. Sometimes the substance is just as important as the main text, but are tangential, distracting, or superfluous. Anyone who doesn't recognize that has no sense of literature. Of course, you could just exclude it and save it for a book of its own. This is what you should do if you're a novelist, for instance. But if your intention is to inform, above all else, I don't see any harm in indulgence indulging. For however true it is that the author could leave it out it's equally true the reader can skip it.

Which isn't to say author's don't abuse footnotes. They consistently do. I feel the same way about parentheses. You ought to be able to say what you want to say without a secondary text shadowing the main text, intruding to comment several times per page. But many writers actually know how to write, and they know how to both restrain themselves and nurture that shadow book to grow into a proper, little mini-book.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 08, 2015 5:19 PM  

@9 " I never understood why anybody cites anything to the Supreme Court other than we still pretend they care about the Constitution and precedent."

The real problem is that precedent is essentially a mechanism for ignoring the Constitution. As an example, read ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY, LLC, v. VANESSA WILLOCK you'll notice that they don't cite the New Mexico Constitution... why is this? Because the NM Constitution says the following:
Art II, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

Now, could the decision have possibly been harmonious given the above? No. So they ignored it, citing instead state law and the US Constitution (where it so suited them).

Blogger VD December 08, 2015 5:23 PM  

You didn't footnote the book or include full inline citations because you were to lazy to do so.

DISQUALIFY!

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian December 08, 2015 5:33 PM  

Man, Vox Day must be spending an awful lot of his daddy's money to drive up his new book's Amazon ranking this high.

I noticed in his twitter him bitchin' about how strange it was that so many sales happened over night.

Did I not tell everybody yesterday that I was working and would be purchasing and twittin' it last night?

Idiot paedo-pozzed prog-poofter.

Anonymous bw December 08, 2015 5:37 PM  

The submissive always craves the strong hand.

+1

Psych much?

Anonymous bw December 08, 2015 5:40 PM  

because you were to lazy to do so

Admits to sleeping 5-6 hrs / day (WTF??)
Pumping out books and publishing houses
Family
Gym
Homosexual Sporting Activities

Lazy as all F*ck

Blogger John Wright December 08, 2015 6:03 PM  

@54
The quote is from my hero Ludwig von Mises, THE ANTICAPITALIST MENTALITY.

Blogger automatthew December 08, 2015 7:10 PM  

$40 was the pricepoint that leftists had to give "scholarships" for the Hugos, might as well make it hurt them

$2.99 will buy a couple of tubs of margarine.

Blogger automatthew December 08, 2015 7:11 PM  

You know who else footnoted their books?

Nazis.

Anonymous The other robot December 08, 2015 8:11 PM  

Why is it that when I search Amazon for Cuckservative, Steven Pinker's Blank Slate shows up as well?

Anonymous The other robot December 08, 2015 8:46 PM  

Bill Gates is not reading the correct books.

You need to send him a copy of Cuckservative.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 08, 2015 9:04 PM  

@76 FP

Heh, Ryan has grown a beard apparently to blend in with the people who cucked him.
---
+10

Blogger Were-Puppy December 08, 2015 9:07 PM  

@88 Matamoros

I am amazed that no one else has commented on the play on the flag on the cover.
---

It was a big topic a whiles back when VD first posted about the book.

Blogger Darth Toolpodicus (#144) December 08, 2015 9:08 PM  

Loved the footnotes in TIA, but definitely understand the lack of same in Cuckservative.

Had leftists try to use some of them to argue against Vox's point on the Spanish Inquisition.

Blogger The Other Robot December 08, 2015 9:13 PM  

In Politics and Social Science Cuckservative has beaten out Te Nehisi Cockroach for first place.

Blogger Danby December 08, 2015 10:43 PM  

@97 automatthew
You know who else footnoted their books?
Nazis.


Automatthew, you magnificent bastard.

Blogger SciVo December 08, 2015 11:06 PM  

@ The other robot:

That phrase (blank slate) appears many times in Cuckservative, so it's easy to picture a word-searching algorithm picking a book with that phrase as a title.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar December 08, 2015 11:18 PM  

Remember when they said Vox didn't have a wife he called Spacebunny because they never saw her? I think that why they don't believe in God either. Apparently they can't see the difference between races except when you're White. Maybe they're all just blind. In the land of the blind, a granny running for President because she married a man who was President is a feminist, and people who don't approve of homosexuality are haters unless they're Muslim.
Satire has lost the race to insanity. The Onion sounds less silly than the Grey lady. The people who read the New York Times hate capitalism but don't care its owned by a Billionaire. Insanity doesn't need reasons, but even the excuses don't make sense at this point.

Blogger Groot December 08, 2015 11:22 PM  

You☙ have to be careful¹ with footnotes.²

¹ But not a scaredy-cat*.

* ᵗᵃⁿᵍᵉⁿᵗⁱᵃˡ ᵗʰᵒᵘᵍʰ ˢᵗⁱˡˡ ᶜᵃʳᵉᶠᵘˡ

² (A humorous aside.)

__________

☙ "One."

♽ Dipshit comment.

Blogger David The Good December 08, 2015 11:24 PM  

"No footnotes!"

We don't care.

Blogger CM December 08, 2015 11:41 PM  

So... I'm reading it and am absorbed. I'm still in Ch 1 (slow reader) at the part on Am. Exceptionalism.

I thought the uniqueness of The US of A was in its unity of many separate "nation" states. It is touched on a bit that different European peoples largely dominated different regions but that these different people were able to unite together under one flag.

After all, NY is not CA is not OH is not AL.

I also thought it was this that the EU was trying so hard to counterfeit.

Of course, that was when it was a confederation of states under a weak central gov't and has since been destroyed and is continually wrecked by our weakened states and significantly stronger gov't.

Blogger Samuel Nock December 08, 2015 11:55 PM  

Disorienting for most people because they cannot see or think beyond the "Democrat / Republican" or "liberal / conservative" dichotomy.

Someone who pillories the "right", immediately after having attacked the left simply does not compute for most mainstream people.

Blogger Unknown December 09, 2015 1:39 AM  

Footnotes are cool, bibliographies are better. I do understand your reason for not including them.

In academic papers, often the footnotes have all the meat, and the juicy gossip too. We get in the habit of reading the abstract, the footnotes, and the conclusion.

Blogger CM December 09, 2015 1:44 AM  

In academic papers, often the footnotes have all the meat, and the juicy gossip too. We get in the habit of reading the abstract, the footnotes, and the conclusion.

One of the reasons I enjoy reading here is observing how many of you are nerdier than I am. Years of trying to play Bible Trivia wasted on the wrong people...

Blogger Jill December 09, 2015 2:16 AM  

All I know is that footnotes are a pain in the ass to format, esp in ebook format. All those effing links back and forth. So tedious. And who really checks them outside the academic realm? Researchers/curious folk know how to find information on their own.

OpenID pulvatory December 09, 2015 3:38 AM  

VD,

Since 1965, America has endured the biggest mass migration of people in human history, twice the size of the great wave of immigration into the USA between 1870 and 1930. As a result, Americans are being displaced in their own land by an ongoing invasion that dwarfs Operation Barbarossa, is two orders of magnitude larger than the Mongol hordes, and is one thousand times larger than the First Crusade.


HANG ON.

Is the betrayal in 1965 a reference to the Voting Rights Act?

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 09, 2015 7:38 AM  

@114: You don't thing the various "Voting Rights" acts weren't thoroughly debated?

You need to do some very basic research on the topic of immigration, most especially the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

Anonymous old man in a villa December 09, 2015 9:50 AM  

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-02/1965-immigration-law-changed-face-of-race-in-u-s-

There, that should help bring you up to speed.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts