My first submission ever to an American news magazine was as a Canadian, in the early 2000s. What was visited upon me, on that occasion, shook me to the core.
I had been published by the Canadian Financial Post, a national newspaper, on the topic of intellectual property rights. Oh, the luxury of intellectual pursuit for the sake of it; these days, survival as free individuals is the pressing topic of the day.
Naturally, I credited scholarship galvanized in the making of my argument. And so, mentioned were Sir Arnold Plant, Tom G. Palmer and Stephan Kinsella, with whom I later collaborated in an IP symposium for the now-defunct Insight magazine.
The IP column submitted to the American Magazine was fielded by a well-known editor, a gate-keeper, who, in the unethical American model was both editor, writer and syndicated columnist. Still is.
Unethical, why? Because division of labor in our profession prevents corrupting conflict of interest. The latter always and everywhere gives rise to unethical conduct, all the more so given the grubby, ego-driven nature of journalism and journalists in America. With a few admirable exceptions (Townhall, American Greatness, CNSNews), almost all conservative editors also colonize their own editorial pages with their own copy.
Such opportunistic misconduct is zero-sum. The bad pushes out the good. In direct conflict with their mission, editors have the greatest incentive to keep talent off the pages, in-case it usurps theirs—and worse.
This particular editor-cum-writer-cum-syndicated columnist replied to my submission in the negative: My piece (similar in “shoddiness” to “How Things Would Work In A Copyright Free Universe“) was just too shallow for his magazine. In other words, “Be gone with you lesser Canadian woman.”
My piece, however, was not too shallow for—wait for this—the American Editor’s syndicated column, where my column’s ideas cameoed in the United States under the dishonest man’s byline. Oh, yes. American Editor had excised smarty pants woman, seized upon her argument and her scrupulous citations of American scholars—and got himself a neat little column for his dry-as-dust syndicated slot.
Perhaps one day I shall name him, although to what avail, I don’t know. While it repulses me and I will not countenance it or be victim of it—unethical conduct doesn’t repulse many conservatives in the least.
Here’s the take-away lesson (as the kids like to say): Ecumenical submission to heavily promoted second-handers is not in me. When these second-handers pick the brains of longtime, marginalized, prolific, independent dissidents sans acknowledgement—they will be called out.
A bit of purity and inspiration amid a lot of moral ugliness:
This from a new and devoted reader I “met” through Michelle Malkin’s “Sovereign Nation”. His language is so vivid and filled with passion about ethics and justice.
Friday, May 21, 2021 11:30 PM
Subject: Fwd: RESPECT IDEAS!:> “HOMO EROTIC SUBMISSION > A MERCER ORIGINAL IDEA
The following LINKS are for an excellent essay by Misses Ilana Mercer on ideas and their, not only origin, but the acknowledgement of credit where credit is due. And this is not a case of shallow egocentricity, of a blowing of one’s own horn, and at that, out of tune. It is something I imagine a number of you have come across; that which concerns one of the most vile forms of censorship. The DISPLACEMENT of a human being, by the dishonest pseudo-intellectual weakling, who subsequently RANSACKS his victim’s artistic-intellectual-scientific creation rendering it his own. The vomitory irony is that this dishonest action of cerebral faggotry is carried out by either one who has the power to bludgeon many a time the true creator into a living oblivion or is aided and abetted by those who’ve not any concern for the truth. Have no sympathy, their hearts are as cold as ice, and know not a beat of life. I am not preaching: they’re one degree of an evil hierarchy. Be forever courageous and take the ax of a woodman to this disease ridden tree.
What Misses Ilana Mercer has written is of a most profound importance, and always has been, with broad-spread consequences not just culturally, as in artistic production, but in all the dimensions of our lives, including the financial. I ask you all to think about this; truly contemplate it. Exactness and precision is called for to-day!