Article I sent to Lew rockwell.com

2,687 Posts

Points 48,995

Reply

Jonathan M. F. Catalán replied on Wed, Feb 17 2010 9:25 PM

rated by 0 users

Scott F:

I'm dying here in suspense.I'm rather be told no than not know.If it's in the pipeline then I'm sorry for being so impatient.I'd just like to know.

I don't know how Lew Rockwell works, but usually editors are quick in responding - Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 not that I have much experience Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 I would send a polite email asking if they received your document, and whether they liked it or not. I'm not sure how many articles get submitted to Lew Rockwell, though.

My Mises Dailies

| Post Points: 20

785 Posts

Points 13,445

Reply

The Late Andrew Ryan replied on Wed, Feb 17 2010 9:26 PM

rated by 0 users

Scott F:
do you think it has been rejected? could it have been too controversial in my referral to the N word? Was my formatting and style not write for the site - it was in word ,quite long,quite academic and quite cutting? was it just a bad article?

I don't know, if you could give us a link or copy then we might be able to tell you.

I didn't actually know that you could send articles to the site, I assumed that it was all done by their set of writer (I really don't like the feel or format of Lewrockwell.com so I rarely go there)

"Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it." -Thus Spake Zarathustra

| Post Points: 5

696 Posts

Points 12,900

Reply

AnonLLF replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 1:49 PM

rated by 0 users

Thanks for the help Jonathan.I will do.I think quite a lot get submitted.It seems like their might be a backlog.It gets updated 6 days a week so here's hoping.

I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.

Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.

| Post Points: 5

753 Posts

Points 18,750

Reply

Jeremiah Dyke replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 4:08 PM

rated by 0 users

Scott F:

I sent an article to Lew Rockwell.com on Political correctness. I sent it last week and I haven't seen it posted or had an reply to say my piece has been rejected.

do you think it has been rejected? could it have been too controversial in my referal to the N word? Was my formatting and style not write for the site - it was in word ,quite long,quite academic and quite cutting? was it just a bad article?

I'm dying here in suspense.I'm rather be told no than not know.If it's in the pipeline then I'm sorry for being so impatient.I'd just like to know.

I think Lew is extremely busy right now. Usually he replies with a quick "no thanks" or "I'll pass". If he accepts it he is usually back to you in about 1-2 days with the link and when it’s scheduled to run. In the last three i sent him i have had heard nothing back. If its been a week then assume its been passed over-- Keep pumping though, that’s the name of the game though! Even revise and resubmit at a later time

Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah

| Post Points: 20

696 Posts

Points 12,900

Reply

AnonLLF replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 6:26 PM

rated by 0 users

Jeremiah Dyke:

Scott F:

I sent an article to Lew Rockwell.com on Political correctness. I sent it last week and I haven't seen it posted or had an reply to say my piece has been rejected.

do you think it has been rejected? could it have been too controversial in my referal to the N word? Was my formatting and style not write for the site - it was in word ,quite long,quite academic and quite cutting? was it just a bad article?

I'm dying here in suspense.I'm rather be told no than not know.If it's in the pipeline then I'm sorry for being so impatient.I'd just like to know.

I think Lew is extremely busy right now. Usually he replies with a quick "no thanks" or "I'll pass". If he accepts it he is usually back to you in about 1-2 days with the link and when it’s scheduled to run. In the last three i sent him i have had heard nothing back. If its been a week then assume its been passed over-- Keep pumping though, that’s the name of the game though! Even revise and resubmit at a later time

I hate to say it but I think your right.It's a shame I thought it was a good article but I can do better so no worries.

I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.

Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.

| Post Points: 20

3,739 Posts

Points 60,635

Reply

Marko replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 7:07 PM

rated by 0 users

Open a blog and post your rejected articles there.

| Post Points: 20

108 Posts

Points 2,600

Reply

MarketFundamentalist replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 8:43 PM

rated by 0 users

Sounds like an interesting piece. Political correctness must be exposed for the vile socialist evil it is. I'd be interested in reading your article too.

Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motorcar and a radio set. - Ludwig von Mises

| Post Points: 20

2,051 Posts

Points 36,080

Reply

Bert replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 9:06 PM

rated by 0 users

I once sent Lew an article, and he nicely declined it. I think a week or so later I realized how bad it was. If I remember correctly it had to do with gay marriage and somehow using the Amish as an example of "seceding" from the Statist policies, and living off their land while not intervening in others business. Even explaining it sounds bad. It's rather embarassing and I don't think I can redeem myself for it.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols

| Post Points: 35

3,739 Posts

Points 60,635

Reply

Marko replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 12:20 AM

rated by 0 users

It is very hard for an author to know if his stuff is any good. You really need a second opinion which is really the first opinion because your own is totally unreliable.

| Post Points: 5

696 Posts

Points 12,900

Reply

AnonLLF replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 4:34 PM

rated by 0 users

I finally sent off the polite email suggested yesterday and I got a polite E-mail back telling me to send my article again ,so that's great I wasn't rejected!

Happy times.

I'll post my article below.I slightly modified a small part of it.

I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.

Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.

| Post Points: 5

696 Posts

Points 12,900

Reply

AnonLLF replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 4:37 PM

rated by 0 users

The Sapir - Whorf Wormhole

By Scott Forster.

“Political correctness is cultural Marxism, a regime to punish dissent”.

- Pat Buchanan

We live in a world where everything is politicized – the food we eat, where the food is from, the car’s we drive, the clothes we wear. It’s insane. Democracy creeps into our lives. It makes busybodies of us wielding legislation as a sabre to exorcise all our personal bugbears.

Political correctness is a hard fought over concept so definitions are often controversial. Among the definitions floating around are:

“Changing the language where you perceive it may offend “ or “ and “language, ideas policies and behaviour seen as seeking to minimise social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation ,handicap and age related contexts.”

My definition:-

1.The desire or attempt to change language or behaviour where it’s perceived to be offensive in that it’s discriminatory or prejudiced etc to minorities and which also aims to be more ‘inclusive’ to manipulate thought.

2. Laws and policies whether private or governmental created for this purpose.

3. Political positions taken which are believed to be egalitarian, inclusive, tolerant, ’fair’ And which reject and oppose positions they perceive as opposed to these goals and which are believed to be bigoted, intolerant, prejudiced and often also politically unorthodox.

Political correctness arose from communist Mao in his red book in 1964 during his ‘cultural revolution’ .Originally political correctness meant following party line(i.e. the communist line).Later political correctness was adopted by the Marxist ‘ Frankfurt school’ –a group of thinkers arising around the 1930’s from the institute of social research which was founded in 1923- as a way of changing culture in an attempt to implement Marxism through use of critical theory (Many trace Herbert Marcuse as an important thinker in working towards this goal.)

Later it was adopted by the wacky hippy trippy egalitarian new left in 1960’s .

Agustin Blazquez in his article Political correctness: the scourge of our times blasts away any delusions about the concept. Explaining his experiences of it he says

“My first conscious exposure to Political Correctness was in 1959 – the first year of Castro's revolution in Cuba – while attending an indoctrination session at a neighborhood elementary school in Havana.There also learned that the word "compañero" (filtered version of the communist "comrade" – Fidel was denying his communist preferences) was the correct way to refer to the other members of the new Cuban society-in-the-making. Mr., Mrs. and Miss were no longer acceptable, and their further use could reveal that you were not a Fidelista”

Let me be clear. I utterly reject political correctness and not just things like “Baa Baa rainbow sheep” or the changing of “black board” that are distortions and not true.

I don’t think it has gone mad. I think it IS mad. I reject the concept at its core. Even if it’s possible to change individual’s thoughts by changing how language is used.

It’s morally undesirable. It’s akin to Orwell’s idea of doublespeak whereby if manipulate language enough then “war is peace and “slavery is freedom”. Political correctness only benefits elites who have a vested interest in determining how we think. Political correctness is in essence mind control and that is a bad thing despite what leftists tell you. Instead of going direct route of censorship now it seems puritans are trying to manipulate thought itself. The result of the aims of political correctness can only be uniformity and conformity of thought .Political correctness is a vampire that desperately needs a stake through the heart.

As far as I can tell political correctness became popular due to widespread democracy, egalitarianism, socialism and paternalism .It's created a whole victim culture .One person must be the oppressor and another person the victim (I’m not denying racism sexism etc but political correctness assumes this is always the case) the victim must always be a 'minority' (whatever that means) the oppressor must always be in the majority -they are usually claimed to be white urban males. If I refuse to agree with the cultural relativist view that all cultures are equal especially in moral standards then apparently I’m a ‘Eurocentric’ racist. People are oft heard to say Political Correctness went mad. My retort is when it was ever sane!?

The important issue is context. A word is not offensive outside of its context, rather it’s meaningless. It just becomes a word.

It’s strange that the same people who argue we should reclaim such words as “queer “,“gay”, “bitch“ or “fag” are hypersensitive over the word “nigger”. I would argue that it too should be reclaimed and redeemed as a non offensive descriptive. After all the word only became offensive relatively recently in history, roughly around the time of the civil rights movement. Originally the word had no negative connotations

Merely being the Latin for “black”. Surely there exists hypocrisy in that within their sub group black people are “allowed “to use this word while it is taboo for white people to use it even in a non racist context. While it is indeed true the word evokes memories of slave plantations and Jim Crow laws, it need not be so. Wouldn’t it lose its power if it was a commonly heard colloquialism?

On the blog theangryblackwoman.com a piece, in defence of political correctness, the writer sets up a straw man position again the critics of everything PC

“Particularly like the definition by WordNet. It parallels the bit about “Civility” mentioned in the Wikipedia entry. For me, Political Correctness boils down to just that: being civil, being polite. I feel that Political Correctness promotes tolerance because it forces people to think about what they say and who they are saying it to. It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that people who rail against Politically Correct speech are those who do not want to have to be polite or civil to folks different from them. They see nothing wrong with using the language they grew up with or that they’ve come to use. They do not care if the language they use is hurtful to others because, after all, the most important thing is that they get to do what they want when they want. This is the prevailing attitude of people with privilege. They can spit PC at anyone who asks for a little civility.”

This comment by someone on the against political correctness website below
eloquently describes my views

"Why does Political Correctness stink to high heaven? Because it's lingual fascism - a refusal to accept that context is everything where words are concerned Good luck with your campaign."

An internet debater Hypersky from also articulates this point

“It's sad when people project their insecurities onto the language, and add layers of meaning to certain words until there is a level of discomfort in even saying them. OldSpeak becomes NewSpeak at some point. Take the word "negro" for example. Negro means "black" in Spanish, and was used for centuries by Spanish and English speakers to mean a "black person." Over time the word, pronounced "nigger" by white racists became vile and hideous. However, the word "negro" still should be acceptable, because it is the contemptible behaviour of slavemasters that is at fault, not the word itself .”

In a piece titled Am I politically correct? ,a young woman explains the hypocrisy of political correctness and it’s evils

“I don't understand how a black rapper can call a fellow black person a 'nigga' in an affectionate manner, yet a non-black person would be heavily criticised for using this term.I find politically correct quotas and companies' 'ethnic diversity' policies deeply racist. The very existence of quotas and 'ethnic diversity' programmes in companies and schools enforce racism, as one's colour becomes a contributing factor to their employment or acceptance for a place. Surely it's more racist to employ someone of ethnic minority in order to prove that you aren't racist, as opposed to employing whoever is better at the job - irrelevant of their colour. Whether you end up with an 'all-white' company or not, race should not be part of the selection process.

However it appears not everyone sees it this way. On one site a page entitled How To Be Politically Correct reading through it we have some fluffy help how to be PC which meets all the worst criteria of Political correctness:

“A politically correct person never offends or excludes a person or a group from his speech. Use of exclusionist language can make you sound politically incorrect and may offend the sensitivities of others.”

Egalitarianism .Check.

“One needs to categorically avoid cracking jokes that conform to racial, ethnic or gender stereotypes.”

Seeing offense everywhere. Check.

Express yourself the way a well-mannered and educated person would do. Do not hurt people by typecasting your conceptions about them. Such humor is usually considered distasteful “

Taking a sensible moderate position and pushing it to the extreme. Check.

“Disregard for women and gendered comments can be highly offensive. Try to remain gender-neutral by using words like ‘chairperson’ instead of ‘chairman’, and so on.”

Assumed intentions of words where no pejorative use was intended. Check.

“There is absolutely no need to add a personal tinge to you office e-mails, memos etc, by making them humorous or including some non-official comments. It may offend people and convey wrong intentions. Besides, it is also a highly unprofessional thing to do.”

Depersonalize everything and dehumanize relationships. Check.

We live in such an entitlement culture that people believe they are entitled to everything on a plate we live in an entitlement culture brought about by nanny state paternalism whereby everyone expects everything on a plate. It seems like we’ve gotten the idea in our heads that we have a right not to be offended .That’s clearly nonsense. Fact is free speech means the right to offend, to say whatever you like no matter how offensive. Let’s face it at some point everyone gets offended by something, its inevitable. Sometimes the truth must be told. Often times it is not pleasant. Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said “pleasant words are not honest, honest words are not pleasant” .Not everyone can handle the truth but it must be told. The truth must out. American revolutionary Thomas Paine said “he would cannot offend cannot be honest”. If you find something offensive turn off or turn over the TV. Avoid it or boycott it. No one forces you to interact with it. You also need to ask yourself why you find it offensive. Remember what’s offensive is subjective. There is no universal definition of what is offensive except that which is morally offensive but the two concepts are radically different.

In defence of political correctness , a blogger at writes

“So-called political correctness amounts to nothing more than treating people with the respect they deserve it means not discriminating against them because of gender, race, age, sexual orientation, religion or any other totally unreasonable factor. It means abstaining from using terms that are considered to be derogatory by the person they are addressed to/concern. It means treating everyone equally, and abstaining from ludicrous stereotypes. How that harms society, I don’t know, but without these most basic of considerations our country would be a poor place to live.”

Again this theme repeats .In a guardian article Hugh Muir writesIn defence of political correctness attempting to convey the appearance that his position is moderate and that any criticism of it is unreasonable and anti –social almost:

“. Let's agree at the outset that it is a good thing to have respect, to be civil, to be inclusive, to avoid unnecessary offence, to try to act to give the various sections of society equal opportunities. For these, it seems to me, are really the concepts at the heart of what critics such as Davies carelessly deride as political correctness. As ideas, they seem laudable.”

If political correctness meant merely being nice to others I would have no axe to grind .We have concepts covering that- manners, politeness and kindness moderately and reasonably applied. The fact is prejudice exists .It's a sad fact but it does. Merely because its immoral or impolite does not mean there should be laws preventing it or that it should be something akin to a thought crime.

Even those who political correctness aims to help find it pernicious.One disabled blogger commented:

“As if referring to us in these politically correct terms was somehow going to change the way able-bodied people perceived us? Oh, how wonderful! Too bad it was a ridiculous notion that has failed miserably.
“Politically correct language is clearly not enough. In fact, it’s become a hindrance.“

Moreover many times political correctness becomes what it claims to oppose. More than once political correctness has led to racism or discrimination; you only need to look at a few examples like Jane Elliot in her channel 4 program how racist are you?

Or affirmative action legislation resulting in black individuals being hired over white applications purely based on race.

Sean Gabb in his article On Golliwogs, One-Eyed Scottish Idiots and Sending Poo through the Post gives his own personal story:

“Or, to give myself as an example, there was my BBC debate of the 16th February 2004 with Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, an Asian immigrant who seems incapable of seeing any issue except in terms of white racism. During this debate, I asked her: "Yasmin, are you saying that the white majority in this country is so seething with hatred and discontent that it is only restrained by law from rising up and tearing all the ethnic minorities to pieces?" Her answer was "Yes." It is possible she did not understand my question. It is possible she would have clarified or retracted her answer had the debate been allowed to continue. Sadly for her, the BBC immediately switched off my microphone and threw me into the street. Mrs. Brown was allowed to continue uninterrupted till the end of the program. The hundreds of complaints received by the BBC and the Commission for Racial Equality were all either ignored or dismissed with the assurance that nothing untoward had taken place in the studio. I accept that Mrs. Brown might not have meant what she said. Had I made such a comment about Asians or blacks, however, I might have been facing a long stretch in prison.”

In a Guardian piece Politically correct and proud of it, Will Hutton presenting political correctness in such a way as to make it seem to oppose it is reactionary or hateful ( I would argue this is a typical left wing tactic. Call your opponent a fuddy duddy and the battle is won.) Says:

“Michael Howard has lost touch with a nation that cherishes fairness and equality...

It is sad that so few are prepared to speak up for the idea that it matters how we talk and interact. A society built on respect and tolerance is rightly concerned about the language it uses and the processes it celebrates. Political correctness, understood in these terms, is a considerable achievement”

What used to be perfectly good medical terms like “retard” or “lame “or “crippled” have become euphemised .Comedian George Carlin argued that politically correct euphemism’s trivialize the plight of the suffering and make it seem ordinary or even made up. The example he gave was “shell shock” becoming “post traumatic stress disorder”.

If you look at popular political causes most of the absurd illogical dangerous ones are politically correct for example Environmentalism, animal rights, hate speech laws (Surely most, if not all crimes are motivated by hate. In any case why is it relevant to the crime committed? It’s important to note the term is never reported in reference to a crime on a white person .why is every black person killed racially motivated while every white person not?), affirmative action, gun control, protectionism (euphemistically titled ‘fair trade’) , and mandatory child support. In short political correctness could serve as shorthand for insanity. Therefore it’s no wonder the left and the right wing has adopted it. It’s so bad these days people tip toe around each other deadly afraid of being thought of as offensive or of being offended. Political correctness is stifling thought in civil society – in the workplace (especially in the form of ‘diversity training’), Colleges, universities and schools all over the world.

Time for a return to common sense and reason.

I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.

Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.

| Post Points: 5

rated by 0 users
This post has 0 verified answers | 11 Replies | 1 Follower

All Replies

Article I sent to Lew rockwell.com

rated by 0 users This post has 0 verified answers | 11 Replies | 1 Follower

All Replies

rated by 0 users
This post has 0 verified answers | 11 Replies | 1 Follower