[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”2675″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” css_animation=”right-to-left”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Voluntaryist, Book Author, Journalist, Philosopher, Public Speaker
Editor’s Note: Wendy has joined our editorial staff here at TMM. By way of introducing Wendy to readers here at The Mental Militia who may not be familiar with her works, I will share some material originally printed at The Daily Bell –
Wendy McElroy is a prolific book author, columnist, speaker and contributor to prestigious journals and magazines, often with an “alternative” slant. She made her reputation as a young writer commenting from a libertarian standpoint on feminism… McElroy has continued to speak out, nonetheless, on issues of the most importance to her: libertarianism, anarchism and, of course, feminism. She has served as a weekly columnist for FoxNews.com and is the editor of the feminist website ifeminists.com. McElroy is also a research fellow at the Independent Institute, and contributing editor to The Dollar Vigilante, Ideas on Liberty (formerly The Freeman), The New Libertarian, Free Inquiry and Liberty magazines. Her writing has appeared in such diverse periodicals as National Review, Marie Claire and Penthouse. For over a decade, McElroy was a series editor for Knowledge Products. She has written and edited many documentary scripts for audio cassette, some of which were narrated by Walter Cronkite, George C. Scott and Harry Reasoner.
Please enjoy Wendy’s websites:
Individualist Feminists — http://www.ifeminists.com/e107_plugins/enews/enews.php
Wendy McElroy dot com — http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Updating July 25 2018 —
I have two updates for Wendy’s landing page here at TMM. The first is an especially enjoyable treasure. Wendy McElroy has posted “VOLUNTARYISM: Some Personal Reminiscences” at her website. Read that at her site — http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.8842
I have archived it here at TMM as an extra measure — https://thementalmilitia.net/2018/07/25/wendy-mcelroy-voluntaryism-personal-reminiscences/
The second update is simply a note to remind all readers here that Wendy’s newest book (in July 2018) is progressing nicely at the Bitcoin website, here[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css_animation=”bottom-to-top”]
Rape Culture Hysteria: Fixing the Damage Done to Men and Women
I have never seen anyone take apart the multitude of characteristics comprising society’s infinite interpretations and uses of the term “Political Correctness” (“PC”) in such thorough detail as Wendy McElroy has done with her latest work. She delineates “Individualist Feminists” from “PC Feminists”. Example: On pages 34 and 35 Wendy discusses a basic assumption of PC Feminists which holds that “the personal is political”. Quoting just a sample passage from those pages:
PC Feminist Susan Miller Okin explained the origins of the slogan in her influential book, Justice, Gender, and the Family (1989).
“The earliest claims that the personal is political came from those gender feminists of the 1960s and 1970s who argued that, since the [traditional] family was at the root of women’s oppression, it must be ‘smashed’.”
Wendy elaborates in the next paragraph —
More specifically, the slogan (the personal is political) came from the New Left which was a loose coalition of left-wing or Marxist educators and agitators who focused on “social justice” through specific issues such as gender, gay rights, and abortion. Carol Hanisch popularized the slogan “the personal is political” in the title of a brief essay, dated February 1969, which was published by the radical feminist group Redstockings. The “Redstockings Manifesto” stated,
“Because we have lived so intimately with our oppressors, in isolation from each other, we have been kept from seeing our personal suffering as a political condition. This creates the illusion that a woman’s relationship with her man is a matter of interplay between two unique personalities, and can be worked out individually. In reality, every such relationship is a class relationship, and the conflicts between individual men and women are political conflicts that can only be solved collectively.”
Wendy follows: The underlying meaning of “the personal is political” is that all actions and attitudes, however personal or peaceful they may seem, are actually political and must be addressed as such. Why? Because a person’s private actions and attitudes impact all other individuals and society itself…”
Moving forward in the book to page 48, Wendy dissects the influence on PC Feminism in post-modern French philosophy as introduced to the feminist movement in general by Michel Foucault. His interest peaked in the 1960s and 1970s when political correctness overwhelmed the broader feminist movement. This is an important chapter, as this passage on page 49 hints —
…Foucault claimed the dominant culture defined a person’s sexuality in a literal sense. In other words, a person’s sexuality was not biologically determined; it was established by those in control of the culture…. Foucault laid out a theory of social construction. He presented what he considered to be two fundamental facts about knowledge: it is power; and, no absolute knowledge exists. Knowledge is subjective, and reality is whatever a dominant group is able to construct as truth. The powerful group does not need to be a majority. It must only be dominant and its truth must be accepted by a sufficient number of people, even on a passive level.
As just this much reveals, Wendy McElroy has burrowed deeply into the history of ‘feminism’ in general to reveal the encroachments of PC Feminism. As readers here at TMM know, collectivism depends on a consensus belief in statism, and statism depends upon government for the enforcement of mandates, whether such mandates be focused on economics, politics, or our social and cultural institutions. The book is so much more than a brief praise may suggest, so take the clue here and get your copy for a great insight into how PC works behind the scenes, how it is related to power-centers in governance, and its goals toward disintegration of our traditional American way of life. Click here to get your copy today.
For Wendy’s author page at Amazon, click here[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator color=”violet” border_width=”4″ el_width=”80″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Elias Alias Note —
I make no claim to keep current with all that Wendy McElroy does. The lady is prolific, and I liken her to a fountain head from which gushes uncountable currents and tides of brilliant writing. TMM is deeply blessed to know Wendy, and I am pleased that Wendy is happy to have a landing page here. Let me now post an updated mini-bio on Wendy which I found at bottom of the page from which I’ve taken the article immediately below.
Wendy McElroy is a Canadian individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder of the Voluntaryist magazine and modern movement in 1982, and has authored over a dozen books, scripted dozens of documentaries, worked several years for FOX News and written hundreds of articles in periodicals ranging from scholarly journals to Penthouse. She has been a vocal defender of WikiLeaks and its head Julian Assange.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Wendy McElroy: Crypto as Class Warfare
Originally published at Bitcoin on Jun 23, 2018 |
Wendy McElroy: Crypto as Class Warfare
The Satoshi Revolution: A Revolution of Rising Expectations
Section 4: State Versus Society
Chapter 9, Part 1
Crypto as Class Warfare
“Antagonism between the classes will be removed. I do not envisage a dead and artificial level among the people. There will be a variety among them as there is among the leaves of a tree. There will certainly be no have-nots, no unemployment, and no disparity between classes and masses such as we see to-day. I have no doubt whatsoever that if non-violence in its full measure becomes the policy of the State, we shall reach essential equality without strife.”
Cryptocurrency is the realization of an anarchist dream that dates back centuries: a free currency and a free banking system. Crypto is in its infancy, which means its future applications are electrifyingly unpredictable, except in one regard: any successful application will fill a human need. No human needs are as acute as food and shelter, which require money and exchange. To control the flow of money and exchange, therefore, is to control life itself. And the financial flow is often captured by one word: banking.
In their quest for free banking, social reformers of the past made a distinction that is often lost today. Namely, banking is at the core of class warfare. The ramifications of that insight rests upon the definition of “class” being used: capitalist v. worker, nobles v. peasants, the political v. the productive. Crypto departs sharply from the meaning imposed by socialists centuries ago–capitalists v. workers–and expresses a 21st century form of financial class warfare: the political v. the productive.
The extraordinary crypto network is not a banking system, as traditionally conceived, but it can replace most banking functions. And future evolution within crypto applications may wipe out any remaining need for central banks.
Please enjoy this article in full HERE
>embedded link — https://thementalmilitia.net/2018/07/09/wendy-mcelroy-crypto-class-warfare/[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”violet” border_width=”3″ el_width=”70″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css_animation=”appear”]
Demystifying the State
by Wendy McElroy
Mystification is the process by which the commonplace is elevated to the level of the divine by those who have a vested interest in its unassailability. Government is a perfect example of mystification at work. Government is a group of individuals organized for the purpose of extracting wealth and exerting power over people and resources in a given geographic area. Ordinarily people object to and resist thieves and robbers; but in the case of government, they do not because the government has created a mystique of legitimacy about its activities.
“Government is founded on opinion,” wrote William Godwin. “A nation must have learned to respect a king, before a king can exercise any authority over them.” Past governments used the divine right of kings, by which monarchs claimed the divinity of being appointed to rule by God, as a means of instilling this respect; rebellion against the king became rebellion against the will of God. Contemporary governments have replaced this with the legitimacy derived from such concepts as “democracy,” “equality,” the “motherland,” or the “American way of life.” Such patriotic concepts have the ability to rouse feelings of awe and reverence in the population. These reactions are ingeniously channeled to support the government, and in turn help create the mystique of legitimacy which governments need to survive.
In a libertarian context, the issue of state legitimacy reduces to one question: Does any individual or group have the right to initiate force? For the libertarian, it is always illegitimate to initiate force against nonaggressors. Libertarianism is the political philosophy based on the concept of self-ownership; that is, every human being, simply by being a human being, has moral justification over his or her own body. This jurisdiction, which is called individual rights, cannot properly be violated, for this would be tantamount to claiming that human beings are not self-owners.
If individuals cannot properly violate rights, then it cannot be proper for any organization or group of individuals to do so. Certainly the number of people involved in initiating aggression has no bearing on whether or not the violation of rights is legitimate. This was clearly pointed out by a 17th-century libertarian who wrote:
What can be more absurd in nature and contrary to all common sense than to call him Thief and kill him that comes alone with a few to rob me; and to call him Lord Protector and obey him that robs me with regiments and troops? As if to rove with 2 or 3 ships were to be a Pirate, but with 50 an Admiral? But if it be the number of adherents only, not the cause, that makes the difference between a Robber and a Protector: I will that number were defined, that the Prince begins. And be able to distinguish between a Robbery and a Tax.
. . . Without a doubt, the most effective method by which the state creates a mystique is through control of education. The evolution of compulsory state-controlled schooling reads like a history of political maneuvering, in which the goal of teaching children literacy skills plays a minor role. Public education is by no means inept or disordered as it is made out to be. It is an ice- cold, superb machine designed to perform one very important job. The problem is not that public schools do not work well, but rather that they do. The first goal and primary function of schools is not to educate good people, but good citizens. It is the function which we normally label state indoctrination.
The early supporters of state education understood this. Horace Mann, for example, a 19th-century supporter of public education, saw it as a means of assimilating foreign elements into an otherwise established Protestant, puritan culture. With regard to the Irish Catholics, Mann maintained:
With the old not much can be done; but with their children, the great remedy is education. The rising generation must be taught as our children are taught. We say must be, because in many cases this can only be accomplished by coercion. . . . Children must be gathered up and forced into schools and those who resist and impede this plan, whether parents or priests, must be held accountable and punished.
From their inception, public schools were a form of social control. One Irish newspaper, which represented those children being unwillingly assimilated, observed:
The general principle upon which these compulsory schooling laws are based is radically unsound, untrue, and A-theistical. . . . It is that the education of children is not the work of the Church, or of the Family, but that it is the work of the State.
In contrast to the xenophobic fever with which many native Americans rushed to impose their cultural preferences upon immigrants, libertarians condemned state schools. Josiah Warren compared them to “paying the fox to take care of the chickens.” He realized that state control of education, like state control of religion, would create an orthodoxy which would suppress dissenting views. It would become a bureaucracy to serve the interest of the bureaucrats and those who ultimately controlled the state apparatus. When the statists insisted that compulsory, regulated education was necessary because people could not distinguish truth from falsehood and might be led astray, Herbert Spencer countered: “There is hardly a single department of life over which, for similar reasons, legislative supervision has not been, nor may be, established.”
Today, the ideal of social control through education has been realized. Like Pavlovian dogs, children enter and exit schools to the sound of bells. They begin each day by pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and by singing the national anthem. Through political science and history classes, which present severely slanted history, they are taught to revere democracy and the Constitution. School is “the twelve-year sentence” during which children are molded into good citizens. Indeed, as we have seen, the chief function of education is to train obedient citizens. “It is inevitable that compulsory, state-regulated schooling will reflect the philosophy of the status quo,” commented historian Joel Spring. “It is after all those who have political and social power who gain the most benefit from the existing political climate and depend on its continuation.” In practical terms, the public school system has assumed the role of an official church by imbuing its subjects with a genuflecting respect for the state.
The state projects an image of massive strength, the image of a self-perpetuating, self-contained institution upon whose goodwill the people depend. In fact, the reverse is true. Government rests upon the goodwill of the people. Without their support, it becomes fragile and will eventually disintegrate. A government is no more powerful than the human resources, the skills, the knowledge, and attitudes of obedience it commands. Every dollar the state spends has been taken from an individual. It has no resources of its own. Every law it maintains is enforced by an individual. As Étienne de la Boétie, observed of the state: “He who abuses you so has only two eyes, has but two hands, one body, and has naught but what the least man . . . except for the advantage you give him to destroy.” That advantage is what we call the sanction of the victim or the consent which the oppressed must give to their oppressors.
Libertarianism is a direct attack upon the mystique of the state. It recognizes that the state is only an abstraction and reduces it to the actions of individuals. It applies the same standard of morality to the state as it would to a next-door neighbor. If it is not proper for a neighbor to tax or pass laws regulating your private life, then it cannot be proper for the state to do so. Only by elevating itself above the standards of personal morality can the state make these claims on your life. . . .
Conservatives and liberals demand different varieties of law and order without regard to the fact that the ultimate in order may be found in a concentration camp. On the surface, it might seem that conservatives and liberals are engaged in deadly combat, but they are actually in fundamental agreement on one crucial methodological point: namely, that the state is a proper means of achieving social change–that the use of force legitimized by the state is a proper way of controlling other people’s peaceful activities. This is their fundamental disagreement with libertarianism.
William Godwin formulated the libertarian rejection of force in epistemological terms:
Force is an expedient, the use of which must be deplored. It is contrary to the intellect, which cannot be improved but by conviction and persuasion. Violence corrupts the man who employs it and the man upon whom it is employed.
. . . The battle against statism today is not a battle against any particular politician. The issue is deeper. It is a battle against a way of thinking, a way of viewing the state. The main victory of the state has been within the minds of the people who obey. In commenting on the British rule over India, Leo Tolstoy wrote:
A commercial company enslaves a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what those words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand men . . . have subdued two hundred million? Do the figures make clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, but the Indians who have enslaved themselves?
People today enslave themselves when all that freedom requires is the word “No.”
Article found here on August 27, 2016: http://www.wendymcelroy.com/vlntryst/demyst.html#mcelroy[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]