The Mountain, or the Mont Order, is a multinational society interested in influencing politics and international relations.

Thursday, 27 October 2016

The Mont Order in late 2016

The main Mont Order society has not undertaken any effort to expand its core membership or form any cohesive organization throughout 2016. Instead, I kept the Mont Order at a low profile.

This was a deliberate result of the Mont Order's nature as a loose collective, and not the result of setbacks or problems. During the innovations of 2016, the Mont Order's network expanded from a small few to a much greater size. Various members joined the core group on their own initiative without any outbound effort being made to invite them, proving the level of gravity and influence inherent in the Order's online public image.

Despite this, some projects were attempted to broaden the Mont Order's influence in 2016. Of those that can be made public, there are the following:

#MontOrder (Twitter hashtag) now providing 7 or 8 retweets automatically when used by members only

The #MontOrder hashtag suffered for a period due to sudden policy changes by third parties automating online content to Twitter. Such policy changes were clearly made for the sake of profit by the organizations involved, and came at the cost of quelling the voices of bloggers who relied on free solutions. In the Mont Order's case, alternatives were found and are now in place. If it is part of a trend, however, such actions by online companies could be disturbing.

The possibility of disturbances as described above seem to warrant the need for a larger and possibly more active community. I am already vetting new members whose ideas coincide with the Mont Order Code, and additional projects like those listed will aid me greatly in this.

It is quite possible that the Internet will enter an apocalyptic phase soon, in which the spaces of weak publishers, alternative media, and lone bloggers of the type I aim to preserve are suffocated by corporations and monopolists. Look out for instances where you suddenly have to pay for little things that used to be really cheap or even free.

If this deterioration of online media occurs, we have to band together. We will eventually need each other's guidance and resources to find a solution. A club such as Mont may prove not just useful but essential under such conditions. On this basis, I appeal to people not to go it alone but to be included in our lists at the Mont Order, if only for the possibility of it being helpful someday.

Friend of the Mont Order

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

Mont Order society newsletter

Receive all the news and commentary from inside the Mont Order society by using this new newsletter.

A message from this feed's publisher: The Mont Order is a society of small publishers, activists and authors dedicated to sharing information and other products to help accelerate human destiny and happiness.

Subscribe here:

The feed allows users to track discussions about the Mont Order society and at the Mont Order itself, taking place across social media as well as the websites and blogs of Mont Order members and participants. It is especially recommended for members and prospective members, who will see their own work featured in the feed if they join the Mont Order society.

Friend of the Mont Order

Sunday, 4 September 2016

Mont Order at OpenLearning

Description: This self-paced course adapts elements of Mont Order writings and combines them with values determined at the Order's online conferences. Readings are combined with quizzes that challenge students to understand the basics of the Mont Order society. Students enrolled on this short course first study the Mont Order Public Code, before moving on to required texts. Final challenges are presented at the end to shape students into reliable friends of the Mont Order society.

I created this course to offer some extra material for people new and looking to learn more about the Mont Order society before supporting us.

Friday, 2 September 2016

Let Foreigners Vote in the US Election

Let Foreigners Vote in the US Election

America cannot "lead the world" without a valid election

When confronted on his alleged foreign interference in the US election by leaking emails discrediting Hillary Clinton's campaign, Julian Assange rightly pointed out that he doesn't get a chance to vote in the US election. He should have that chance, he implied, due to his own country of Australia being an involuntary member of the US "alliance".

This argument is more powerful than the mere quip Assange intended it to be. If America is a democracy, and America believes in its responsibility to "lead the world" as President Obama loves to repeat in his speeches, should it not validate this mandate by allowing foreigners to vote?

Many people, most of all those of us who live in "allied" countries like Australia or Britain, have to live with the consequences of the US government's actions without ever having a chance to vote in an American election. Americans are proud to admit that whenever an election takes place in the US, the world holds its breath. Everyone seemingly maneuvers to influence what happens, and be on good terms with the winner.

The situation being described is not a testimony to how "great" America is but how bad it has become, and how miserable the situation is for the rest of us to live with this regime. It is appalling and unjust for humanity to have to hold its breath when one country has an election. We are here helpless, mere disenfranchised subjects under the rule of capricious foreign tsars and their small neoconservative lunatic fringe of the global population.

Americans are the First Estate. They possess aristocratic status in the world political system, with the option to vote tyrants into power who will terrorize, spy and assassinate their way across the entire world. The rest of humanity is nothing. We are effectively forced to feel like rats under the boot heel of an occupying fascist regime, as it cynically lectures others about the power of a "democracy" we aren't allowed to vote in.

"Democracy" is a favored word among liars. As also learned in the course for the Mont Order code, it is a cynical show, and the legitimacy of the actions of governments following their shallow elections must be questioned. The fact their elections affect the lives of people far beyond their own jurisdiction is a foremost reason to describe such regimes as illegitimate and colonialist in nature.

How can an election's outcome be respected, when it is to decide whether foreign countries are bombed or placed under sanctions? Where is the legitimacy of this state, unless foreign people too are allowed to vote on their own fate? By sanctions and war, the United States murdered a million people in Iraq. Not a single one of them was allowed to vote on the matter. So, in resolving questions of life and death, freedom or oppression, love or hate, democracy is altogether banned by the US regime at a global level.

The United States claims to disavow borders and it claims to export democracy across the world, but it does neither. The United States enforces extremely paranoid policies at its own borders, regarding anything foreign as a terror threat. It supports globalization, but only the globalization of US monopoly and oppression. It sets up a facade of democracy if ever it wins a war, but it never allows the population to actually vote on whether they want US soldiers and flags paraded through their streets.

Every example of "democracy" exported by the US regime to other countries has turned worthless. The wise man will see nothing but puppetry to support US land-grabs and stand US soldiers on every continent. And even if there was no such puppetry or showy elections of sycophants in our countries, as there clearly is, an empire that only props up local parliaments around the world is illegitimate. If it will not let its very own occupied subjects vote while living under control from Washington, the US is not a nation, and it is not democratic.

It is stated as fact by the US government itself that it has a responsibility to "lead the world", but the regime does so only with the apparent backing of its own narrow population. After a stunted display of "democracy" on its own territory in each election, the United States sets sail to govern a whole world that didn't have any chance to vote in its election.

The next US President will vainly pose as a monarch entrusted with the security of the entire world, but this President will not seek out the world's permission. And, while decrying the apparent cavalier attitude to governance shown by local warlords and dictators throughout the world, the United States is cavalier in its responsibility over the whole world. Others may tread on human rights, but they don't tread on continents and balance all our lives in their butterfingers.

Washington has pursued its political enemies across the world without regard for borders. Its pundits call even foreigners by the word "traitor", a judgment made already against Julian Assange and Lauri Love. If this was merely the propaganda of a few news outlets, it might be tolerable, but it is official government policy. The United States endlessly chastises foreign citizens, and even chains them and places them on trial in US courts. But, according to the principle of popular sovereignty, a person cannot be guilty of treason against a government they did not pledge allegiance to. One cannot betray a government they did not vote for in the first place.

Despite what leaders we each vote for in our own countries, there is no escape from the fact that our real government is in Washington. The rulers in the White House are monarchs, who demand allegiance from you whether you voted for them or not, and consider you to have fewer rights than their dogs. While their own people are sheltered from war and the consequences of their destructively stupid and vain policies, they will ask the rest of the world to give up our lives to their false democracy.

Whether it means sacrificing Europeans in conflict with the countries of Asia, or brainwashing Syrians to die in combat against their own government, the US has laid claim to humanity as its subjects, and rather than levying taxes it wants to drink our blood. The grandiosity of these parasites is the only reward of the fruitless conflicts they seek, as they will never permit their chained and colonized peoples to choose their own future.

A country that claims the whole world under its jurisdiction must allow the entire population of the world to vote in its elections. If the United States wants its words to mean something when it claims to "lead the world", it must surrender its own sovereignty to the world.

On the basis of the arguments given here, a call goes out for the United States to allow foreigners, especially those impoverished people living in US-occupied countries like Afghanistan, to register to vote as US citizens in the US election. The next President should not just be chosen by Americans, but by the billions of people whose lives it tries to govern without a democratic mandate.

Friend of the Mont Order

Sunday, 14 August 2016

Kevin Carson included at the Mont Order society lists

Effectively from the 14th of August, Center for a Stateless Society writer Kevin Carson is a member of the Mont Order society. We should be proud to be informed by his ideas.

Follow Kevin Carson's regular political commentaries at the C4SS site:

Follow his Twitter account here:

Support his work at Patreon here:

All our automated services and links will be in place to support and give a small media boost to Carson's excellent writing. As is promoted by our already published Mont Order Code, his writing takes a strong anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-statist stance.

I encourage all members to welcome Kevin Carson to this society accordingly, respect his work and help circulate it.

Friend of the Mont Order

Tuesday, 2 August 2016

Mont Order July 23, 2016 Conference Text


July 23, 2016, 18:00 London GMT

"Statements" version of text prepared 24 July, 2016

Inheritance, Equilibrium, Order

The Mont Order, often just called Mont, is an information society of writers and networks based in different countries who collaborate to broaden their influence. To date, this has been achieved mainly through the internet.

The Mont Order has held online audio conferences since February 2015.

Shared website:

Shared Twitter timeline: @MontOrder

Subscribe to updates from this society:


The Mont Order's secret wiki created via PBworks holds information on the origin and literature of the Mont Order as well as our current structure, ranks and members. Members will be invited via email and will be able to contribute pages or post comments and questions on this literature. The public will not have access to it.


Automated lists, accounts and newsletters have been set up as an experiment in gaining a greater online media foothold with zero maintenance. This will not only extend the influence of the Mont Order into political media niches without requiring any effort or time from us, but it will also enable our members to keep track of certain political subjects as needed. Two "anti-groups" have been set up and have gathered significant email subscribers: the Anti-control group and the Anti-NATO group. Each "group" has an automated Twitter account and an automated newsletter, based on a list of up to a hundred individuals associated with its cause.


The Friends of the Mont Order group created by Raincoaster at Facebook has seen a surprising growth in membership. Our hope is that it will reach a point where members can confidently post to the group and a minimal amount of admin involvement is needed. Due to the continued growth in its membership and the high amount of activity there, the group can be deemed a success so far.


Many clubs and societies will send out free material to their members in the post. The Mont Order is able to issue professionally-made die struck metal badges and print copies of the Mont Order Code, developed in October 2015 to members who are confident to specify a postal address for this purpose.


Members of the Mont Order believe Labour MPs in the UK have demonstrated backstabbing behavior in their efforts to remove Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition. The Order, while not being a pro-Corbyn group, considers ongoing schemes against Corbyn to be illegitimate acts of bullying.


Members of the Mont Order believe Turkish President Erdogan plotted and exploited the failed military coup against him in order to seize more power and demand the detention or execution of his opponents. Lists of those arrested appeared to have been prepared prior to the events. At the same time, the military coup can also be considered ineffective and unjustifiable.


The solution to the military occupation and actions by resistance groups in Indian-controlled Kashmir is a referendum on the future of this conflict-prone region. The blinding of children caused by pellet guns, and the killings by Indian forces, amount to cruelties and atrocities by the Indian regime and reinforce the urgency for a just settlement of the conflict.


"Integration", humiliation of Muslims by the state, and blaming Islam for violence are non-answers to terrorist threats. These steps will only deepen tensions and extremist views on all sides in European countries, where terrorist incidents have occurred. We have noted that incidents in Europe are beginning to resemble a more American pattern of "mass shootings" but similar tragedies have curiously not been occurring in the UK. In addition, editorial policies of Western media clearly follow a pattern of only describing attacks as "terrorist" after an attacker is described to be a Muslim.


Friend of the Mont Order

Thursday, 16 June 2016

Changes to the Mont Order main websites

The website of the Mont Order international writers and editors' society has been rebuilt in the last few days for simplicity, with a new red and white color scheme and new features added to draw visitors to our members' works.

You can see the new layout and features of the website by visiting

Various changes were also made to the main Twitter feed at Rather than receiving "shout outs" and all posts by our top members being linked there, all the tweets will be automated and created to adhere to the same orderly template. Each post will link directly to the Mont website. That won't be a big detour away from your writing, however. In fact I am giving your writing even more of a platform.

On the Mont Order primary website, there is now a single updating feed that features literally all the posts from Mont Order-friendly blogs. Watch for this: whenever a tweet about your latest post goes out from @MontOrder, people who see that tweet can click the link to the Mont Order website and quickly see a link published there leading to your article.

The Mont Order "info" Facebook page will only share posts of the same uniform style as the Twitter feed, too.

Sorry about this: don't attempt to email-post articles, posts and promotional material to the main website anymore as I once suggested. I have switched this off! Just update your own blogs, where your attention is needed, and the Mont Order site will share your links automatically via the updating feed displayed there. I'll manage the big "announcements" at the main site.

Expect announcements to be rare and typically shorter than this one, as I am often just too busy with my own jobs. Also, I'm okay with the Mont Order releasing position statements on political issues again, if our members bring them forward and we can approve them.

I feel all these changes help to tidy up the Mont Order public image on the web and make us look more united and of a common mind. Common color schemes, symbolism, imagery and of course the use of a central web address for the society itself all help achieve this.

Now I am confident in the way everything is functioning technically, I will be undertaking some promotional activity for the Mont Order main website soon to increase its reach and its value.

Meanwhile, there is a private shared wiki I am steadily working on at and some of you who are likely to be the most active users there will be given full access as soon as possible. Observers and casual members who aren't too bothered with the Mont Order's name and its mysteries can ignore this feature. Among other things, I will be hoping to create useful profiles on each of our top writers at the wiki, so expect a possible request for your bio.

As many of you should be aware, the Friends of the Mont Order group created by Raincoaster is proving to be a great success at Facebook ( with new members joining every day. If you have not joined already, I recommend doing so immediately. It had 581 members when I last looked and included people I never thought the Mont Order would be connected with. It's quite possible it will grow to many thousands, given how much of a magnet it has been so far,

As a reminder, Mont Order members are entitled to free (not digital but physically real and made of metal!) badges featuring the Mont Order's seal in gold and black. Expect an email offering you one if you haven't already received one. I also have three free physical, real copies of the Mont Order Code on my desk right now that I'd be happy to mail out alongside your metal badge.

Those of you who have participated in audio panels, Google Hangouts and Skype conversations can look forward to similar digital gatherings in the future, as they are going to remain a key aspect of our group going forward. Overall I think they were the most rewarding part of being in the Mont Order.

All debate and discussion at our panels has been informative and constructive. I hope to invite more of you to them and I also encourage you to invite and recommend others to participate next time, too. I don't have any date planned for the next one, although October and February were months we did hold our conferences on for two years.

Friend of the Mont Order

Sunday, 12 June 2016

Clinton's policy for the internet

"(Alec) Ross's only big idea in this book (The Industries of the Future) is that, thanks to the rise of new technologies, we are entering a new era, one in which countries will need to decide just where to be ideologically... open versus closed... Consequently, any country that would like to limit, or at least slow down, the pillaging of its economy and resources by global corporations will be classified as "closed," its leaders immediately labeled "control freaks" or "neo-Luddites... Ross's argument, or rather its style, leads to the eventual depoliticization of extremely political and contentious issues by wrapping them up in the empty, futuristic language of technology and innovation. Technology talk furnishes the seemingly innocent vocabulary that allows the U.S. government to bypass any organized resistance to the sort of neoliberal measures—more privatization, more austerity, no controls on movements of capital—that used to constitute the agenda behind the so-called Washington Consensus. All these measures, from privatization of industry to the radical reform of labor markets, are now presented as the reasonable and future-oriented option that would allow developing countries to leapfrog right into advanced, knowledge-based capitalism."

Tuesday, 7 June 2016

Sanders v. Clinton on Palestine: No Contest

"Clinton leads an international campaign to attack the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement and urges Israeli and U.S. students to attack that movement. She accuses BDS of being anti-Semitic."

Saturday, 4 June 2016

The Increasingly Unstable United States

"All this time, the United States has been truly losing its authority in the rest of the world. It is indeed no longer hegemonic. The protestors and their candidates have been noting this but consider it reversible, which it is not. The United States is now considered a weak and unsure global partner."

Brazil: Coup or Fiasco?

"What a successor movement of the PT might do would be to return to its roots as a consistently left anti-imperialist movement. This will be no more easy than it was for the PT in 1980. The difference between 1980 and now is the degree to which the modern world-system is in structural crisis. The struggle is worldwide and the Brazilian left can either play a major role in it or slip into global irrelevance and national misery."

Sunday, 29 May 2016

Antisemitism and the left | Red Pepper

Friend of the Mont Order

By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates

Friend of the Mont Order

Thursday, 12 May 2016

Fwd: My Seditious Heart - By ARUNDHATI ROY

If you want to have some sound knowledge on the current situation in India, this is a must read.
My Seditious Heart 

"Bring the Blade to their Root"

(Mont reading of "The Chains of Slavery", 1774)

An important contribution to modern political rhetoric, Jean-Paul Marat's The Chains of Slavery (1774) is easy to dismiss as a simplistic and formative work in Europe's climb to the French Revolution. Even "like a fairy tale", as historian Ernest Belfort Bax called it, this book is a valuable work of political rhetoric and a glimpse into the history of dissent.

Marat's mission was opposition to deception by any ruling regime. Although primarily opposed to the monarchs of his time, he would be no less saddened by the nature of the regimes existing today. Endless deception has become the only consistent behavior of our "democracies" now. Afraid of transparency, the free flow of information, and their own people's liberties, our "democracies" are now a parody of what was intended. All that we have kept from the American and French revolutions are empty slogans and flags, the hollow prizes of our liberation.

If the noble goal the republican forces of the Eighteenth Century were really striving to accomplish was left unfinished, it must be revisited. Not just the overthrow of the "absolute" authority of monarchs was intended. The ousting of anyone corrupt or disloyal to the common people, who could be deemed a traitor to public welfare, had been intended. The destruction of all remnants of false, vain and pompous authority had been intended. For this reason, we can only judge that we have failed. We need to revisit the works of incorruptible martyrs like Marat, to understand the tasks the people have failed to complete.

The "fatal privileges" of authority

As it was in the 1770s, the politics of our world today is not a laughing matter. As Marat wrote in his time, it is no longer suitable for the people to "laugh at their own misfortunes" by indulging in comedy and satire, which "avail not but to promote servitude". Instead, we must learn to refine the rage people feel at their corrupt governments. Blood has flowed. Incumbent politicians are sacrificing people on the altar of their own greed and vanity, and slamming their doors on anyone who questions them. At such times, Marat writes, laughter only strengthens the hand of the oppressor, and our correct response is hatred.

Marat's writing was pure. He wielded his writing skill competently until his death in 1793, rejecting vast fortunes with which his enemies tried to buy him. His incorruptibility was beyond anything imitated today. At no point did he become one of the "prostituted scribblers… ever ready to vindicate tyranny" who represent the bulk of political journalists in both his time and our time. Their mark, Marat tells us, has been their eagerness to justify the suppression of their very own colleagues who attempt to expose the truth of a state's treason against its people.

All unwarranted authority granted by one's office is at fault. As Marat writes, "Kings, magistrates, commanders of armies, and all those who, adorned with the marks of power, hold the reins of the empire or direct public affairs, are objects of public admiration – like ancient idols, stupidly admired and adored". Rather than being questioned more thoroughly than the average person, rulers are still often believed based on their word alone, despite their offices creating infinitely more abundant reasons for them to lie.

While kings are no longer a significant burden on the lives of the people, the people should reject the authority of anyone from a family line, alma mater or geographic region who enjoys disproportionate wealth and power as a result. We must recall, "the fatal privileges which they claim and arrogate to themselves, are but the inheritance of the plunders, usurpations, and violences of their ancestors". We should be wary of any ruler whose bloated mandate of power is related to an exaggerated image brought about by their name and origin.

When rulers are found "washing their bloody hands in blood"

Twenty-First Century Britain, failing to witness any evolution from the archaic model of "officialism" decried by Marat, still idolizes the monarch and "men of pompous titles". Displays of royal prestige and distraction in the public mind are a continued chain of slavery on the hearts of the people.

By urging officials to pledge themselves to defend the Queen and celebrate the vestiges of royal authority, the British regime keeps the monarch alive as an idol against the people, making a virtue of submission and giving prestige to sycophants. As such, the centuries-old appeal to the British electorate in The Chains of Slavery has still not need been heeded, and still cries out to wipe clean the state. Marat explained the "defects in our constitution" better than any British person of our own time, yet he was ignored, so the state "mocks the sword of justice", with rulers going unpunished no matter how grave their abuses are.

Today, our democracies in Britain, America and the west in general only serve to vote into office and coronate all the corruption that was meant to be purged by the creation of modern republics. We have erred where Marat gave us a list to reject "all who attempt to buy your voices", "all who earnestly mendicate your voice", "men of pompous titles", "the insolent opulent", and "young men". While it may seem innocuous, Marat even warns us "beauty" in any political figure is also among the "frivolous endowments" to trick the people into loving unjust or incapable rulers.

Through the practice of corporate lobbying, we have forgotten in our own states that freedom is "impossible to recover" after "electors set a price on their votes". Allowing politics to be driven by special interests has hollowed out democracy, leaving only a shell of what it was meant to be. Yet still, we witness global wars by these democracies, presuming to teach others what they have never managed to learn for themselves.

The surveillance we are subjected to is nothing new. Marat writes of vain princes and corrupt authorities, "under pretense to secure public tranquility… they maintain legions of spies among their subjects, they erect secret tribunals". These are the crimes our government officials today exhaustively seek to justify. By asking us to weather terrorist attacks without ever revising their own horrific policies inspiring them, "the blood of the subjects is continually sacrificed to the pretended peace of the state", and "prescription, imprisonment, torture" become normal behaviors of western states towards their own subjects. By such actions, our regimes are similarly "washing their bloody hands in blood", exactly as Marat accused in his book.

Against the "villainy of monopolizers"

We must "espouse the cause of any individual oppressed", Marat writes. In one country, this should apply not only to ourselves, but other sections of society. In this period of globalization, it must include foreign populations and migrants, the millions drained and exploited by our parasitic corporations and states.

Even as our rulers command the state to war throughout the international system, they despise their own soldiers. In their minds, they are manipulating one group of enemies against another. In war, the common people are "forced to protect, at the expense of their blood, the inheritance, or secure the peace of the posterity of their usurpers, to defend the power of their tyrants". If we know this, we find not only is war used as a way of distracting the poor within a state so they don't see the corruption of their rulers, but it can be a way of killing and oppressing the poor entirely. So, when required to commemorate World War One, the common people are only celebrating their own mass slaughter by their rulers, who not once felt any risk to their own lives in that conflict.

Marat decries how "political relations are subverted; the Prince is all, the Nation nothing". From this, we can see how the rhetoric of international relations is still unwittingly inspired by writers such as Marat. Looking beyond the archaic nationalist phraseology of Marat's period, his excellent judgment is desperately needed in a balanced look at the relations between countries.

"Third World" is a modern term coined by Alfred Sauvy as a historic parallel to the "Third Estate", the common people labeled as such by Abbé Sieyès in his pamphlet, What is the Third Estate? Sauvy described the "Third World" countries as "nothing" while they yearn to be "something". In the rhetoric of Marat, tyrannical powers suppose they are "all" and the forgotten and conquered populations are "nothing". This is a fact of the global village today. Although we depend on the poor countries for their plentiful natural resources and labor, rich countries aristocratically scorn them and consider them expendable.

Through wars and exploitation aimed primarily against the so-called Third World, at a global level we have deviated grotesquely from the ideas of democracy and justice advanced by Marat. People in rich countries are selfishly motivated to serve the "prosperity of their dogs", whereas the rest of humanity, "lingering in misery from the villainy of monopolizers, cry to them for bread" exactly as Marat described of the masses of the poor he witnessed in his own time.

The way to "lay the ax to the root"

The purpose of Marat's writing is to encourage people to attempt any means to destroy the chains of destitution and slavery imposed by their rulers. Unjust governments try to entangle their security with the security of the public. They can make it "impossible to lay the ax to the root of the former without destroying the latter". Marat is quoted in a different text stating "we must bring the hatchet to their root", his historic judgment of how to deal with the malefactors of the people when the opportunity arises. It is because of this clear judgment that we have the word "radical" now, referring to the "root".

The words of Marat must advise us now, especially where he states that "unless the measures of an unruly and fluctuating multitude be planned by wise men, and carried to execution by spirited and audacious ones, the insurrection, instead of being a revolt, is but a sedition – ever easily suppressed, and ever unsuccessful". The movements for a popular revolution we have seen in recent times, including the Occupy movement, form but the latest part of the history being reviewed by Marat when he wrote those words.

It is because of legacies like Marat's that the Mont Order society, deriving its name from the French Revolution's opposition bloc, La Montagne, is active. Unless guided and counseled by a small group determined to be exceptionally wise and capable, future movements will also similarly amount to little more than a nuisance to corrupt regimes.

Ultimately, as Marat wrote, "the only just aim of a political association is the happiness of the people". Being strongly related to the Mont Order association's own name and hopes, Marat is an ideal role model. It is in Marat's tradition that good dissidents should write, attacking almost everything, blessing only those few blazing individuals who act bravely against the unproven government and international system.

Friend of the Mont Order

Tuesday, 10 May 2016

The Spirit of Progress

The interplay of science and matters of spirit is at the heart of change in the world today. As bloggers and catalysts for change, we in the Mont Order like to

This message was sent using ShareThis (

Monday, 2 May 2016

Dr. Hesham A. Hassaballa on Beliefnet: Jesus Christ Also Used To Say "Inshallah"

My friend and former Al Jazeera America co-host Wajahat Ali penned a hilarious piece in the New York Times explaining the Arabic word "Inshallah," or "God-willing," in the wake of the news that a college student was escorted off a Southwest Airlines plane for saying this word on his cell phone. Ali wrote:

Inshallah is the Arabic version of "fuggedaboudit." It's similar to how the British use the word "brilliant" to both praise and passive-aggressively deride everything and everyone. It transports both the speaker and the listener to a fantastical place where promises, dreams and realistic goals are replaced by delusional hope and earnest yearning.

If you are a parent, you can employ inshallah to either defer or subtly crush the desires of young children.

Boy: "Father, will we go to Toys 'R' Us later today?"

Father: "Yes. Inshallah."

Translation: "There is no way we're going to Toys 'R' Us. I'm exhausted. Play with the neighbor's toys. Here, play with this staple remover. That's fun, isn't it?"

It is a thoroughly enjoyable read.

Yet, there is another slightly more serious side to Inshallah, but it is not scary in the least...


Saturday, 30 April 2016

Nonpartisan Media Power

On the Seventh Point of the Mont Order

Alternative media site or account A endorses politician X’s campaign. Is this really a productive thing to do under any circumstances, for those wishing to challenge the “mainstream” narratives in the media?

Much of the alternative media on the web today consists of independent bloggers who are tired of the “mainstream” and want to fight back against it all. A particular nuisance to many people is the tendency of some papers and broadcasters to demonize.

UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is the prime example today of a victim of this demonizing of political opposition in the supposedly free press. And in the UK, many independent bloggers have thrown all their support behind Corbyn. Similarly, in the US, many microblog users and small columnists have dedicated themselves to expressing support for Bernie Sanders. But is this good?

Much like more formal civil society bodies, the Mont Order information-based society declares neutrality in its code (although it does not forbid its members taking their own positions) when it comes to political campaigning. This may be the wisest route for alternative media, because we should not want to be tied to a specific politician, especially in the event that this politician fails on promises and deservingly becomes unpopular because of this failure.

The purpose of media should be to criticize, much as the purpose of engineers is to find faults and repair errors. If alternative media simply tie themselves to political alternatives, such as Corbyn or Sanders, they are sacrificing themselves for these men and their political careers rather than seeking out their own type of power. The power of information, like the power of money, may, in fact, be greater than the power of politicians.

Someone who has squandered their credibility and the demographics of their readership by backing a political candidate will not be able to see the full extent of the power of information. They curb their own influence. The Mont Order knows it is better to be there as neutral actors, when the power of information reaches its greatest height, than to be buried with some dishonored political figure or movement. This is how other bloggers should learn to think. Criticize and offer perspectives, don’t support.

In addition to the dangers of backing politicians and parties mentioned already, there is the aspect of technological change invalidating the former necessity of big political organizations. This has already been addressed in thefirst commentary in this series. It can be added that the youth, in the West at least, tend to think far less now in terms of party allegiances and allegiances to political figures. There is a tendency to instead support campaign issues, as is enabled through internet searches and campaign groups dedicated specifically to these issues that can be found rapidly online.

Some grassroots campaigners, for example, support relaxing anti-piracy laws, or relaxing the legal controls over certain drugs. These people are not looking for a movement or political authority, and are quite satisfied with pressure groups dedicated to the issues only. Adding important faces, symbols and other dimensions typical of a movement only gives people things to lose faith in, whereas the raw political issue being talked about lacks this weakness.

Consider that there is widespread interest in the transparency and anti-surveillance currents of activism and information-sharing online, and in grassroots activism in the street too. While Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are icons of this organic campaign emerging from society, they are not leadership figures. They preside over no organization. And yet, if we look at those men and the issues associated with them, we see forces much greater than the political opposition parties in some countries.

The “Snowdenistas” lack an actual name or even a political party. However, these nameless masses managed to receive promises from the US President, who could not ignore the mass indignation over the facts revealed by Snowden, and had to make at least some effort to reform and rein in the National Security Agency (NSA). It is questionable that Obama was either able or willing to really make concessions to those critics, however. But can the political opposition in the US, at this time the Republican Party and smaller parties including the Libertarian Party, claim a similar policy victory over the incumbent government while the Democrats were in power? It is not likely. They need to win elections, whereas pressure groups can get what they want without capturing state power.

The nameless opponents of surveillance and the growth of the national security state in the US, who are everywhere and lack any formal organization, could have done far more if only they were more concerned than they actually are. In reality, the issue is not yet devastating enough to people’s lives to really force them to use every option to compel the government to obey the wishes of the people. Voting may also serve as a way of letting off steam, as most people are too busy at work most of the day to realize that the vote they cast at the end of it is actually worthless and cannot deter the state’s ongoing massive violations of their civil rights.

Politicians and parties are transitory as always, but the will to power – the will of the hungry and the oppressed to get what they need — is something that can crash through to the halls of power without ever declaring a formal organization at all. Led by just an internet connection and their anger, human beings could make or break some forms of political power. If you got rid of formal political organizations tomorrow, the world might even be more democratic and representative based on the popular issue-driven model rather than authority-driven ideological platforms.

What is advocated here is not that bloggers, grassroots activists and civil society practice a type of anarchism, or refuse to believe in all organization or authority. It is simply advocated that politicians and organizations in general not be taken too seriously, and that no-one invest too much time in defending them. People are bigger than their parties and their leaders, and should think bigger.

Sunday, 17 April 2016

Future of Migration (Part 2, Mont Order February 2016 discussion)

L'ORDRE: It's like I was watching this panel. Just today. Just earlier today, this short panel. It crossed over some of that subject. One of the guys on that panel was saying, you know, stop scapegoating refugees. It's a fascist belief or political view to demonize the refugees. But then on other hand, one could just as easily say that the demographic shift, those people coming in, is what's causing the fascist beliefs to proliferate because a lot of these groups you know like the BNP and the EDL. All these nasty groups in Britain at least, wouldn't have any traction with the population if there wasn't perceived to be a social problem in the first place that they were using to recruit people. At least that's my view.
MIKE: Well I think there's a certain level of fear that's involved and this. In America the point where veterans aren't getting enough funding, why are people coming in as immigrants getting that? And it's a false narrative. There are two different separate departments that have two separate budgets that have nothing to do with the fact that veterans may not be getting money. There's no issue on immigrants coming in, it's two different parts of the government.
MONY: OK wait, stop. I want to say something that needs to be said. I think the biggest fallacy is that you can separate military from immigrants. Because since World War Two. Soldiers have been marrying women abroad, bringing them home, and it's part of the culture. It's part of the culture, it's ingrained. A lot of mixed children from before the 80s, before the 70s, were born into the military. And people don't understand that they are spitting on the people who fight. So it's like the most insulting rhetoric they could tell the brats. Eventually I think it's going to come back around to the right wing who just doesn't seem to get it.
L'ORDRE: You mean Donald Trump and the Donald Trump types?
MONY: Yeah exactly they don't get it and people like Trump or basically home breakers, and very invested in penning in the population. It's much harder to get out of this country now than ever before.
L'ORDRE: The way I see it. A lot of the reason why in the past in Britain and other E.U. countries integration was more successful than what it seems to be today is because of the numbers of people involved. You know, like when it's just a small quantity of people coming in resettling, people are alright with that because they think you know, it's just a gradual process of people what they want to be assimilated into the society. But what's happening now with the way people perceive it now, with the Syria refugee thing. They see it as being like D-Day. You know, it's just a massive quantity of people isn't it? Millions of people, all trying to be admitted all at once; They're all trying to be admitted into these countries all at once, millions of people?
MONY: I feel very sad for them. I'm very sad for this, it's the most tragic thing I can possibly imagine. But I've been trying to rationalize this from an anthropological point of view and historically, mass migration went with famine and what have you. And yet we are at a point in the world where we simply can't accept the fact that people want to move around. We're so busy trying hold up the state and financial apparatus, people really feed into the imaginary boundaries and the flying a piece of cloth you know and getting way involved with it. And I'm like you, you guys need to settle down.
L'ORDRE: And it's not it's not so much that there's something wrong with these people, the refugees. They're no different than anybody else. It's just that any overpopulation or influx of millions of people into a region is going to destabilize that region. It doesn't really matter who they are they could be from any country or any part of the world and it would still have the same repercussions. So I'm of the view that it is kind of a crisis.
MONY: Absolutely.
L'ORDRE: There are some people within the Mont Order who have circulated their views as well, who say that it isn't a crisis and the whole concept of it being a crisis is something that should be denied. I don't quite agree with that because if all these refugees - they could come from anywhere and it would be the same issue. A population issue. It is kind of like overpopulation. If the birth rate suddenly shot up and there were suddenly hundreds of millions of new people, that would cause a crisis as well because suddenly you don't have the housing space.
MONY: About opening the borders, a lot of people complaining that the Middle East is not doing enough to take in the refugees and that's it's becoming a -
L'ORDRE: Well they know what happens when you do that because Lebanon did exactly the same thing and with the wars that were in the area. The result was the war spilled over into their territory so they know that it's a bad idea. It's not a bad a bad idea because of the people, it's not that all these people are terrorists. It's an unstable situation and those people have problems that led to that war in the first place. And they kind of take those problems with them. In Syria where you've got different sects of people like the Kurds, different elements of the population, they all try and get out, to Germany or wherever it is that they're going to go. And then they carry on battling each other when they get there, into the country they moved to. They'll confront each other in demonstrations and things like that. If there were enough of them they'd probably start shooting at each other as well, but it's only because the number of them is quite limited at the moment that they wouldn't start shooting each other at this stage.
MONY: What do you guys think could be done better in response to the crisis?
L'ORDRE: Well I think the issue should be resolved in the region where the conflict is happening, in a way. So in. Within Syria. This is one of those things, isn't it? Where you can either be completely isolated from the events in which case you take no responsibility and no responsibility over any of the people. Or else you get heavily involved in which case you become responsible for all those people. In a way the West by being involved in Syria is responsible for a lot of these people. That's the way I see it. It's responsible for them fleeing that area because of the level of intervention there already is. You know like if you go back to the Iraq war and so on. I don't think there is a solution to be honest. I don't normally proclaim solutions. People always ask me, what's the answer? Sometimes there just isn't an answer. Sometimes you just have to let those events come to fruition. And we can pick up the pieces later after you know, whatever's happened. Maybe it will lead to a war but if it does lead to a war, it may just be inevitable. A bit pessimistic to think that but it might be true.

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

Mont Order February 2016 Part 1: Introduction

Participating members


Mike Dodd: Host. Former Mont member.


L'Ordre: Friend of the Mont Order society and author at Dissident Voice. Follow on Twitter @LOrdreNet


Dirk Bruere: Nominal leader at Zero State. Transhumanist Party UK activist and NeoPax founder. Follow on Twitter @dirkbruere


Syeda Qudsia Mashhadi: Editor of the Pakistan-based politics newsletter Voice of East (VOE). Follow on Twitter @QudsiaMashhadi


Dee Helene: US-based activist and author of Diary of a 99 Percenter. Follow on Twitter @DHelene42


Mony Price: Political futurist blogger. Follow on Twitter @MonyPrice




MIKE: Figured we can go over the citizenship item. I have now I sent out a PDF.


L'ORDRE: Some bullet points I think we can just go through.


MIKE: The idea was to keep that issue as simple as possible. It's not to cover like everything citizenship would cover. It's basically almost like a basic human right item. And the way I meant to write this up as was between native citizens to their countries. Should be one set for those folks. And then another set for global citizens. Obviously there are more rights for native citizens for obvious reasons[1]. For the global citizens it's more of a right for them to return home. To pass through territory. Should be necessary for them to get back to where they belong. Right to representation and again some basic rights for food water shelter and emergency help


L'ORDRE: I just thought I'd point out Mike that the issue to do with people returning to the country of origin. It seems that in a lot of politics. A lot of current politics. It's more an issue to do with people not wanting to return to the country of origin that's usually the issue isn't it, nowadays, wouldn't you agree?


MIKE: Some folks currently in the European situation. It's more of a right to pass through. As far as returning home - that's assuming there's not a world war.


L'ORDRE: Yeah. Because I mean. For example a country like Syria might want its citizens to return home because it doesn't want there to be a drain on its resources, on its population. You know. if more talented people left. The thing is that they might not want to return home. On the other side as well, you've got people that are annoyed at what they perceive as a refugee problem. Well it's not my opinion that's just the opinion of a lot of people.


MONY: Yeah I saw the footage of the protests in Greece. I couldn't believe how angry the local population is. I mean they were really angry. I was like wow, you know, this is not what I thought would have happened, fifteen years ago.

[1] Counter-argument presented on p. 11-12

Read the full text at Academia

Friday, 8 April 2016


Dr. Hesham A. Hassaballa on Beliefnet: Anti-LGBT Legislation passed under guise of "religious freedom" is full of hypocrisy.

I have been watching with amazement the political rhetoric of some politicians who vow to defend "religious liberty." In several states, politicians have either enacted, or tried to enact, laws that are clearly discriminatory against LGBT fellow citizens, in the name of "religious liberty." The latest is Mississippi, which passed a law, HB 1523, which:

promises that the state government will not punish people who refuse to provide services to people because of a religious opposition to same-sex marriage, extramarital sex or transgender people.

How can this not be considered discriminatory? How is this any different than refusing to serve a client who is Muslim, or African-American, or has attached earlobes? Can you imagine what would happen if a Muslim business owner refused to serve an LBGT client out of his "religious beliefs"?

Read more:

Thursday, 24 March 2016

Research shows ISIS really not very Islamic

Posted by Hesham A. Hassaballa on "Common Word, Common Lord" Blog:

In the aftermath of another terror attack committed by the savages of ISIS (or as I like to call them, KIL), yet again people like to link their actions to all of Islam and Muslims. 

Politicians use such attacks to smear all Muslims with the sins of its criminal fringe and hide behind "dispensing with political correctness." With wall-to-wall coverage of the crimes of groups like ISIS, it is easy to think that Islam is somehow behind the terror we see in its name.

Yet, listen to those who are truly experts on terrorism, and the truth is very different. Joshua Holland, writer for The Nation, wrote a piece back in December about ISIS' real motives:

Read more:

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

In the Wake of Brussels: My Perpetual Condemnation - Again

I leave aside the fact that no other community is expected to condemn the actions of its criminal fringe. I leave aside the fact that the perverse logic of assigning blame to the whole for the actions of a few tends to be applied to Muslims preferentially. I leave aside the fact that most of the victims of "Islamic terror" are other Muslims themselves. I leave aside the fact the attention of the world to acts of terror in Western countries is much more than that in Muslims countries (see recent attacks in Turkey and compare for yourself).

I put all of that aside today. I put all that aside and condemn what happened in Brussels - which took the lives of 34 people - with all of my heart, all of my soul, and all of my mind.

Thursday, 17 March 2016

Mont Order February 2016 transcript

A transcript of the Mont Order conference that took place on February 20, 2016, will be made available shortly.

Saturday, 27 February 2016

Mont Order not an organisation, has no security council

The Mont Order has never been an official organisation, and was never established by any living founder. It is essentially a metaphor and a name, now being used by some recent online gatherings.

Consider that previous groups calling themselves the Mont Order have often vanished or disintegrated, including the last Mont Order-type group I was a member of sometime in 2011. There is no reason to think ours won't face the same fate, as this is such a loose association, although I will do everything I can to stop it.

Most recent among these gatherings was an online audio conference that I have released to assert the Order's ownership of the recording. It is just here in our archives for any future historic value. Listen over it if you are interested. You'll just find a group of mostly ordinary people discussing extraordinary world events.

I will be creating a small book version of the code holding us together, including my commentaries. Those commentaries are all based on my own personal awareness about the Mont Order and its origins, which continues to grow. We'll have to see how this looks when it is complete, and I'll gladly pay to have it delivered to some members of the old core group.

The old "security council" has not existed for some time. I only gathered it in the first place to help write the code, rather than dictate things to our friends. With this code, we have at least some tenable shared values upon which to help each other globally and talk to each other constructively.

Sunday, 21 February 2016

Mont Order 2016 February Conference

In the tradition of the February 2015 conference, the members of the Mont Order held a productive cross-cultural and cross-ideological conference on 20 February 2016.

A transcript is not yet available of the discussion, which was convened by Wave Chronicle Editor Mike Dodd to discuss citizenship, globalization and other present day issues in political events and philosophy.

A diverse set of views were expressed at the conference. Participants were as follows:
  • Mike Dodd
  • Bree's Corner
  • D. Helene
  • Voice of East
  • Dirk Bruere (Zero State)
  • Harry Bentham (Beliefnet)

Wednesday, 27 January 2016

(Part II) The Mont Order on political violence and protest

"I've been following the Oregon protestors, and I also read Harry's blog, saw the trolling on Twitter, etc... Not really sure how I feel about the whole ordeal. But I do think that the state's reluctance to do nothing, sends a message that non-violent protests (post-Civil Rights era) have been an epic failure. I am not saying this as a bystander, but as a person who's been arrested for non-violence civil disobedience, and lived in a community of activists.
"I also tend to agree with Harry... that it really doesn't have anything to do with color per se. Prior to 9/11, non-violent protests were predominantly white, and the state apparatus assaulted men and women alike while they continuously sent out moles and agent-provocateurs. This continued through the second Bush administration, so my perception tends to interpret their actions -- which, aside from arms is not so different from a sit-in (think breaking and entering, cutting fences, squatting, etc...) -- as *favoritism* coming from the neoliberal and neocon establishment.
"I guess what pisses me off the most, is not the #VanillaISIS ideology... but the fact that the criminal justice system has shown they will not arrest even ONE person. ... And every non-violent protester knows damn well... there will always be at least ONE arrest. Which is why I'm not really sure how to read this whole thing. First... I want to know what happened to the post-WTO plan by the feds? They have a very thick report on how they will assault and contain protestors ... so how on earth are these guys getting away?" 
-- Bree's Corner, Mont Order member and genealogist

Wednesday, 20 January 2016

The Mont Order's theories on political violence

In light of disturbing protest actions in Oregon, in which armed US militiamen occupied a Federal facility and were not treated as terrorists but as protesters to be negotiated with, Mont Order thinkers wondered why these armed protesters were treated gently. In contrast, Occupy protesters were treated harshly in the past, as one member points out.

Mont Order members wrote in with the following views on the events in Oregon specifically, and the individuals involved:

"In America, we have a set of laws, for the most part they work. These individuals in Oregon are scumbags. Looking for a fight for the sake of a fight. Guns toting individuals storming a federal facility is beyond the pale. 
"Most of the land issues in the west is due to the land having depleted uranium (Weapon Testing) or have uranium deposits. I can understand a ranchers issue of land that the family has owned for 100 or more years being taken away, it sucks but they are being paid. So if it is a money issue, then they should be paid more but they still have to give up the land. I am sorry but you simply cannot have land with uranium deposits. 
"It is knowing the right battle to pick. The Oregon one is the wrong one, it is basically dumb white hicks being dumb white hicks. They only good thing for them is that they are white, so most likely they will not end up dead. If those same people was black, they would have been dead and buried already. 
"If you are looking for a worthy battle to fight is the State of Michigan and the City of Flint knowingly poisoning every single child with lead poisoning. More than 2x the limit. It has to be one of the worst crimes not prosecuted in my life. This issue was know for easily a year and they still made a decision to poison the children. "
-- Mike Dodd, Wave Chronicle Editor
"[Militants in Oregon have] done more than "protest," if I understand correctly; they've taken possession of a government building and declared their intention to hold it, if necessary by force of arms. In order to decide whether or not I could support that, I'd need to get a better understanding of their grievances, and of what steps prior to this they took to seek redress of those grievances."
-- Thomas Knapp, Garrison Center Director
"In regards to the stand off in Oregon? Outsiders picking a fight with the Fed. over this issue is BAD. very bad for the Militia Patriot Movement and activism in general. The only real support for this stand off comes from outsiders who don't understand the history and culture of the area. This situation in Burns is complex and is not black and white, it's mostly gray. I personally don't want anyone hurt or detained. I wish the Bundees would just go home [support the G.O.H.O.M.E campaign here]. Oregon is an open carry state. Oregon does not recognize concealed carry by out of state permit holders, although many states recognize Oregon's concealed carry permits. The bottom line is, if your going to Pack don't take it lightly, and you most be prepared to go the distance if the shit hits the fan. Personally I'm not for some freaken cow rights to graze in Wildlife Refuge Areas and it should be fenced off to keep the cows out of the wet lands, they can graze everywhere else around the area but ranchers must pay for the privilege to graze on BLM land. dumb fight, dumb issue, wrong time. Oregonians in general don't like the Fed. or outsiders telling us how to live our lives here, we will take care of it on our own"
-- NaughteeisMaxim, Mont member blogger and content curator

On the overall theory of political violence in the world, however, Mont opinions seem to be more mixed:

"Where corruption exists in conjunction with no ability of the people to vote out the government armed force is justified"
-- Dirk Bruere, Zero State (transhumanist group)
"I would publish or act in support of armed protesters. My concern is not whether or not they are armed (I've BEEN an armed protester!), but whether or not they act rightly. If they use their arms to initiate force against innocent others, no, I won't support them. If they use their arms in self-defense, or to forewarn their opponents that if attacked they will defend themselves, I think they're within their rights whether or not I agree with their particular cause."
-- Thomas KnappGarrison Center Director
"Generally speaking I believe 'armed protesting' is in bad taste.There are circumstances when being 'concealed carry' might be appropriate if it is in the spirit of 'self defense' and not intimidation or 'self offense'. You must pick those situations carefully and only as a last resort.
-- NaughteeisMaxim, Mont member blogger and content curator
"Armed resistance is something we should not be a part of. The main reason is that we do have a set of laws in most countries. I understand that may not work well where some of our other Mont Order members are."
-- Mike DoddWave Chronicle Editor 
Other members preferred to let these members speak for them, due to the lack of background information on the events in Oregon or on the subjects of political violence and intimidation.

Wednesday, 13 January 2016

Imperialists or Irredentists (Dissident Voice)

On the Fifth and Sixth Points of the Mont Order

The Western powers are still deemed imperialist by their critics, due to their history of imperialism and their recent behavior as conquerors and exporters of their supposed “democratic” superiority. On the other hand, they try to accuse their own foreign opponents such as Iran, Russia or even the Palestinian people of having imperialist or similarly coercive goals against them or their allies.

Some commentators even astonishingly try to convince anti-war activists in the West to shift all their attention to criticizing non-Western governments and advocating military intervention for the sake of “peace” as well as the old “democracy”. They accuse the anti-war activists of hypocrisy for failing to address the apparent crimes of the non-Western powers such as Russia, Iran, or the al-Assad government in Syria.

There is, however, no hypocrisy in criticizing the Western powers and their allies exclusively while supporting foreign powers such as Russia, Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic. This is a very consistent position, and has to do with the difference between imperialism and national liberation.

National liberation often manifests as a focused, potentially legitimate type of irredentism (the goal of expanding or regaining a particular state’s territory), which gains popular appeal because of strong cultural and historic regional influences. Imperialism, on the other hand, liberates no-one. It consists of the policy of states trying to rule over foreign peoples with or without their consent. Irredentism, whether good or bad in practice, is related to a desire on the part of states to rule over their own people or historic territory rather than any desire to conquer others.

Imperialism is always imposed, whereas irredentism can be consensual. What happened with Russia’s reunification with Crimea, for example, is not imperialism but irredentism. People were not deprived of their rights or suppressed by force in that process, but were allowed to express their right to self-determination via a referendum. Today, the only power using force against civilians near Crimea is the Ukrainian central government, which rejects what it calls separatism.

Whether or not one thinks of Russia as a democracy, the right to self-determination via a referendum like the one in Crimea is supposed to be the cornerstone in the legitimacy of a modern democratic state. North Korea’s goal of seeing the Korean Peninsula united is also an example of irredentism, and is founded on the genuine desire of the Korean people to be united again. Therefore, the primary aggressor and rights violator in the Korean Peninsula is clearly the United States, not Pyongyang.

It is, of course, possible for irredentism to be pursued in harmful ways, such as via terrorism or military invasions and suppression of dissent, and you will find no support for such acts here. However, it is important to realize irredentism is not necessarily that way. Imperialism can only be fulfilled by waging war, blockades and economic sanctions. It can only gain the appearance of popular approval after suppressing freedoms, imprisoning critics, and taking lives.

To demonstrate why it is right that they distinguish between coercive irredentism and national liberation, the Mont Order‘s code has a fifth pointapproved by its advisers in 2015, stating “The Order questions the territorial claims of countries which rely on colonial policies of occupation, censorship and human rights abuses to make these claims.” While this point rejects a set of behaviors including those typical of imperialism, it also rejects some territorial claims of irredentist states, including Israel and India. Both of them made life intolerable for Muslims, so their only hope was to live in a separate homeland.

A sixth point then follows on from the fifth, stating, “The Order supports all liberation, resistance and anti-nationalism in the sense that the movements are directed against occupying and colonial central governments.” This allows for accepting the legitimacy of certain autonomy-seeking movements around the world; namely, those based on rejecting intolerable coercive policies of imperialist integration as described. In the audio version of the discussion this point is based on, postcolonial nationalism is deemed to be sufficiently different from imperialist nationalism and exceptionalism that it is worth all people supporting it as a form of freedom struggle.

What some apologists of imperialism, and indeed apologists of racism, try to do is to compare the identity politics of national liberation movements with the brutish nationalism at the heart of imperialism itself. Why is it acceptable, they might ask, that liberated postcolonial states should be tolerated by anti-imperialists and anti-racists when they advance their ethnic or religious identity as their political identity? The answer is simply that one type of identity politics, the one driving imperialist policy and racism, is founded on the theory of superiority rather than the theory of liberation.

In an ideal world, international opponents of imperialism would not embrace national liberation movements in order to erase imperialism and oppose Western aggression. National liberation does not bring about a perfect system or ultimate peace. However, in the current state of world affairs, it is a tolerable and often more efficient vehicle than naked internationalist anti-imperialism, which would look just as Western and just as alien as imperialism itself to many colonized peoples.

Imperialism and colonialism can be rejected altogether, in all forms, based on the judgments of history and international law. Irredentism requires more careful case studies of each state to actually see whether there is legitimacy in their exact territorial claims. The studies have, in fact, been done, although they are typically buried in immense works of sociology not appropriate to cite in an article such as this.

Where there is a strong historic need for irredentism or independence, it is inhumane to reject it. People such as the Palestinians, the Kurds and the people of Kashmir have been denied their political rights for a prolonged historic period and the only possible conclusion to the territorial disputes in question can be democratic referendums. If they are not done now, the disputes are only extended and the violence is prolonged further until they are done.

In respected Western media sources, we hear constant justifications of “territorial integrity” and “the right to defend itself” in territorial disputes and the suppression of national liberation struggles. Such language is designed to maintain the status quo, which is tantamount to maintaining the conflict. Someone with a genuine desire for resolving conflicts would not be caught up in worshiping arbitrary borders or self-defense arguments for states with questionable legitimacy. The only thing of interest should be the will of the people on the ground. That has to be determined empirically by a referendum in each case, rather than dictated by the usual imperial overlords and shallow propagandists who invaded Iraq in 2003.

On the scales of wrongdoing, it is absolutely absurd to say non-Western countries are guilty of equivalent crimes to the West and its collaborators. The crimes of imperialism, sanctions and missionary aggression for “civilization” and “democracy” are without parallel in all of history. To even compare the actions of Russia, Iran and other alleged aggressors with the international criminals in London and Washington shows a total lack of regard for history and current events. It is for this reason Mont Order members and other critics of Western governments will be caught red-handed ignoring the alleged crimes of Russia and other non-Western countries, and they are not ashamed of it.

Friday, 1 January 2016

On the Fourth Point of the Mont Order

Declaring that the Mont Order is a global group of dissident thinkers, the code of Mont states in its fourth point, “the Order can relate to the Islamic world and hopes that it will overcome Wahhabism and Takfiri sectarianism, which are plots sown against Muslims to attack their unity.”

The real threat is unfortunately even broader in scope, and threatens not only the lives of Muslims with chaos and the miseries of civil war but threatens everyone. No society could be immune to a power that finds comfort in dividing everyone else to make itself feel strong. What it needs to be called, really, is a threat to global unity.

No one will contest that at the end of the Cold War, the United States set about creating what it called a new world order, to use the words of then President Bush Senior. This so-called new world order, for all the enemies it has attracted, could have been a good thing. The concept of uniting the whole world in a single global society, however it may be accomplished, is not a bad thing.

A united global nation has been the goal of much political thought and action since the Enlightenment, and even more so after the First and Second world wars. It was to have been based foremost on the values of equality and brotherhood, and on the self-determination of peoples. The United Nations was created in that same spirit, with hopes that it might eventually lead to the beginnings of some kind of world government.

However, after the end of the Cold War established the United States as the master of the world, it disregarded the self-determination of other peoples. It vowed essentially to unite the world in the name of peace, but it squandered the opportunity. It did the opposite, instead dividing the world in the name of war. The US saw only its own bloated image when it thought about the future of the world, and set about imposing its own will on others without asking their consent. This has led to the antagonism that many people today feel when they hear of the “new world order”.

With the defeats of its forces in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the post Cold War strategic environment, the United States turned away from the idea of global unity. Today, the US is more interested in searching for enemies and finding differences with others than in finding any common ground with them. It is more interested in inciting discord and sectarianism even within foreign states and societies than building a global consensus-based society. As such, the US strategy of global dominance is no search for global unity. Instead, it is a repetition of the old maxim of “divide and rule”, the strategy of ancient kings and emperors.

Still, lip service is given by the US government and the West towards the idea of eradicating extremism and sectarianism to pave the way for global unity, but their every action promotes disunity. Actions speak louder than words. If what is happening in Libya and Syria is how the US wishes to turn all opposing states, then the role of the US in promoting any type of global unity needs to be seriously re-examined.

If actions speak louder than words, then the US is not taking humanity forward to a united global polity. The US does not have the answers the world desperately needs at a time of dwindling resources and expanding populations. Its actions are not moving humanity forward, but backward, to something that can only be called tribal.

Most of the globe is profoundly less unified under US moral political “leadership” than it was before. In Eurasia, the US aligned itself with religious troglodytes and petty nationalists to break up the former Soviet Union into as many small republics and emirates as possible. Hatred and killing plague the former Soviet republics today that were previously unheard of when those republics were united. In the Middle East, the US strategy is even more divisive, attempting to co-opt and bribe even the smallest tribes and sects to attack the cohesion of stable governments.

Even if we take the view that nationalist dictatorships in the Middle East are not conducive to building a unified global society, tribal areas and primitive religious emirates are even worse. The worst offense of all is the devotion to the myth, as rejected in the Mont Order code, that Islam is inherently plagued with extremism and sectarianism. Almost every television broadcaster in Europe and North America promotes this myth, as if to keep it alive and thereby keep the conflict aflame in the region. In reality, Islam has been and will always be the single most unifying force in the Middle East, and indeed is even supportive of global unity in much of the wider world. The claim that Syria, Lebanon and other states are experiencing mutual warfare between Shias and Sunnis is untrue.

Why is this internecine conflict promoted and sustained by the narratives designed by the US foreign policy elites? Why are they not instead occupied with how to unite the world and bring peace to embattled countries?

The US and its allies in the Middle East are in a Cold War against Islam, and do to it what they did to the Soviet Union when they incited divisions after its fall. They did the same to Libya and Syria in recent years. Going beyond even the notorious idea of divide and rule, the US strategy towards its foes is to divide and destroy. The whole world must be at each other’s throats for the American regime to survive, because it cannot tolerate any cohesion or organization among its critics.

One Mont Order blogger, Sophie Stephenson, theorized in 2014 that the US neoconservatives are obsessed with reducing the size and political unity of all the United States’ perceived enemies. The US will do anything to achieve its goal of dividing and destroying everyone else, even supporting its own most violent and primitive enemies such as the terrorist groups al Qaeda and “Islamic State”. A primitive, reduced enemy existing in disarray and civil war is their preferred enemy. To the US, such a fractured and destroyed country may even be better than an ally. An ally, after all, can change and pose a future threat. A destroyed state and a divided, collapsed society too busy murdering itself for petty sectarian reasons can pose no threat to them.

Religious and national sectarianism are equally attacks on development and political unity. To someone who values harmony, accord and unity as supreme accomplishments of politics, Ukraine and other new republics that emerged from the Soviet Union are illegitimate nationalist abominations. For them to assert delinquent nationalism, with farcical flags that have barely existed for twenty years, is only a step back for humanity.

The US, of course, supports these anti-Russian republics as part of its plan for the world to follow a negative trajectory back to the Stone Age. Only then, when it has seen the rest of the world reduced to feuding small states and tribal areas as different from the former Soviet state as possible, will the US at last feel secure.

From Syria to Ukraine, the US policy consists of incitement to civil war, thereby retarding human development, subverting the goals of the United Nations and disrupting projects to unite the world in peace. Anyone who values a more united global society must, therefore, recognize the enemy. US foreign policy must not be supported but ditched. Americans also must try to see beyond what is good for America, and think what is good for everyone else.

Featured News

Censorship, protests, pandemic addressed in Mont Order 2020+ conference

The positions and views of the Order in relation to the complex and challenging global dissident landscape in 2020 have been explained in an...

Get updates

Get new posts by email:

From friends of the Order