Search This Blog

The Mont Order has gathered internet users into special lists since 2014 and given random forms of help, collaboration, product-sharing and influence-building to esteemed authors and dissidents. The purpose of this site is for information only.

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.

Mont Order US-English Sources

Mont Order International Sources

Join conversations with the Order

Visit https://www.facebook.com/groups/MontOrderFriends/ if Facebook not displaying the page below


Subscribe for Announcements and Statements

The Code

Commentaries from L'Ordre