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

Saturday, 26 December 2020

The surprises of 2021

With 2020 coming to an end, few can say they know what lies ahead. The pandemic may be dealt with sufficiently by new vaccines that we will see an easing of all restrictions, or there may be new strains that in turn burden health services and cause further public worry. Political turmoil in the US may subside, or increase. The only certainty in any scenario is that the Western governments will increasingly try to harass Russia and China, with increasing focus on China. As the new economic superpower, China attracts the envy and hatred of people who believe they should rule the world. They are the same narrow group of people who regard the bombings of Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq as a golden age of peace and civilised life. There will be an effort to make that happen again; to make American war criminals great again. Whatever the outcome, this is a time for writers to review the last year and offer our predictions and suggestions about the next.

Saturday, 28 November 2020

US foreign policy to be stable, predictable again

If we are to believe reports, Biden is expected to restore the US to similar policies to the Obama era, including when it comes to foreign policy. There have been reports that Biden wishes the US to rejoin agreements such as the Paris Agreement, JCPOA (Iran Deal), and nuclear arms reduction pacts with Russia. A less bellicose approach to China is expected. Unfortunately, Trump may complicate this before his exit. For those unaware: reports show that he asked for a military strike on Iran, and there has been a recent uptick in the regional violence surrounding Iran. These include Israeli strikes in Syria and Iran-allied militias employing waterborne IEDs against a targeted tanker off the shores of Yemen, in addition to a random assassination of a top Iranian scientist. The recent changes to the US military leadership to elevate more combat-hardened experts, and reduction of potentially vulnerable forces in nearby Afghanistan, also point to an impending attack. Something is definitely afoot, but whether it results in all-out war may be under Iran's control. Once Trump is out, these escalations will probably subside, replaced again with the slower and more patient strategies of the Obama years. Despite this, we cannot ignore the power of the Republicans in the US Senate. They will constantly be pushing for rash attacks in the Middle East region. It should be added that both Obama and Trump were unable to reverse the decline of US power. Both depended on symbolic sanctions and failed to consolidate US power in Europe, the Pacific, or the Middle East. The reversal of the US coups in Bolivia and Venezuela suggests the US on a losing streak there, once again. Biden's team likely can't prevent it.

Monday, 2 November 2020

States continue to act the same after elections

Why do elected leaders so often betray their campaign promises? Every time, even the simplest of promises are not honored by leaders, resulting in a failure to serve the people, no matter how obvious the people's message was. An obvious example is that every US president promises to withdraw from the Middle East and subsequently fails to do so. The problem lies with processes devised to deliberately obfuscate the democratic will, in order for it to be consistently and deliberately disrespected, no matter how voters voted. Full article: 

Friend of the Mont Order

Monday, 26 October 2020

The Mont Order on the US 2020 election

Mont Order authors and members have expressed a lot of strong views on the divisive US 2020 election. Views have been consistently critical mainly of Trump, and sometimes both candidates. Nevertheless, the Mont Order Code of 2015 held that elections are often of no consequence.* This may be especially true for Mont because Mont members have been so far selected and encouraged based on their foreign policy views rather than domestic policy views, and the foreign policy ideas of Biden and Trump appear to be equally hawkish (although Biden is to be more predictable and more organised). For the individual, it is often a different matter and a lot can be at stake in such an election due to issues of domestic policy. Issues like the environment are important to many dissidents of the Mont Order sphere (such individuals may find it urgent to vote for Biden due to Trump's disregard for both ecological preservation and for carbon reduction targets), while issues of the "deep state" and neoliberalism are important to others (who may be dissuaded from supporting Biden, but unlikely to be convinced to vote for Trump in any case).
you can see more on the originally agreed 7-point code at:

Saturday, 26 September 2020

Andre Vltchek died peacefully in Turkey

Anti-imperialist dissident author and friend of the Mont Order, Andre Vltchek, passed away peacefully in Turkey on September 22nd. According to his publisher, he had struggled with illness and "surrendered" to it inevitably. Vltchek's publisher was with him at the time and insisted his death was not "suspicious", despite some media reports saying so and despite an apparently ongoing police probe. A fearless investigative journalist, Andre was also the author of a number of well-received books championing the causes of the world's oppressed peoples, available at In a world without Andre, we must make sure his words still receive the audience they deserve. May he rest in peace.

Saturday, 1 August 2020

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 Academia(dot)edu conference paper upload. It summarises the results of a discussion held June 13, 2020, 18:00-19:43 GMT. The transcript itself remains closed to the public. Participating members were L'Ordre, Syeda Qudsiya Mashhadi, Hugo Turner, and Kristian NF. After members were consulted, the following positions were agreed and approved by the Guides of the Mont Order: (1) Online censorship is worsening, with the pandemic potentially being used as a gateway for governments and corporations to exercise more powers to screen out or suppress dissenting views; (2) The turmoil in the US is not likely to lead to any political change or power transition; (3) We should be aware of the existence of algorithms that may hide content, and be cautious with our own content to avoid controversy (search "Being effective dissidents without freedom of speech" at LOrdreNet) for the best approach when dealing with this issue).

Friday, 26 June 2020

Mont Order 2020± conference held earlier this month

Using Skype, a 90+ minute discussion was held between Mont society online members on 13 June. The discussion switched between a number of topics, including ongoing social and political unrest in the United States and the broader global implications. A transcript will be available to all members in July. Announced in the same discussion is the reduced use of the name "Mont Order" for any specific media entity or organised body, with such roles instead being the business of member entities of the Order. As of 2020, the Mont Order doesn't fit into any category of organisation or group, being instead a loose association with active and inactive participants. In 5 years, the Mont Order's anti-imperialist Code has not been altered or superseded by any other statement of values. It still effectively describes the common agenda shared by members.

Wednesday, 27 May 2020

To members of the old Mont Order

If you are a member of the older Mont Order group or groups and you are reading this, I encourage you to influence the development of the new group. Use the contact method found on this website to get in touch, tell me who you are, share your knowledge about the older Order, and help us avoid repeating any mistakes this older group may have made.

Fully restoring the Mont Order to its original and true nature requires an accurate understanding of that nature. Anyone who can help solve this mystery is welcome to participate in this reconstruction.

Sunday, 26 April 2020

Being effective dissidents without freedom of speech

When we oppose the status quo - the rule of the establishment - the pain motivating our actions is often very specific to us as individuals, leading to our own unstable brands of political advocacy. It is always tied to a sense of being deceived, and this in turn leads to emotional behaviour. It can also lead to outbursts we did not think through - to a series of accusations against states and/or corporations that often don't have merit, but we as accusers no longer cared to check properly. That is where caution is needed, so as not to damage your own cause.

In defense of dissidents as emotional accusers, it is possible that a system or regime can be already guilty enough that it became forgivable to stop thoroughly fact-checking each accusation brought against it. Anyone accusing the state of lies can be presumed to be correct, if we reached a point of no return. Officials already proven to be liars can be accused of lying again, without us hearing further evidence they are lying. It can reach a point where everything they say is rejected by us.

Where the emotional accusations become a hindrance to an effective dissident is where they result in a strong counterattack against the dissident, leading effectively to the dissident recanting or being otherwise eliminated. When a dissident intended to be destroyed or took the risk willingly, as Julian Assange may have done, it can be considered a form of martyrdom and therefore a victory. However, if the dissident actually aimed to maintain their brand, in hopes of some level of input into a civilised political discussion, or to maintain an official publication or source of revenue, then the destruction of the dissident is a definite defeat. It served no purpose. Such individuals are useless even to their own cause, in the end.

If dissidents find that they are being de-platformed, hidden from search results, or otherwise censored online because they made emotional claims or peddled a conspiracy theory that holds neither strong evidence nor credibility in any academic or journalistic source, that is a defeat. It is a defeat because they won't even be able to convince people that their sacrifice was a real one. It is also an avoidable defeat, and a lamentable one, because unfounded claims and emotional-based tirades are not ultimately worth sacrificing for.

The only thing worth sacrificing your freedom of speech for is to expose a definite crime - one you could not only prove beyond any doubt in a court of law but one you really will prove in the eyes of society with your sacrifice. People who are de-platformed or get their writing omitted from search results because they asserted uncertain or disputed claims and theories as facts, and because they broke laws and rules they did not know existed in doing so, are making a mistake. They are at fault for becoming lazy, and could easily have continued to be an effective dissident if they kept to promoting better-founded criticisms of the state instead of unproven claims.

We should all investigate what is acceptable discourse and self-censor whatever we can't establish as true for all readers. On any topic under dispute, we should look for scholarly backing for what we say, and we should make sure we check and understand our own words and the implications of them under law before saying them. We must stand on the shoulders of giants and be able to deliver our own points with the competence of scholars - like all those best dissidents before us in history - before we analyse or speak. We must make sure that - in the event you really are censored - the world has really lost something and has become less beautiful.

We don't have freedom of speech. For us to somehow pretend we do, in hopes of eventually being censored or detained so we can then disprove freedom of speech, would not be clever but incredibly foolish. Trying to provoke the powers that be into censoring or detaining you, or more likely just damaging your finances and ability to reach readers, is ineffective for promoting any cause. It is a self-imposed defeat, unless you are going to expose a real crime or truly change society's perceptions of the state in the way Assange, Manning and Snowden did.

Thursday, 26 March 2020

Changes to Mont Order social media, websites

As part of a reorganisation, significant changes have been made to some elements of Mont Order websites and social media. You may no longer recognise them. The deletion of some unfortunate and neglected elements of the society's online presence will follow. Some portions of the presence will be gone, others scaled back, and others renamed or upgraded to be more useful to members of the society. The name or brand of the group isn't important and never was. The purpose of this society isn't about generating attention, traffic or profit (one reason this website is free of ads). In fact, the use of different names for the group should be encouraged wherever possible. The exact extent of the changes can be seen by searching through Mont Order links and media. The goal of all such updates is to make our individual members more successful. In this case, the goal is pursued by making the group and its name less 'distracting' for readers who should instead read the works of our members. By decreasing the visibility of the Mont Order society itself, the society's future activity should instead draw more traffic to the individuals it most aims to promote. This better meets the Order's aim - to benefit those who participate.

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