Papers by L' Ordre
The Western powers are still deemed imperialist by their critics, due to their history of imperia... more 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 antiwar activists in the West to shift all their attention to criticizing nonWestern governments and advocating military intervention for the sake of " peace " as well as the old " democracy ". They accuse the antiwar activists of hypocrisy for failing to address the apparent crimes of the non Western powers such as Russia, Iran, or the alAssad 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 noone. 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 selfdetermination 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 selfdetermination 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
Alternative media site or account A endorses politician X's campaign. Is this really a productive... more 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 informationbased 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 the first 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.
An important contribution to modern political rhetoric, JeanPaul Marat's The Chains of Slavery (... more An important contribution to modern political rhetoric, JeanPaul 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
When confronted on his alleged foreign interference in the US election by leaking emails discredi... more 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
With an allbut official declaration of a new " Cold War " on Russia by the United States, the jo... more With an allbut official declaration of a new " Cold War " on Russia by the United States, the journalistic atmosphere in the US, the EU and the exiting UK has become poisonous. Dissent is hardly permitted. All evils are now assumed to be the work of Moscow until proven otherwise, even by the most liberal of publications. The US state has successfully pimped every hollow scribbler in the press and every brainless celebrity it can find to promote its foreign policy, word by word. The extent of such control is conspicuous and disturbing already. Those of us who hold dissident perspectives towards our own governments are now under renewed pressure and censorship, accused of working for a foreign state. We are effectively sentenced to death by a chauvinist lynch mob approved by the US state and its (non)Intelligence Community. Even US Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein has not been spared from this paranoid mob, with socalled Democrats trying to extract antiRussian vows from dissidents and alternative political movements or they will be proclaimed as agents of the Kremlin. Many antiestablishment figures, such as Owen Jones of the Guardian and even WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, have gone on record offering a few antiKremlin comments as a pass so they can continue to be published, and avoid the wrath of hysterical lunatics combing the West for fifthcolumnists. Others, more wisely, don't recognize such paranoid accusations, and continue to appear in Russianfunded media to get away from the absurd statist goose stepping of our " journalists " at home. Here is how dissidents, such as my fellow Mont Order hoodies, should respond to such pressure. From the perspective of dissidents living in the UK, the US or other Western countries, we must make clear that Russia is absolutely irrelevant to our own lives. It is not the regime we are living under. The Kremlin has no designs on the West, except in paranoid delusions and fantasies that assert jingoist ideas about your own " country " being superior. And if the Kremlin did have designs on the West, we should be only happy. We should confess to that being a good thing, and we must challenge statists in our own countries to explain what they are defending. Perhaps antiRussian crusaders think it is noble to die for contaminated water caused by hydraulic fracturing (fracking), much the way they died to spread Agent Orange and cause cancer in Vietnam. Judging by the way some Democrats are accusing antifracking protesters of being Russian agents, it seems clear that this new Cold War defending American " freedom " is again going to have a lot to do with poisoning people and causing birth defects. It will also have a lot to do with accusing Russians of a few particular war crimes, while downplaying the US's own endless and more monstrous war crimes in the Middle East. Russia is accused of everything, and the people are denied any agency if anything happens against the US regime's narrow interests. In the midst of all this excitement, the obvious question visited in this article is not being asked. What is the West fighting for? We know Russia is motivated by caution in the face of constant US military expansion, and is likely to counterattack US global dominance, but why is US dominance good? Specifically, why is
A move for the restoration of the Mont Order to its former status as a club of progressive thinke... more A move for the restoration of the Mont Order to its former status as a club of progressive thinkers and students has been successfully made. The Zero State, a technoprogressive activist group centered on the ideas of M. Amon Twyman, is now associated with the Mont Order. While it is only a formative step, this change cannot be underestimated. It marks the first move towards the restoration of the Mont Order to an actual association of groups and churches since its original disintegration in 1999. My negotiations with M. Amon Twyman, head of the WAVE think tank responsible over the Zero State, have resulted in his decision to be associated with the latest iteration of the former Mont Order. This latest iteration of the group will be an exclusive club comprised of fellow groups and contacts. The authenticity of it will be confirmed soon by Amon through one of WAVE's own channels. An official Mont page on Beliefnet, the world's top resource for religion and spirituality, will be introduced to help guide people to learn more about the Mont Order by finding the nearest associated activists, churches and groups that form part of this club. All of the members will be at the forefront of campaigns for a futuristic stateless society via popular means. During the negotiations between myself and Amon, which took place online from August 16th to August 19th, Amon offered support and recognition of the move to associate his group with the Mont Order. He also expressed an interest in adding more substance to the connection, while recognizing that it already carries the benefit of added publicity for both parties by establishing the possibility that additional cooperation could be forthcoming. While it will never abandon its origins as a friendly association, it is a fact that the Mont Order can now influence some of its first effective activist contacts through this relationship with the Zero State. The Mont Order is an oftenmisunderstood club of obscure origins, with several defunct iterations and an entertaining conspiracy theory in existence as a result of speculation on its past. Despite an abundance of misleading documentary evidence on the internet to suggest it is a secret society, Mont's new iteration will be a club based on affinity – an exclusive kind of " affinity group ". It will accept no official members, spokespeople, doctrines or books, and will be based purely on mutual recognition between loosely involved clients like myself and Amon's Zero State at this stage. Anyone will be able to get involved in our work by sharing our enthusiasm for a futuristic society beyond hate, violence and the state. The WAVE movement's Zero State activist arm is a large network of valuable online activists for positive social change, who aim to create what is described by Amon as a Virtual Distributed Parallel (VDP) State. This experimental model is intended as a viable alternative to the modern nationstate, and fits with the Mont Order's pluralistic and antinationalist view of humankind as one family. By helping to gather similar experimental anti statist networks and bloggers together from as far apart as Japan and the UK, the Mont Order hopes to return to its original mission of encouraging bonds of fellowship between disparate students and activists for a borderless world.
The interplay of science and matters of spirit is at the heart of change in the world today. As b... more 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 consider the interplay of the domains of science and spirit as well as their misguided state of conflict, and our findings have been constructive. Through a 2012 booklet called The Praxis, noted technology enthusiast and Order participant Dirk Conrad Bruere presents a valuable thesis for what he terms as " the most important spiritual movement in history " : the advocacy of technological solutions to remedy all suffering in the world. This is known as the abolitionist cause among bioethicists, championed largely by philosopher David Pearce, and part of the more controversial and often maligned transhumanist movement. Dirk's booklet offers an important contribution to the global conversations on faith, science, medicine and reason. It gives formulations of soul and spirit on a rational, purely philosophical basis and advocates that more modernistic forms of religious belief and practice can be developed based on these understandings rather than firm convictions that supernatural powers exist. Dirk writes that " what are thought of as purely material things and processes such as science and technology inevitably have a spiritual dimension. " The aims of transhumanism are boldly introduced by Dirk as " the advocacy of the use of technology to increase intelligence, expand consciousness, enhance our physical bodies, increase empathy and ultimately abolish all suffering and death from the entire universe. " This may seem unrealistic and untenable to many, but transhumanists posit routes to this seemingly messianic outcome using practicable science and technology that is predicted to be in its early stages in coming decades. Transhumanists, therefore, seek to achieve some of the high spiritual aims of religion using purely material means. Transhumanism, Dirk writes, is a sciencebased movement and yet it enters the domains traditionally held by spirituality and religion in profound ways. It is difficult to separate some of the radical predictions of transhumanism from similar ideals of life, death, deity and the destiny of the universe held by major religions. Transhumanism can be understood to be a profound spiritual movement despite its reliance on technology. It is " the greatest philosophical and technological movement Humanity will ever produce " , and " the Great Work of this century. " What The Praxis advocates is the use of breakthroughs in science and technology as a potential motor of a new kind of faithbased moral system: a system fitting for modernity and reliant on the tangible forces, workers and machines that are already set in motion today. Through these tangible forces, we can seek " escape velocity " from limited resources and mortality by creating thinking machines more equipped to solve our problems than we are. The idea of relying on these prospective benevolent supreme beings to resolve human affairs has profound spiritual ramifications, since it would be indistinguishable from humanity effectively creating the gods.
The Mont Order Club's first ever video conference in our society's long existence was made in Feb... more The Mont Order Club's first ever video conference in our society's long existence was made in February, and saw spirited participation from our advisers. Foremost in importance were some of the wise judgments our advisers rendered on the ongoing crisis of the Westphalian nationstate. Namely, our advisers spoke of the challenges posed by the Internet and other new media to the archaic international system. Arguably on the front line of the transition to a stateless society is the Zero State, a transnational collective and radical alternative community participating in the Mont Order. The Zero State was represented on our panel by one of its leading activists, Dirk Bruere. Describing the somewhat mysterious Zero State as an " autonomous transnational state " , Bruere also drew attention to the recent establishment of Transhumanist Parties. The Mont Order already embraces transhumanism as part of the wider WAVE network recognized at the Transhumanist Party established by Amon Twyman and Zoltan Istvan. The Mont Order Club will be following the development of these parties and offering assistance via its publicists and media contacts. The formation of transhumanist parties is aimed at raising awareness of transhumanism and making transhumanism into a political force, to give this highly futuristic philosophy more leverage over lawmakers in our countries. Our advisers, and indeed the Order itself, remain highly critical of the predominantly twoparty political systems that are the norm in western countries. We envisage the formation of influential " organized third party " movements aiming to lobby and lever existing political systems to accommodate radical changes we propose to society using the catalysts of technological advancement. We have noted the effectiveness of campaigning via a third party on the other side of the fence, in reactionary politics, with the primary example we spoke of being the Tea Party in the United States. The Order believes that a similar influential movement would be able to propel our marginal and dissident views about technological and social progress into mainstream politics. This has been our intention with the Transhumanist Parties. While it is unlikely that our futuristic transhumanist vision, termed " social futurism " by Amon Twyman, will be able to propel Transhumanist Party presidential candidate Zoltan Istvan into the White House any time soon, the attempt certainly helps to raise significant awareness of our plans for humanity's future. We each bear highly futuristic visions for society, of increased longevity and universal healthcare, and the guarantee of the maximum liberty to define human biological and social norms. While many transhumanists differ on what aspects of technoscience are most essential to our future, we all share a view that technology's present direction is good for social change and we hope to help make it continue to be so. The challenge of raising awareness of this transhumanist manifesto for the world is one that Dirk Bruere stated clearly at one point in our discussion. At this present juncture in political history, too many people simply don't know what transhumanism is, so they can't see its profound political implications and the impact it is sure to have
In my past articles on the Mont Order club, I talked about what the group used to be and how I th... more In my past articles on the Mont Order club, I talked about what the group used to be and how I think it represents an ideal of wisdom through diversity of religious, political and philosophical thought that I see a great role for in the world. Since I last wrote on this subject, the Internet has proved to be firm and reliable ground upon which to rebuild the Mont Order as a real community and a real organization. This means that a new iteration of the Mont Order exists and the group is no longer defunct. At this time, a promising number of bloggers have come forward to build the voice of the new Mont Order in 2015, and we predict that our group will come to include hundreds of voices in different countries. I want this article to serve as something of a guide to make their journey easier, as well as to illuminate our nature for all people who may take an interest in the newest variant of the group we have come to call " the Mont Order ". Some of our earlier members have had a rough journey, largely due to regretfully misunderstanding what the Mont Order is and whether or not we have any uniform ideology or agenda at all. It is apparently very easy for people to fall into the trap of fantasizing that this group is more than it really is, even when I go to great lengths to represent its current status accurately. Much of the fault for this difficulty in the formative period of the new organization has been mine, for failing to publish helpful information on Mont earlier and reduce any possibility of misunderstanding. I now have an apparently clear responsibility to explain what the Mont Order really is as an organization, and portray its current status accurately. There is scarcely any alternative than to explain things exactly as they are, rather than veiling ourselves behind already prevalent misconceptions about the Mont Order on the blogosphere. If the following explanation is still too hard to grasp, I encourage you to get in touch with our members directly to talk about your concerns. There is no substitute for speaking to our advisers directly, as simply researching this subject in the dark seas of the Internet will not likely suffice. At the time of writing, the Mont Order refers to two different actors. The second is something of which I know a great deal and am quite actively involved in, and of the first I know very little other than that it is probably a body of rumor and fiction. Were one to confuse the two, one may doubt our very existence as a group or use our existence to see evidence supporting absurd conspiracy theories that already misled millions in the culture of the Internet. The first Mont Order as an ideal
The internet has been called the largest experiment in anarchy. All online interaction seems to r... more The internet has been called the largest experiment in anarchy. All online interaction seems to reflect this reality, and it is already necessary to respect it if one wishes to thrive online in terms of business or politics. In political terms, the internet drastically elevated the positions of common citizens, " hacktivists " , and even social movements. Although the web has been with us now for quite a long time, it is still sufficiently new that its real potential to transform society has not yet been revealed. The second point in the Mont Order information society's recent Seven Points program, which was developed by a council of five members in October of this year, addresses that mystery and our relationship to it. For now, the preceding point of the Mont Order's new code must be considered, because it shares similar predictive power and is the necessary starting point. The Order has clearly created an admirable model as an online activist group. It has demonstrated a capacity to grow, an ability to inspire devotion, and an ability to maintain relationships with networks of activists capable of real political pressure and change. Like Anonymous, it seats itself on a powerful meme, and the truth of any meme is subordinate to its popularity. Moreover, this article became necessary because it must influence existing devoted members of the Order and even greater reserves of candidates, who will receive their due blessing and support from Mont. The first point addressed the kind of ideal organization anticipated by the Mont Order, both for itself and for aligned groups of activists and bloggers. That point can be called, in essence, organization without organization. The first point of seven states, " The Order maintains a philosophy based on collaboration, mutual support and grassroots coordination rather than traditional management. " That means, as a principle, we might decide to shelter all who participate with us. Using the connections the internet brings, it would be no hard task for a determined collective to stand up and deny, disrupt, degrade and deceive any organized crackdown against a specific member. Any online affinity group can provide that cover to its members, as it is a fact that repressive governments or groups rely upon isolating their enemies in order to persecute them. Where only the elusive international Order can be tracked, and full responsibility cannot be placed on an individual, campaigns of persecution collapse with their own folly. It is possible that the only reason Western governments are able to disempower their citizens by spying on their online habits is because the citizens are not party to a disparate enough collective, one dispersed even outside the jurisdiction of these regimes. Indeed, being party to an international collective not only denies these regimes power over you but robs them of their legitimacy, which is why such membership is a strategy for stateless strength and resistance across the globe. As the internet radically reorganizes the way people communicate and coordinate, it wipes out the need for traditional forms of management and organization, piece by piece. No longer is it necessary for there to exist any
In October, the Mont Order society's top bloggers talked about the central role of technology in ... more In October, the Mont Order society's top bloggers talked about the central role of technology in political and social change. Mentioning that the Mont Order and other modern political gatherings depend on the internet to exist in their current state, the second point in the Mont Order society's value system alluded to inevitable forms of globalization brought about by technology. Although one type of globalization is negative, the type mentioned above is positive. It is negative globalization when one country tries to forcibly remake the world in its own image. When, on the other hand, there are winds of technological and social change compressing history and geography to create a more united global polity, that is positive globalization. Rather than objecting to globalization in its entirety, we must distinguish between the inevitable forms of it and the imposed forms. What the Mont Order declared in its new code of values in October was its support of those inevitable forms, namely changes to civilization itself rather than new changes to hollow constitutions and ideologies. As the text of the Mont Order's second point itself reads: The Order accepts positive and popular globalism based on the inevitable trajectories of technology to unite disparate people across borders. Our own identity is closely tied to events in the world, mainly involving technology, as the internet enabled this group to exist. We see how technology is escaping its creators' designs and we celebrate this trend, which has also empowered us. However, we oppose with absolute conviction the neoconservative and neoliberal views of some major tech corporations including Google. One Mont Order theorist mentioned that emerging technologies are " a big wild card " that could overturn the political order. Nanotechnology, which is also known as " atomically precise manufacturing " (APM) and threatens to replace whole existing industrial supply chains with miniaturized devices sufficient to keep in the household, is mentioned specifically. Most of the attention at the conference, however, goes to existing network technologies as a source of social change. Of particular interest is the idea that those network technologies, being so radical in their potential to create a situation of equality and break monopolies on information, cannot be predicted or tamed by any current political elites. The whole machinery of modern states is behind the speed of modern media and political mobilization, putting those states in opposition to the people's will because of their own inefficiency. Moreover, popular technologies are advancing and shattering the media landscape so quickly that their effects are not even predicted by the engineers who created them.
What is so special about " democracy " and " Western values " that it is worth committing such ho... more What is so special about " democracy " and " Western values " that it is worth committing such horrific atrocities and war crimes for these ideas? In the short time that they have dominated this century so far, the " democracies " have started more wars than anyone else. They have kicked doors down, machinegunned civilians and inflicted starvation on entire populations with economic sanctions. The " democracies " have ravaged and destroyed Libya in military aggression, and today wage new wars of occupation and regime change against a conspicuous number of different states. They cause so much suffering that anyone proud of " the West " and " democracy " today is as good as cancer. No ideology has attacked so many defenseless countries since the years of European fascism. A person with anticolonialist credentials must necessarily be skeptical of most socalled democratic regimes today. Frequently, the establishment of democracy is nothing but an idol, used as an excuse to bomb weaker states without effective technological means of governance or selfdefense. It is a facade, as asserted in the third point of the new October code of the Mont Order society. The root of this cancerous false belief that sentences whole countries to death is a critical error in ideology. Let us consider it. Liberal democracy is often declared as the best system of government in the world, the " end of history " according to neoconservative (neocon) ideology. Although this claim does have an apparent historical basis, it dismisses the other essential pillar of stable modern states, which is popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty requires that communities get a chance to decide their own political future, rather than having it imposed on them by outsiders convinced of their superiority. In the American and French revolutions, the first governments came to power based on models of modern sovereign democratic republics. Since that event, most liberal democracies have been copycat states modeled primarily on France. The British regime does not even qualify to go in this category, since it is a monarchy ruled still by politicians bred from the First Estate – that minority of brats who inherit their property and status rather than earning it. But if we take a sober look at all the Western governments, it is clear that none of them are democratic, and what democratic features do exist are despised and subverted by the elected lawmakers. The only way of telling a " Western democracy " apart from any dictatorship is the use of elections to nod in the next group of wealthy oligarchs. Such elections have no impact on the state's policies, which roll on according to designs predating the incumbent government. When an " elected " government disagrees with the public, the ruler simply dismisses public opinion or even accuses the public of being terrorists and traitors, as the British Prime Minister regularly does. As the Mont Order informationsharing society acknowledged in the already mentioned third point of its new code, Western states are not led by their incompetent elected authorities at all but by a mixture of top civil servants and
Declaring that the Mont Order is a global group of dissident thinkers, the code of Mont states in... more 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 socalled 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 selfdetermination 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 selfdetermination 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 consensusbased 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 reexamined.
For the most part, the Digital Age has transformed communication and understanding in spiritual m... more For the most part, the Digital Age has transformed communication and understanding in spiritual matters for the better. As acknowledged by Pope Francis, the internet has increased the potential for " communication and encounter " around the world. Despite this, there has also been a growth in intolerance and hate on the internet. It is this misfortune that I seek to sensitively respond to. One of the most challenging manifestations of intolerance is the spread of hurtful conspiracy theories targeting communities. There is already an abundance of this hurtful material on the internet targeting the faiths of Islam, Judaism and other beliefs. In order to restore respect and truth in the face of such attacks, different faiths must be ready to cooperate and defend one another to repel the cycle of intolerance. Let us remember Martin Luther King Jr.'s expression, " injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere ". Unless different faiths are ready to stand together against prejudice and unfair attacks, they leave themselves exposed to the same mistreatment. This essay is dedicated to correcting a misunderstanding that has emerged with regard to a gathering of religious students, now widely discussed in sensational terms on the internet as the Mont Order. Comprising only a few students with shared philosophical interests and no hidden agendas whatsoever, the Order has nevertheless become the victim of conspiracy theories and has even been insensitively described as a cult. I must stress that the Mont Order does adhere to a code of humility, but this must not be misrepresented as a code of secrecy and conspiracy. If I am not offering detailed information on the Order's origins and membership in this essay, that is the only reason. I make it my own responsibility to write this article, because I am partly to blame for the misunderstanding that has emerged between members of the public and the gatherings of the Mont Order. As a favor to the Mont Order, I ran a blog sharing some of the ideas and principles of the Order under an alias during 20102012. The literature emerging from this blog reflected thinking of the original Mont Order gathering. Unfortunately, this project was abandoned due to a loss of interest by the involved people, including myself. Eventually, I locked the blog out from public view. News that the Mont Order has become the subject of a conspiracy theory, two years after its activities ended, is astonishing and disturbing for me as a friend of the Mont Order. However, asking to withdraw information from the public domain and suppressing the speculation would be unfriendly to open debate. Hiding information or complaining to publications over the spread of hurtful literature will only boost the asinine claims of conspiracy, so I instead favor informing people about the beliefs and philosophy of the Mont Order and helping the public to understand. Owing to the deterioration of interest and support from the religious students who were aware of or members of the Mont Order, the Order does not presently exist as an organization. It can be understood more effectively as a
Mont Order club advisers discuss the crisis of the nation-state, critiques of liberal democratic ... more Mont Order club advisers discuss the crisis of the nation-state, critiques of liberal democratic statehood, government repression, emerging technologies, disinformation, security, the war on terror, Internet activism, the challenge of transhumanism to traditional power relations, the Transhumanist Party, and current events. Participating advisers are Harry J. Bentham, Dirk Conrad Bruere, and Mike Dodd. The Mont Order is a broad global club composed of representatives of a number of dissident blogs, groups and churches. Zero State, represented by Dirk Bruere during the discussion, is an autonomous transnational community.
Conference Presentations by L' Ordre
The Mont Order has held online audio conferences since February 2015. This is a brief summary of ... more The Mont Order has held online audio conferences since February 2015. This is a brief summary of the points of agreement from the conference on June 13, 2020, 18:00-19:43 GMT. Mont is an informal 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 Political Spectrum (particularly in the US context) has been reduced to a conflict between ne... more The Political Spectrum (particularly in the US context) has been reduced to a conflict between neoconservative hawks claiming to be left wing or right wing. In reality, views between the two fabricated sides (like the two fabricated parties) are almost identical, particularly where they concern the welfare of the rest of the world.
The Mont Order, often just called Mont, is an information society of writers and networks based i... more 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.
Drafts by L' Ordre
The Mont Order, often just called Mont, is an informal society of writers and networks based in d... more The Mont Order, often just called Mont, is an informal 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 discussion of the group in November 2021 was solely held via email in Q and A form. This is the full text.
Uploads
Papers by L' Ordre
Conference Presentations by L' Ordre
The Mont Order has held online audio conferences since February 2015.
Drafts by L' Ordre
The discussion of the group in November 2021 was solely held via email in Q and A form. This is the full text.
The Mont Order has held online audio conferences since February 2015.
The discussion of the group in November 2021 was solely held via email in Q and A form. This is the full text.