L'Ordre

L'Ordre

Snowden: one-man’s triumphant revolt against a system

posted by Harry J. Bentham

Le mensonge et la crédulité s’accouplent et engendrent l’Opinion.

Lying and credulity mate and engender Opinion.

Paul Valéry


One man can shake the world’s most powerful government. What chance would it have against many?

I am currently in the process of drafting an article, titled “A World Beyond Nations”, possibly to appear at The Venus Project Magazine. A new op-ed authored by me in the last few days has been submitted to Press TV titled “America: death of a nation?”, but most importantly I have produced a new article by the title “Striving to be Snowden-like”. I am not yet sure where the latter article will be published, but the best choice might be the web magazine ClubOfINFO. I am doing all that I can for that magazine, and I encourage you to pay it a visit to it today to increase the traffic volume.

More: ClubOfINFO: State disintegration inevitable: #LOrdre

On the opponents of Edward Snowden, former CIA agent and NSA contractor, I can only say that it is foolish for anyone to sit idly and criticize a brave individual who took action by leaking much-needed information about the abuses of state surveillance on a global scale:

Those of us who would criticize Snowden should examine themselves and their own deeds, and compare them with his. He is a titan. There is no chastising that the people who merely write or speak, such as I, can do to a man who accomplished such great deeds, but only praise. By contrast with him, the rest of us can only be called slacktivists: we have fought only for our freedom to do nothing.

Mere opinion isn’t worth listening to. Deeds are the only true form of protest. That is why I do not see myself as authoritative, but Edward Snowden surely deserves to be treated as an authoritative – some might same messianic – individual. In rebelling against the world’s most powerful government, and not merely winning but surviving, he did what everyone else should aspire to do. And for that, he deserves to be praised and followed eagerly.

Edward Snowden is like the model of a man who could fight a state by himself, shake it up, and win. With people like these, who needs a movement, a party, or a politician to represent him? For this reason, I call for the political future to be shaped by titans – individuals with great influence and skill who can challenge the more traditional hierarchies and collective forms of power embodied by powerful states and corporations.

There is much to do, if we are to raise more titans of justice and change like Snowden from among the youth. This will be the message of my article, and I encourage you to look for it at ClubOfINFO when it appears there. For updates, follow the ClubOfINFO Twitter feed.


By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Every country’s authority will weaken, causing formal and informal disintegration

posted by Harry J. Bentham

Les maux de la résistances sont grands, je le sais, mais de la résignation ne sont-ils pas mille pire !

The evils of resistance are great, I know, but of resignation are they not a thousand worse!

Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray


Stratfor recently made a “prediction” about Russia’s future.

The Russian Federation’s authority will weaken. Eventually, it will cease to exist as a polity. This prophecy, or forecast, as Stratfor refers to it (the full name of the intelligence firm itself is Strategic Forecasting) is no surprise to me. For years, I and many others have been predicting that all nation-states will lose cohesion and they will cease to exist as credible authorities. Countries are the great farce of our time.

I’ll admit that many of our countries’ services remain necessities for the sake of serving the people, but their sense of legitimate authority – and the reverence people show towards them – is misplaced. All countries should stop flying their absurd flags and national symbols, and disappear in as much blood and darkness as they were forged in the first place. We will support this transition to happen, in order to update the “political operating system” of our time.

The Hardest Part

I will continue to write op-eds at Press TV, which will be critical of US and British foreign policy. I’m going to arrive at a new op-ed very soon, possibly covering one of the crisis zones addressed in foreign policy.

Let this stand as a comment from me that I’m not on any particular country’s side, especially not my own. I may criticize the US government more than the UK government, but only because it seems to be in charge of more foreign policy decisions concerning the UK than than the UK.

No country should be exempt from our scorn, especially not the countries in which we ourselves reside. The future is the inevitable, but being part of the future means helping it happen. Your country needs you. Help it to be defeated.


By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Autocracy versus autocracy: our democratic states are superior to nothing

posted by Harry J. Bentham

L’imagination est la reine du vrai, et le possible est une des provinces du vrai.

Imagination is the queen of truth, and the possible is one of the provinces of truth.

Charles Baudelaire


It’s easy to mock dictatorships for being too sensitive and prone to censor information that incriminates them, but are our governments any different?

Indeed, one of the most compelling arguments against autocracy is its inflexibility, its crudeness and its intolerance towards dissent. Our democratic countries, so called, are not prone to such behavior. Or are they?

It occurred to me recently that our governments in the United States and Europe, while professing to be more democratic and politically legitimate than other regimes, are actually very sensitive to information that they find inconvenient. Their tendency to dismiss autocratic countries as paranoid and inflexible, while they themselves live in rampant paranoia about possible subversion and terrorism in their own states and master all the tactics against those threats, is astonishing.

Once we remove all the propaganda about freedom and democracy, the only actual difference between our regimes and the various dictatorships that humanity overcame in history is that ours are sensitive to different kinds of threats. But this difference would be apparent between any two governments, whether alleged dictatorships or alleged democracies.

The events surrounding WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden demonstrated that the US government, far from being in favor of freedom as it claims, is at the forefront of a campaign to stifle access to information (such as the PRISM spying program that Snowden revealed) that would embarrass the US government and others. So what we mean when we say dictators are afraid of freedom of speech is not really to say they are any different from the US government, but to say that they have different, often eccentric priorities. As the people, however, we should be no less offended by the US government’s use of state secrets and censorship than we are offended by the state secrets and censorship witnessed in a totalitarian dictatorship. The only difference between the two is that they react sensitively to different kinds of speech. While the US government by default isn’t too offended by people commentating on the particular administration’s policies, it is very offended and will take action against anyone it sees as promoting violence against the US state or disclosing information that actually weakens its regime.

We should be wary of how ready conservative elements in our societies are to break international law and the internal laws of foreign countries while they are so respectful towards the laws in their own country. Even influential corporations such as Google engender this kind of behavior. When the US government takes undemocratic or autocratic actions in the interests of its so-called security, Google is respectful and honors US law and matters of secrecy, no matter how draconian these are – the corporation is determined to cooperate with the US state, but at the same time Google tries to promote disobedience in other countries, actively helping dissidents to hide their identities and circulate information that the government doesn’t like.

That seems to be the rule guiding the political and corporate elite in our countries – obedience here, disobedience in “authoritarian” countries. In the eyes of our rulers, rival states like Iran, Russia and China are simply parties of outlaws, violating the peace that “we”, the so-called “west” sustained via absolute military and economic power.

Hear me out. My call is simply that we all do the opposite of this vile hypocrisy. I am not arguing that people should be cowed and obedient towards the governments of allegedly authoritarian countries such as Iran, Russia and China (who are actually considerably less authoritarian than the regimes that the US has supported in their place and wants to replace them with). Rather, I am arguing that we use our technology and the media at our disposal to subvert and challenge our own governments, as Snowden did. I argue that as dissidents, we should actively disobey, damage and dismantle the oppressive US-led global establishment that arrogantly presumes to police the world. Seek out the cowering state’s vulnerabilities, the things that it is offended by – and do everything in your power to expose it for the flawed and paranoid regime it actually is.

We need to show people like the US government that they aren’t better than any other autocracy, and that their own regime is equally as fearful, doomed, and utterly undeserving of power as any other regime.

The Global Tyrant: Collected Foreign Policy Commentaries


By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

“Free speech”, featuring elitist lies and censorship of the oppressed

posted by Harry J. Bentham

L’histoire nous libère des entraves

History frees us from the shackles

Henri-Irénée Marrou


In a place of elite commentary and closed exclusive media with no reader engagement, is there freedom of speech?

Image used at my column based with Iran’s Press TV website

With the exception of blogs like this one and certain columns at alternative media websites, it seems that most of the media commentary given to the public is shoved down people’s throats without any regard for common sense or criticizing the social order. However, they do their best to pretend. It puts me in a very unique situation.

Let me give you an example: “Iran’s hypocrisy in condemning U.S. racism”, by Michael Rubin at CNN. In the post, which was made in December 2014, Rubin seizes on Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s Twitter comments in support of #BlackLivesMatter as he reacted to support the protests against police racism in the US. Khamenei infuriated arrogant commentators like Rubin in the US, who usually indulge in criticizing other countries, as they were forced to see their own immoral country being criticized by Iran – which they usually criticize. In a strange and convoluted argument reacting to Khamenei’s tweets, Rubin tries to argue that Iran is actually a more racist society than the US. It comes out as desperate gibberish, and it is obvious that the reason for the brevity of Rubin’s post is that he just couldn’t think up enough lies to tell.

Khamenei was justified in making his tweets, and Rubin should be embarrassed at how wrong he is in trying to represent these Iranian social criticisms of US institutional racism as hypocritical. Iranians were wise to react in disgust at the racism in the US. We can easily know the reality that Rubin tried so hard and failed to hide in his post: the US is obviously the more racist country. Consider that Iran is the world’s oldest modern multicultural society. If we trace its roots back to ancient Persia, it was the first world power to ever truly bring different peoples together under one empire in a harmonious fashion. To this day, its different communities live together in harmony, and have never been faced with internecine conflict or the systematic persecution of minorities. By contrast, the United States began as a country that practiced the wholesale enslavement of a race, and the genocide of the native population. Rubin is no critic of the latter, even throwing in some support of the Israeli Zionist settler-state in his post.

Apparently, for Rubin, Iran is a more racist country than the US, because he uses the facile argument that he thinks its criticism of Israeli racism and apartheid might be antisemitism:

Repeated rhetoric about Israel being a cancer—sometimes without any differentiation between Jews and Israel—takes a toll.

When I look at people like Rubin, I see someone wearing a dunce hat. These are the most stupid and evil people in the world, who make up lies for the world’s most cowardly and racist regimes while hypocritically calling those who rightly point out their stupidity and oppression a “racist”. Although I thank Iranian publications for enhancing my free speech, and I give no thanks to CNN for giving a platform for dunces like Rubin, I myself don’t necessarily believe in free speech. Liars like Rubin, for example, deserve to be deprived of their right to free speech. Not because a society with less free speech is a good thing, but because the world has already heard enough from people like him. The one percent at the top of US and European society, and the liars who legitimize them and popularize their message in the media, have already been given a disproportionate platform for too long and it is simply high time for them to shut up.

It is especially rich for a pundit at CNN to talk about how much more free speech there is in the US, compared to Iran. Rubin is himself clearly disengaged from his readers, making posts that have no comment thread on them, like a lot of columns favored by the corporate media and the state. Is this what “free speech” looks like? Does “free speech” describe pundits of the one percent bellowing lies and blasphemies against humanity into a megaphone, while living a life in ignorance of their audience? For this reason, I find it ironic that Rubin uses his post to argue that there is an abundance of free speech in the US and none in Iran.

I find it especially ironic, personally, because most of my own most public writing has been published not by CNN but by an Iranian news website: Press TV. From my perspective, Iran is more actively giving a voice to oppressed and marginal people than the US. CNN (or any of the US media’s) attempts to represent itself as giving a platform for popular expression or advancing the frontiers of free speech is a farce. CNN represents its corporate sponsors, while Press TV represents the ninety-nine percent of humanity. The fact the channel is funded by the Iranian state is only even more reason to see it as representative of the oppressed, because that ties Press TV’s media mission directly to the Islamic Revolution.

The US represents all the world’s tyrants and impersonal, unaccountable corporations. Iran proudly lends a humanitarian and moral lifeline to impoverished peoples in armed struggle in Palestine, Lebanon and other areas of the Islamic world. It is a role that can bring no shame. Iran’s role in the world inspires millions to defend their rights every day, while the US’s role earns more and more opponents and recruits more violent militants against US aggression and global arrogance every day.

It is a fallacy to keep framing everything in terms of the “Western freedoms” versus Islam or versus “authoritarian regimes”. In the case of the US and its media versus Iran and its media, it is best understood as the battle between the oppressor and the oppressed, between the liar and the one who exposes lies.

The liar deserves no freedom of speech and is no friend of the people, while the one who tells the truth deserves great freedom of speech and is a friend of the people. In their own way, every editor agrees with this principle. If “free speech” were indiscriminate, there would be a constant flow of nonsense and lies from every publication everywhere, all the time. There isn’t.

In the particular instances where they are accused of censorship, Iranians have a well-earned right to censor US lies aiming to destabilize their country and their historic revolution, while the US has no right to censor the truth about its barbarity and hypocrisy. Trying to use “free speech” arguments to create an equivalency between the oppressor media trying to disseminate lies against Iran, and the oppressed media trying to record and demonstrate the truth of oppression – whether in Palestine or the whole Middle East region – should be recognized as obscene.

It is simply a basic editorial principle – not an affront to free speech – that liars need to shut up, and that people who actually have a critical point to make in the interests of the world’s downtrodden masses should have their voice amplified by a just and accurate media. Iran performs that service better than any country in the world, and for an example of it, I dare you to use Press TV. The only propaganda that the oppressed need is the truth, and nothing that the oppressed do or say will change the fact that they are right and deserve to prevail.


By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Previous Posts

Snowden: one-man's triumphant revolt against a system
Le mensonge et la crédulité s'accouplent et engendrent l'Opinion. Lying and credulity mate and engender Opinion. Paul Valéry One man can shake the world's most powerful government. What chance would it have against many? I am currently in the process of drafting an article, titled "A

posted 11:00:46pm Mar. 06, 2015 | read full post »

Every country's authority will weaken, causing formal and informal disintegration
Les maux de la résistances sont grands, je le sais, mais de la résignation ne sont-ils pas mille pire ! The evils of resistance are great, I know, but of resignation are they not a thousand worse! Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray Stratfor recently made a "prediction" about Russia's future.

posted 11:00:56pm Feb. 28, 2015 | read full post »

Autocracy versus autocracy: our democratic states are superior to nothing
L'imagination est la reine du vrai, et le possible est une des provinces du vrai. Imagination is the queen of truth, and the possible is one of the provinces of truth. Charles Baudelaire It's easy to mock dictatorships for being too sensitive and prone to censor information that incrimina

posted 11:00:46pm Feb. 27, 2015 | read full post »

"Free speech", featuring elitist lies and censorship of the oppressed
L'histoire nous libère des entraves History frees us from the shackles Henri-Irénée Marrou In a place of elite commentary and closed exclusive media with no reader engagement, is there freedom of speech? Image used at my column based with Iran's Press TV website With the exception

posted 11:00:50pm Feb. 21, 2015 | read full post »

The case for Assad: democracy is ideal, but the situation in Syria is far from ideal
Hélas! tout est abîme, — action, désir, rêve, Parole! Everything, alas, is an abyss, — actions, desires, dreams, Words! Charles Baudelaire Even as the war in Syria (more like the war on Syria, as squabbling foreign powers try to plot the country's future) rages on, something has

posted 11:00:23pm Feb. 20, 2015 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.