Advertisement

L'Ordre

L'Ordre

The Mont Order in 2016

posted by Harry J. Bentham

Since there is not much new to share or talk about other than in my last post this weekend, I will just direct you to read a recent set of email texts from within the Mont Order society on the idea of political violence. I also want to direct my readers to the Mont Order values video, which presents the “code” of the small Mont Order society as it presently exists, scattered throughout the web today.

YouTube Preview Image

Point 7 is one that I personally try to follow as much as possible, which is to be politically neutral. I am not supporting political agendas, I’m just criticising them. That being said, there are some issues considered “political” (by some people) that fall within the authority of NGOs, civil society and the Mont Order to talk about. Fighting against poverty is considered political by some. Liberating information and making the public aware of facts is considered politically charged by some. However, all those actions are neutral and balanced, and I would not consider someone doing these things to necessarily be an activist. I don’t know about in the US, but in the UK, civil society groups are generally required not to be involved in helping a political party or person to power. Point 7 in the Mont Order’s code doesn’t only coincide with that regulation, but is based on exactly the same thinking.

hjb signature new opaque 2

 

Advertisement

Needs of the many against survival of the few

posted by Harry J. Bentham

After reading a number of key chapters of interest in the book Prospects for Human Survival, which I received a review copy of from the Lifeboat Foundation, I believe the author is somewhat misguided. I admit this is a matter of opinion, however, rather than of the hard facts and mathematical equations used by the author (Willard Wells). Nevertheless, I cannot help argue that my opinion is correct. This is not my review of the book, which will be published separately, but a reaction to some of the themes in the book.

Wells, in a nutshell, argues that there needs to be a bunch of high-tech, rich “preppers” whose plan is to save themselves in order to rebuild civilisation in the event of any future calamity, whether it is an asteroid impact or a world war. Thinking about humanity-threatening disasters is a pastime of many futurists, although I prefer a more optimistic approach. My own concern is more with erasing present injustices, prejudices and other ailments of global society. I have no interest whatsoever in saving the kernel of injustice, wealth and greed for it to once again proliferate across the wastelands it created by causing wars and suffering on a global scale.

Advertisement

If a nuclear war were to occur, it would be the wealthy one percent who started it. Encouraging them to invest in building great bunkers for themselves and their families only makes the prospect of waging such a war seem less unpleasant to them. I would prefer that all their plans fail and that all humanity goes extinct, than that the privileged one percent of humanity will be the survivors of a calamity – especially a calamity they caused.

The whole teleology of saving humanity, as it appears in Prospects for Human Survival, makes little sense. Hypothetical unpleasant fates of humanity, which would entail human extinction, are presented as problems to overcome not because of their unpleasantness but because they would entail extinction. However, if the goal in life was to avoid extinction, in a genetic sense, then it is not only impossible (because all lines eventually die out, even the entire human species), but would lead to the absurdity of encasing human DNA in probes and sending them out into space to ensure the maximum possible survival of our genetic material for the longest possible time – and calling this a great victory. That is in fact meaningless. There are other great things like justice and balance to think about.

Advertisement

When faced with such scenarios, I believe extinction is less menacing to humanity’s existence than greed and depravity – the crimes represented in saving a privileged few rather than trying to save the many. Although the scenarios are much too unpleasant for most people to want to talk about, if we must speak of them, I submit that it is better to all die trying to save one another than for the majority to die so a minority can live. If it came to a calamity, I would put justice and fairness before even survival itself. If survival cannot be achieved justly, it is not worth it at all, because humanity would have forsaken its right to exist by behaving in such a depraved and inhumane manner as to kill the majority to save the few.

Advertisement

Perhaps in the same spirit of the utilitarian philosophy developed by a man also called Bentham (Jeremy, that is), I believe the absolute good ought to be the happiness of the greatest number in the particular scenarios presented in that book. It doesn’t make sense that although humanity flourished under altruistic philosophies, we should suddenly have to abandon them and apply a selfish approach divorced from history, to “survive”.

Advertisement

US ends sanctions, then imposes them again

posted by Harry J. Bentham

Cartoon, Catalyst thesisThe introduction of new sanctions against Iran at the very moment the US and Europe are saying Iran is complying with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is appalling. It is cynical.

If as soon as the US ends sanctions, it restores them for different reasons, then clearly it or at least a number of its powerful lawmakers have no interest in justice or peace.

Advertisement

I’m reminded of the story of the lamb. When the wolf ran out of things to blame on the lamb, he ate the lamb the anyway. The US seems to be acting like this towards Iran right now, based on the report linked above.

When Iran agrees to scale back its nuclear industry in exchange for sanctions relief, the US at the same time places new sanctions to cripple Iran based on some other excuse. This time, it’s Iran’s conventional weapons and missile technologies that alarm them and convince them that Iran is still a threat.

It would not surprise me if the US gradually reintroduces all the sanctions on Iran for other reasons now, such as “human rights”, “terrorism”, “missiles”. Anything it can think of. In their own words, “Iran’s support for terrorism, regional destabilization, human rights abuses, and ballistic missile program”. So when the main core issue is gone, they blabber about something else and continue behaving the same way. My analysis would have to stress one thing: a superpower trying to master the world will never allow other countries to develop independently.

Advertisement

History has heard this story a thousand times already. All is exactly as I have stated in my Catalyst thesis and associated op-eds back in 2013. I have said and will always say that the Western powers are the arrogant powers, exactly as Iran claims. They assume a right to attack anyone and they assume others have no right to defend themselves, or even possess so much as a weapon that might have the slightest chance of letting them defend themselves.

Imagine it. Iran could hand over every missile, every bomb and every bullet it possesses to the US and yet the US and Israel would still go there and kill scientists, apply new sanctions and eventually invade to prevent the country developing properly.

Advertisement

Anyone who can harm the US military in any conceivable conflict is considered hostile by the United States. Russia is the enemy because it also has nuclear weapons, China is the enemy because it has nuclear weapons. The US is obsessed with full-spectrum global dominance. It has even said so.

For as long as any homestead, person, or country has the ability to stand up against US authority and prevent it from attacking with impunity, those people will be targeted by the US using sanctions, airstrikes, arrests, assassinations, blockades, isolation and every other tactic in the American state’s arsenal.

Advertisement

How can anyone not be offended by this behaviour? Imagine if you were the target. This strikes at the heart of what it means to be human, the right to develop and innovate at one’s own speed, the right to defend oneself against cruelty and violation. The US, intoxicated on shallow lies about democracy and human rights, has sabotaged and opposed nefariously humanity’s most precious right to develop without interference.

In its finest moments, America spoke of reaching for the stars, while its boot crushed humanity.

Advertisement

Cologne attackers were not Muslims

posted by Harry J. Bentham

Interestingly, there are efforts in media and the blogosphere (an example here) to portray some debauched, drunken molesters in Cologne, Germany as “Muslims” and represent their behavior as if it’s something condoned in Islam. I believe their behavior was not typical of Islam but typical of the West, or of people desperately trying to “integrate” into its society.

Once again, although I’m not a Muslim, I can see what they must be thinking about these new accusations against their people.

It is obvious that the Cologne attackers were not Muslims, or at least did not consider themselves Muslim. Their behaviour was of (if we accept they were refugees) desperately straining themselves to “integrate” and become “European”. By all accounts, the offenders in question were drunk and were celebrating the Western New Year celebration, which is not even celebrated by Muslims. The Islamic New Year is at a different date than the one on our Western calendars. Islam prohibits intoxication with alcohol, provides moral guidance for people to not do what they did in Cologne. If only those men in Cologne were serious Muslims, they would not have been there in the first place.

Advertisement

Refugees understandably want to behave the way they did in Cologne. And from their perspective, Westerners support their behaviour. Remember, it is the West that constantly and proudly advertises itself to the world as a place of absolute freedom, debauchery and intoxication, and rejects morality and Islam while asking others to “integrate” into its society. The way many outsiders read this, given the differences in their more ordered culture, is that any behavior by them is going to be tolerated. Yet still it is reported that in Cologne, foreigners failed to “integrate” – despite their vast leap of already buying into the West’s renowned mass intoxication and permissiveness.

Advertisement

And remember, Muslims have a reputation not for being intoxicated and looking for debauchery, but the opposite. That is exactly the cause of so many Westerners’ contempt for them, with those Westerners believing the Muslims are a threat to their drinking, drugs, and other vices and affections. It is strange to now see Westerners cry out that Muslims are the immoral ones, and revive the canards about rape by foreign races and “invaders” that were so popular to the Nazis.

Even the racist or neo-Nazi analysis of Cologne can’t be as dumb as the Islamophobic one. Cologne is a stronger case for Islam in Europe than against it. The only reason anyone is arguing that Islam is the problem is just for political gain, and for more suppression of people’s freedom of conscience by the state. Bashing Islam won’t improve the state of morality in Europe. It will only degrade life for many and make it even more unbearable, and events like Cologne will become even more commonplace. The Cologne attackers were not Muslims, they were pure-bred Westerners in their ideology, the kind the West likes to call its own.

Previous Posts

Look out for my book review
I have a very extensive book review recently written of the Lifeboat Foundation book Prospects for Human Survival, which may appear at h+ Magazine. Two additional book reviews by me are also in the works, right now. Today, I wrote far too ...

posted 10:09:52pm Feb. 07, 2016 | read full post »

Syrian opposition's hopeless peace
Although the Syrian conflict needs to end, I agree with other analysts that the current uninspiring peace talks are probably not the solution.  One side, the "rebels", is dramatically losing the battle and it seems like they are only ...

posted 3:56:21pm Feb. 06, 2016 | read full post »

Against transparency, truth, balance
The standard argument against transparency needs to be ridiculed for the nonsense it is. It always sounds exactly the same. Want to label GMO products? Want to label products made in Israeli illegal settlements in Palestine? Want to show ...

posted 8:49:24pm Jan. 31, 2016 | read full post »

Accepting refugees admits west's guilt
The reason our countries in the so-called west have an exceptional burden to accommodate refugees from the world's conflict zones is because of an implicit admission of grave, very grave guilt. We admit that we destroyed the countries whose ...

posted 10:43:38pm Jan. 30, 2016 | read full post »

The Mont Order in 2016
Since there is not much new to share or talk about other than in my last post this weekend, I will just direct you to read a recent set of email texts from within the Mont Order society on the idea of political violence. I also want to direct ...

posted 12:12:20am Jan. 25, 2016 | read full post »

Advertisement


Report as Inappropriate

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

All reported content is logged for investigation.