Customer Reviews

REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Hoax or reality, this report sheds a clear light on the process of elitist thinking and planning. It did not only predict but planned our future. The present situation in the world is the greatest proof of the authenticity of this report.
It's a book worth reading. If you find it buy it...

It's very real.

The foreword is only by Leonard Lewin. He is not the author. It was first published by the Dial Press, NY.

It is not a novel, but rather a report written by the members of a 15-man "Special Study Group" commissioned, they believe, by some governmental entity which wished to remain unknown. The report is addressed to that unknown requestor, the work of the group having been com­pleted after about two and a half years of labor. The members of the group knew that they had been care­fully screened and selected for the task, that they represented the highest levels of scholarship, experi­ence, and expertise in a wide range of the physical and social sciences, that they possessed years of service in business, government, and academe, and that among them they had access to a vast proportion of the country's resources in the social and physical science fields. The Special Study Group was clearly possessed of outstanding establishmentarian credentials.

The book comes to us because one of the members of the group, identified only as John Doe, approached Mr. Lewin several months after the com­pleted report had been submitted, and sought his help in getting the report commercially published, since he ("Doe") felt that the public had a right to be apprised of its existence, even though the group had previously agreed to keep it secret. Mr. Lewin, having agreed to serve in that capacity, wrote a foreword spelling out these circumstances and passing on what little he learned from "Doe" concerning the study's origin and its participants.

He further revealed his personal reaction to the conclusions of the report, conclusions which he said he does not share.

In Griffin's The Creature From Jekyll Island, he makes reference to The Report From Iron Moun­tain. I encourage you to read and absorb his inter­pretation, which has an emphasis somewhat different than this review. Griffin supplies evidence of the authenti­city of the Report by quoting the written assertion to that effect by Harvard's establishmentarian professor John Kenneth Galbraith, who admitted to participating in the study in at least a consultative capacity.

I would also like to borrow from Griffin's conclusions concerning the study's importance. He asks why this study differs from any other think tank effort, and then writes (p. 525): "The answer is that this one was commissioned and executed, not by ivory tower dreamers and theore­ticians, but by people who are in charge. It is the brainchild of the CFR....So many things that otherwise are incomprehensible suddenly become perfectly clear: foreign aid, wasteful spending, the destruction of American industry, a job corps, gun control, a national police force, the apparent demise of Soviet power, a UN army, disarmament, world bank, a world money, the surrender of national independence through treaties,..."

I originally encountered this book over 25 years ago (maybe earlier). I have continually referred it to particular friends over the interevening years. I just recently told a political affairs "junkie" about it. This report fascinated me way back then and has stayed with me through the years. I was rapt from start to finish and defy anyone to willingly abandon it in the middle. The answer to the question: "Is peace desirable?" would seem obvious. If there were any answer other than yes, what would be the justification? The end(?) of the cold war did not bring a breakout of peace. This exposition anticipated that peace could conceivably bring as many or more problems than war. Sound bizaare? The report makes it VERY plausible. Sweet dreams!

_Report From Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace_ first appeared in 1967 published by The Dial Press and claimed to be a government report compiled by leading scholars who met at Iron Mountain in New York on the possibility and desirability of peace following the Cold War. This edition is published by the Free Press in 1996 and makes the claim that the report itself was a hoax (a spoof on think tank jargon) and was written by Leonard C. Lewin. However, whether or not the report is actually a hoax is difficult to determine, as disinformation is a speciality of the government agencies which release such reports. It should be noted though that even if the report itself is a hoax, that it nevertheless represents the kind of thinking that is typical of the elites. Unfortunately, in the Introduction to this book, written by Victor Navasky, we are treated to the usual establishment apologetics with much fustian about "paranoid ultraright conspiracy theorists", "militiamen", and "right wing libertarian weirdos". Such commentary is all-too-typical and should be simply ignored by anyone who has a working brain and dares to think outside the box. The report itself composes the majority of this book, followed by an afterword by the "author" and some appendices on the "Iron Mountain Affair". It is alleged that when L.B.J. discovered that this report had been "leaked" that he "hit the roof". And, this represents the typical reaction of government officials to those who dare to challenge their reigning hegemony.

The report claims for itself to have been received by Leonard C. Lewin from one "John Doe", who leaked the report to him after it was compiled by 15 leading scholars who met in secret. (Later, Lewin would claim that the entire thing was a hoax and that he wrote the report himself. Whether or not this is accurate is of course difficult to determine.) The report claims that it represents a sort of "peace games" study similar to the "war games" played by the Rand Corporation. The report claims to be a study examining the central issue of the transformation of American society from one in which there is a constant readiness to make war to one in which peace would be sustainable. However, the findings of this report are such that a lasting peace is neither desirable nor sustainable that is most disturbing. Following the Cold War (under constant threat of turning "hot"), the United States entered a period in which disarmament became an option. The author(s) first consider various scenarios under which disarmament may occur, including effects of disarmament on the economy (potentially highly negative). The author(s) next consider war and peace as social systems. Following this, they turn to a discussion of the functions of war. The first function of war is economic, in the sense that the author(s) claim that rather than being a "drain" or producing "waste", war actually vitalizes the economy and provides protection against depressions. The second function of war is political, in the sense that the author(s) claim that the elimination of war would lead to the elimination of the nation-state and that war provides a safeguard against class conflict. The third function of war is sociological, in the sense that the author(s) claim that war gives rise to social cohesion and serves as a means of controlling social dissidence and destructive antisocial tendencies. The fourth function of war is ecological, in the sense that the author(s) claim that war serves as an evolutionary device for maintaining an ecological balance between human population and the supplies available for its survival. The fifth function of war is cultural and scientific, in the sense that the
author(s) claim that creative arts and scientific and technological progress are made possible by war. Finally, the author(s) include a section entitled "Other", where they consider war as a general social release, war as a generational stabilizer, war as an ideological clarifier, and war as the basis for inter-national understanding. The author(s) then consider substitutes for the functions of war. These include economic (social-welfare expenditures, the problem of unemployment, health, education, housing, etc.), political (mentioning the possibility of uniting experiences, "alternate enemies" such as space aliens, and the flying saucer phenomenon), sociological (Peace Corps and Job Corps, but also more bizarre phenomena such as human sacrifice among primitive cultures, blood games, and inquisitions), ecological (birth control and eugenics), and cultural and scientific (creative arts, science, and space-related research). The author(s) conclude that each of these substitutes is fraught with difficulties and thus it will be necessary to continue maintenance of government control over war and peace.

This report is infamous for what it has to say about the possibilities of peace. It would seem that the author(s) (noted high government officials and scholars of repute) believe that a lasting peace is neither possible nor desirable. For those who doubt this on the other hand, it would appear that such officials cynically manipulate the public so as to consolidate their own power within the military-industrial complex. If war is indeed a sort of "make-work" project similar to the Great Pyramids of ancient Eygpt, then it remains to be seen whether or not a lasting peace cannot be achieved. This book is highly recommended for those who seriously consider the possibilities of war and peace. Despite the fact that it is alleged to be a hoax, it nevertheless has much to say to us about the thinking and direction in which the global elites intend to take us.

Too much time is wasted discussing whether Report From Iron Mountain (RFIM) was a hoax or not. This latest edition comes with 20 pages of Foreward by Leonard Lewin and Victor Navasky (of "Naming Names" fame), laboriously drumming out why RFIM should be dismissed as a hoax. In my opinion, they doth protest too much, but regardless what you choose to believe, RFIM provides sufficient references in the endnotes to substantiate its contents, however they may have been intended.

THE VALUE OF WAR
The premise of this document is that a special Cold War-era think tank (the "Special Study Group", or SSG) was tasked with evaluating what challenges the USA would face if a prolonged peace occurred. To assess the impact, the SSG outlines the role of war in society. As you might guess, war is a foreign policy device: a tool-of-last resort to enforce policies, advance national goals, protect/defend territories, etc. Somewhat less intuitive, however, are the "secondary benefits" of war (Section 5, beginning p.51):
1. Economic- the defense (war) sector of the economy is completely under the control of the government, and is relatively protected from the boom/bust cycles of the private sector. Thus, defense spending (via civilian contracting) is a powerful tool with which the government can stimulate or moderate the domestic economy.
2. Political- the threat of external enemies tends to unite the public, quell dissent and bolster support for the sitting regime. The widespread domestic support for George W. Bush in the days immediately following 9/11 seems to illustrate this point sufficiently.
3. Sociologic- service in a standing army provides a socially and legally sanctioned mechanism for people with violent tendencies (and even criminal records!) to channel their energies. Peacetime police forces also help serve this function.
4. Ecologic- cynically, RFIM designates war as the primary mechanism our species has of preventing global overpopulation.
5. a) Scientific and b) Cultural- a) War is a major impetus driving new research and development, in ALL areas of scientific inquiry. b) War-related propaganda (Tom Clancy novels and military-themed video games, I suppose) influences popular culture, helps set the moral tone, and promotes/sanctions certain values, which helps leaders of the war establishment steer development of society. Some of these also support the sociologic function(#3, above) by providing avenues for release of primal violent urges.

THE TAIL WAGS THE DOG
The SSG goes on to say that war is so critical to society that warmaking is not just a feature of all modern societies, but is actually the bedrock foundation upon which they are built. In fact, it contends that the needs of society do not dictate the circumstances of wars, rather the needs of the warmaking machine do... and the function of government (through the media) is merely to produce a believable and palatable pretext. Maybe this is the hoax part of the Report (yuk yuk) but it's not really outrageous by the standards of what think tanks conclude all the time.
Don't believe me? Consider the now-famous 1997 "Project for a New American Century (PNAC)" think tank. Composed of such "visionary thinkers" as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, PNAC concluded (among other things) that what America really needed was a Pearl Harbor-type attack on the homeland (fulfilling the Political benefits of war, above). By an amazing, incredible, unbelievable cosmic coincidence PNAC got their wish in the form of 9/11, only four years later, when many of its principals were in high office, and actively coordinating the nation's response to the attacks... but I digress. You can read more about it, if you like, in Crossing the Rubicon


THE PROBLEM WITH PEACE
Moving along, SSG turns to exploring the question of how to maintain society in the face of prolonged peace. Noting the above, SSG concludes that in the absence of war, our national leaders would need to devise some alternative to achieve war's functions. Their various suggestions include: a massive space exploration program, staging a fake invasion by space aliens (p.81) poisoning the world's water supply or (re)introducing slavery. (If this is satire, Mr Lewin, don't quit your day job.)

EMBRACE THE DARK SIDE
These suggestions are not exhaustive, and they don't need to be. Moderate exposure to this cynical mindset is sufficient to make the book's point. Hoax or not, RFIM encourages us to experiment interpreting current events from a much more Machiavellian perspective than most of us would otherwise be comfortable with. Sadly, this mindset does frequently lead to more plausible and satisfying interpretations of historic and current events. Is ultra-cynical pessimism always the correct context? Of course not. Informed citizens always need to do their own due diligence. Every citizen must use his own common sense to decide for himself how best to interpret information. RFIM's utility is in showing us just how sick think tanks can be -and that is really the value of this book. Consider a few examples:

1) The practice of "false flag" terrorism (e.g. Gulf of Tonkin Incident, or USS Maine) is a direct illustration of the political function of war.
2) As Naomi Klein documents so beautifully in her book Shock Doctrine, natural disaster mimics the political benefits of war, by inducing exploitable public submission to unpopular government initiatives during times of emergency.
3) Unproven ideas such as manmade global warming, or (Hubbart's idea of) "peak oil" may have a basis in reality, but are suspect because of the agendas they have been linked to, particularly when the offical responses to these directly link to desired ecologic and political functions. The idea of manmade global warming has been evoked to justify a global carbon tax payable to private banks. "Peak oil" is likewise linkable to austerity measures, including (but not limited to) government-controlled petroleum rationing. Both of these subjects (real or not) have been evoked to justify aggressive population control programs (the ecologic function of war).
3) Over the past 100 years, the increasingly violent, even gladiatorial, nature of popular sports (from innocuous baseball to football to WWF wrestling to "extreme" cage fighting..) seems to be geared to serve the social and cultural secondary functions of war.

SO WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT?
What is the significance of an alleged think tank document investigating contingencies for a sustained world peace? Is there a larger context to all this? I think there is. RFIM was published in 1967. About this same time (1966), Carroll Quigley first published Tragedy and Hope (isbn:9780945001102), in which he outlined how a cabal of international banks grasped they might manage to merge Western democracies and Communist block nations under a monolithic, bank-controlled totalitarian oligarchy. By folding all the players of the Cold War together into a single unit, one of the challenges this "New World Order" would face is how to manage the world population under conditions of sustained peace. In 1971, Gary Allen published None Dare Call It Conspiracy, in which he provided additional information on how this might be achieved. That same year, Zbigniew Brzezinski released Between Two Worlds, detailing how emerging computer technologies might be employed to manage an authoritarian global government. Two years later, Brzezinski and his buddy David Rockefeller (then CEO of Chase Bank) would co-found the Trilateral Commission , to unite the ruling classes of America, Europe, and Japan in common purpose to integrate their political and economic systems under a single monolithic government.

... So it seems that RFIM was written during a time when academics and think tanks were contemplating the construction of a unipolar world government. Regardless whether RFIM is a hoax, there is little doubt that contingency planning for a sustained planetary peace was seriously investigated by at least some of these groups. Knowing what we do about think tanks and the way they tend to approach questions, there is also little doubt that RFIM can't be too far from what these groups would conclude. It may be satire, but like a court jester whose humor comes from speaking the truth too plainly, there is sufficient reason to pay it heed. It is yet another voice in a growing chorus of evidence that globalist banking elites are constructing a planetary totalitarian oligarchy.

Well, this book was a hard read. I started out thinking this was some secret government approved report, but the introduction removed that thought. So it is supposed to be a joke, purposely written with the intention to do nothing with it. A lot of work has gone into this. The language is carefully bureaucratic or scientific. That makes it tough to get through, and I sort of speeded through the last chapters.
Though it is all supposedly fiction, the reasoning and line of thought are logical. That is why the content of this book can not just easily be dismissed as fantasy. I would not recommend this for anyone looking for excitement. But interesting never the less.

Report from Iron Mountain should rank with Sun Tsu's classic book, of the subject title, as an essential read for those seeking an understanding of the basic forces underlying America's war economy. Lewin wrote this brilliant satire in the `60's, and he is a clear master of the pseudo-scientific think tank jargon and mindset. He must have chortled to himself many times when he wrote such footnotes as the following (p 107): "This rather optimistic estimate was derived by plotting a three-dimensional distribution of three arbitrarily defined variables: the macro-structural, relating to the extension of knowledge beyond the capacity of conscious experience; the organic, dealing with the manifestations of terrestrial life as inherently comprehensible; and the infra-particular, covering the subconceptual requirements of natural phenomena. Values were assigned to the known and unknown in each parameter, tested against data from earlier chronologies, and modified heuristically until predicable correlation...."

Hoax? No Hoax? Clearly the wrong questions, and that issue seems to attract those who are enthralled by 9-11 conspiracy theories. As with 9-11, the central issue remains in plain sight: America has not caught Bin Laden, but more importantly, does not seem very interested in doing so. Likewise, we should not get distracted by Lewin's style, which is a bit overwrought and tedious, on how this document was produced. The central aspects of his case are in Sections 5 and 6, the Functions of War, and the Substitutes for the Functions of War. These are the issues that should be carefully reviewed and honestly debated.

I first read his book shortly after the original publication, while I was in Vietnam. Now, more than 40 years later, it is even truer. America is now spending more money on "defense" in the so-called war on terror than all other countries in the world combined. Nuclear submarines to fight Al-Qada's navy, as the journalist Robert Sheer recently wrote. Those external enemies are vital to the way are society functions, as we continue to pursue the war without end.

Report from Iron Mountain outlines the salient issues if that war should ever truly end.

How do you protrect yourself(Author) and have damage control you call it a hoax in the end. Here is John Kenneth Galbraith(CFR insider) admitted to: Just read the section on using an envirenmental scare to control the population from 1967(IMPLEMENTED Today)!!
On November 26, 1976, the report was reviewed in the book section of the Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, which was the pen name for Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith, who also had been a member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), said that he knew firsthand of the report's authenticity because he had been invited to participate in it. Although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project a secret. Furthermore, while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about the report, he agreed totally with its conclusions.

He wrote: 'As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservation relate only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public.'[3]

Six weeks later, in an Associated Press dispatch from London, Galbraith went even further and jokingly admitted that he was a member of the conspiracy. [4] That, however, did not settle the issue. The following day, Galbraith backed off. When asked about his 'conspiracy' statement, he replied: 'For the first time since Charles II The Times has been guilty of a misquotation... Nothing shakes my conviction that it was written by either Dean Rusk or Mrs. Clare Booth Luce. '[5]

The original reporter reported the following six days later: 'Misquoting seems to be a hazard to which Professor Galbraith is prone. The latest edition of the Cambridge newspaper Varsity quotes the following (tape recorded) interchange: 'Interviewer: 'Are you aware of the identity of the author of Report from Iron Mountain?' Galbraith: 'I was in general a member of the conspiracy, but I was not the author. I have always assumed that it was the man who wrote the foreword - Mr. Lewin[6]

So, on at least three occasions, Galbraith publicly endorsed the authenticity of the report, but denied that he wrote it.

Here is what a Harvard professor named John Kenneth Galbraith said in 1967 about the Report from Iron Mountain:

"As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservations relate only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public." -The Creature from Jekyll Island, p. 524

This is a book that everybody should read. It raises possibilities seldom considered as we navigate the troubled world of international affairs.