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...
on August 21, 2000
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!
on May 16, 2007
_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.
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.
on March 30, 2007
The report was completed and turned over to LBJ, who subsequently said that this report should never be given to the public. A member of the Think Tank decided that the results were too important not to release to the public since this was an actual report that was to set the blueprints for the New World Order agenda. After the member released the report, the administration had to conduct damage control, thus the first step was to declare it a hoax which was not true. The Author had no choice but to follow suit as there is no telling how they cajoled him to confirm the hoax claim which was the hoax and not the report.
This laid the ground work for the global warming scam, UFO Project Bluebook scam, The social welfare program, giant open ended space research program, "aimed at unreachable targets" as stated in the report, an established and recognized extraterrestrial menace, Massive global environmental pollution, and Fictitious alternate enemies, new religions or other mythologies and the list goes on....all of which have been organized and conducted through the Counsel on Foreign Relations as the planners and executers.....true story.
Its a fact of history that the following took place.....
1909 - Meeting of The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, quoted from the minutes of the meeting. "The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question. If it is desirable to alter the life of a single people, is there any means more efficient than war.... They discussed this question...... for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war?
[Written by former U.S. Congressman Norman Dodd, testified that he was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Report from Iron Mountain, New York, Dell Pub., 1967].
It is known that after the 1909 think tank report, the U.S. and England immediately set forth making plans to involve us in a planned operation to start WWI. I am an American Historian, and have been researching this for over 10 years.
1917 - "Some one remarked that the best way to unite all the nations on this globe would be an attack from some other planet. In the face of such an alien enemy, people would respond with a sense of their unity of interest and purpose." John Dewey, New York
30 October 1938 - The plan to create an artificial extraterrestrial threat to the Earth was first mentioned by the Marxist, John Dewey.
"Some one remarked that the best way to unite all the nations on this globe would be an attack from some other planet. In the face of such an alien enemy, people would respond with a sense of their unity of interest and purpose." John Dewey, New York 1917.
The premise was tested for credibility with the CBS presentation of War Of The Worlds on the CBS Radio Network by Orson Welles and the Mercury Theatre. At 8:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, on the evening of October 30, 1938, the night before All Saints Day, now generally celebrated as Halloween, an estimated six million Americans listened to the famous Orson Welles broadcast, War Of The Worlds. The broadcast described an extraterrestrial invasion from Mars. An estimated one million sheople responded with sustained credulity and fear. Thousands responded with sheer panic. The broadcast was a psychological warfare experiment conducted by The Princeton Radio Project. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the project in the fall of 1937. An Office of Radio Research was set up with Paul F. Lazarsfeld as director. Frank Stanton and Hadley Cantril were named associate directors. Cantril used a special grant from the General Education Board to study the effects of the broadcast. Cantril published the study as a book titled The Invasion From Mars - A Study In The Psychology Of Panic. It contains a complete script of the broadcast. The book is one of a series of studies sponsored by the Federal Radio Education Committee.
The Frankfurt School began its 'Radio Research Project' in 1937 with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. The purpose of the project was to test the hypothesis that radio could be used to "atomize" and manipulate the thinking of the population. Frankfurt School ideologue Theodore Adorno had observed that people "listen atomistically and dissociate what they hear... They are not childlike... but they are childish; their primitivism is not that of the undeveloped, but that of the forcibly retarded."
Among the findings of the Radio Research Project were 1) People tend to become addicted to the radio based on a "what happens next?" format. 2) Listeners react to format, not content, as in the famous Orson Welles, War of the Worlds broadcast which many believed was describing an actual invasion, in spite of the fact that there were repeated clear warnings that the show was fictional, and 3) Repetition is the key to popularity. That is, if you play it enough, people will think it's good, even if it's awful, and, most importantly, they will believe it, even if it's a lie. Any lie can become popular opinion if it is repeated enough times on the radio.
on April 11, 2008
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.'
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.  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. '
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
So, on at least three occasions, Galbraith publicly endorsed the authenticity of the report, but denied that he wrote it.
on April 24, 2010
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
on November 8, 2010
Personally, I think the book is real. As further evidence of this, the reader may note that much of what was "recommended" in the book has actually happened in the years since it was first leaked. It is hard to argue with that.
on July 18, 2012
One right wing militia loving gun touting, anti-Zionist, "extremist" here reporting in to talk about the 'fictitious' report known as Report from Iron Mountain. If this report is 'fictitious' as the forward to the book Victor Navasky claims it sure as hell suspicious how much of this report came true like the world bank, the fake environmentalism, the endless wars, the world bank, the world courts, the world police force, and so forth. Either someone had a really good crystal ball or this thing is real. All I know is the agenda fits perfectly with the Club of Rome, UN, David Rockefeller, Jacob Rothschild, Henry Kissinger, Queen Elizabeth II, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, and so many other 'loving' globalist who regularly poison the water supply are are genetically engineering our food to destroy our fertility. Oh but it's okay, just like John P Holdren wrote a book about committing mass sterilization and forced abortions but he didn't mean it even though that's exactly what these types are doing world wide, cough one child policy China cough.
I guess Ted Turner never said "one child policy for a hundred years" even though he has about five children and is one of the largest if not the largest land owners in the US. Don't worry though, they love you and groups like the Bildebergers, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Institute of International Affairs, and the British Round Tables don't exist. Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Scotter Liby, and co never wrote in the 2001 PNAC document they needed a new Pearl Harbor to justify an invasion of the middle east. I guess the Gulf of Tonkin was real and those LJB tapes never came out implicating Robert McNamara staged it with LJB. Just like how we 'really' landed on the moon and that wasn't fake on Stanley Kubrick's studio for 2001 Space Odyssey. Okay sure keep sleeping sheep! Yeah those Georgia Guides don't exist like the one that says "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."
With all that said if you're willing to unplug yourself from the Matrix buy the book and ignore the forward from the boot licking, establishments loving, Zionist loving scum Victor Navasky who by the way admits he is pro communist, pro Zionist, pro authoritarian in his own foreword. Yeah we here on the right who just want Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, private property, right to self defense, Habeas Corpus, and Posse Comitatus are just terrible people right?
on June 5, 2014
Of the countless volumes I have read and reviewed here, I cannot name a more sobering treatise on importance of war. While the attributed author, Leonard C. Lewin, claims this was intended as a satire of 1960's think tank productions, others claim that it was undertaken in all seriousness, as some sort of off-the-record study of the consequences of peace.
Whatever its original impetus, this thin book raises some of the most profound questions about "the Possibility and Desirability of Peace". According to the book, war, not peace, is the great stabilizing element of our civilization. Certainly it advances technology and medicine, benefiting many well beyond the battlefield. The book delves into the multitude of benefits derived from the institution of unending war: economic, political, social, and so forth.
Were we to take these arguments at face value, we should all become bloodthirsty war-mongers on first reading. However, the world is not so simple, and we - who fight the wars, and suffer its terrible consequences - are not so powerless and helpless as we often tend to believe.
A favorite minister, where I went to church, once gave a sermon on the profound power of "legitimizing myths" - grand stories which cover steaming piles of iniquity with the mantle of sacred righteousness. And it is my suspicion that the author(s) of this book are engaged in the wholesale fabrication of intellectually challenging fables.
"To what end?", you may ask. As a general rule, seldom contradicted, all commissioned works aim to please those who arrange payment for them. In the 1960's, the growing Military-Industrial Complex was seeking justification for its continued existence, much as it still does today. It should be of little surprise then, that the assessment favors endless warfare, with endless American victories, with a few necessary setbacks to keep the uninformed players interested.
Above all else, The Report from Iron Mountain is a landmark exercise in the intellectual conditioning and moral justification of institutionalized evil. Fascinating, though its arguments are, they usually boil down to simplistic excuses to maintain the status quo - keep the masses ignorant of their manipulation and exploitation, and keep the self-ennobled oligarchs safely empowered.
None of this review should be construed as supporting knee-jerk pacifism, unilateral disarmament, or even modest gun control. It is intended only point out to the awakening citizenry that the sort of rationale advanced in this book is of dubious merit. And though it may have great appeal to hack politicians and pseudo-intellectual policy pontiffs, it is entirely toxic to our freedoms, our families, and our lives.