News Ticker

‘The Report From Iron Mountain’: Revelation of the Method for Warmongering and Tyranny or a Satirical Tome?

IMAGE: History.com

Dial Press in 1967 published an unauthored book titled “The Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace” that the publisher put forth as a report from a government-appointed panel. The publisher claims it’s the product of a special and secret study group of 15 men whose identities were to remain secret. The year it was published, it became a New York Times bestseller.

A 79-page pdf of “The Report from Iron Mountain” (RFIM) is available via Wikispooks.

The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, and that even if lasting peace “could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it.” War was a part of the economy. Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy.

The major conclusion of the report was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint.

RFIM sets up the false dialectic of nations versus world government. It’s implies that the national system is highly dependent on war, and that the cure is one world government. This is invalid on it’s face.

Examples of “Iron Mountain” logic and revelation of method:

War is the defining element of any nation’s existence vis-a-vis any other nation. Without the war system no government has ever been able to acquiesce in its legitimacy or right to rule society.

The possibility of war provides the external necessity without which no nation can remain in power. The basic authority of the modern state over it’s people resides in it’s war power.”

War is a necessary economic waste. It operates outside the normal supply and demand system. It creates artificial demand. Defense spending is a simulator of national metabolism. War is progressive for research and development of weapons systems spurring technological advances.

Winter Watch Takeaway No.1

Substitute scamdemics for war and the same “Iron Mountain” authority over people is put in play. In the RFIM scheme, substitutes or enhancements to the war system must be credible and must be accepted by the vast majority of the population.

RFIM states that “new political machinery would be needed at once” and “the threat will have to be invented.”

Interpretation: Keep war system until all substitutes (such as scamdemics) are in place and running so that justification for autocratic kakistocracy rule has continuity.

A member of the panel, an unknown professor at a college in the Midwest, decided to release the report to the public.

Galbraith vs. Friedman — “The emancipation of belief is the most formidable of the tasks of reform, the one on which all else depends” | Economic Sociology & Political EconomyOn Nov. 26, 1967, RFIM was reviewed in the book section of the Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, which was the pen name for John Kenneth Galbraith, a Harvard economics professor and U.S. Ambassador to India John Kenneth Galbraith during President Kennedy’s administration.

Galbraith, who also had been a member of the CFR, said that he knew firsthand of RFIM’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.

G. Edward Griffin wrote in his book “Creature from Jekyll Island”:

Although the origin of the report is highly debated, the document itself hints that it was commissioned by the Department of Defense under Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and was produced by the Hudson Institute located at the base of Iron Mountain in Croton-on-Hudson, New York. The Hudson Institute was founded and directed by Herman Kahn, formerly of the Rand Corporation. Both McNamara and Kahn were members of the CFR.

The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution– in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare.

Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not to inform. It might even be necessary to deliberately poison the environment to make the predictions more convincing and to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy.

The masses would more willingly accept a falling standard of living, tax increases, and bureaucratic intervention in their lives as simply “the price we must pay to save Mother Earth.”

As the Report pointed out, truth is not important in these matters. It’s what people can be made to believe that counts. “Credibility” is the key, not reality.

Doth Protest Too Loudly? Decades of Muddy the Waters

Three men — Victor Navasky, Richard Lingeman and Leonard C. Lewin — allege they lied to create a political parody as a leaked government report supposedly delivered to Mr. Lewin by one of the 15 members of a special government group.

Having read “Iron Mountain,” I really don’t see how these echo-chamber leftists would have had the motivation, insight and ability to concoct this book. It’s a non-starter for me, but decide for yourselves.

But in 1972, after the book gained significant traction for over half a decade in the patriot community, Mr. Lewin suddenly materialized to announced that he was the real author of the report; and furthermore, it was written anomalously as a “satire.”

Lewin, the Jewish self-proclaimed “author,” denied that RFIM was a real government report; and therefore, was not in the public domain and insisted on copyright protection. Rather than allow free and open discussion, his posse then proceeded to devote all of their energy to exposing his own alleged work as a hoax and suppress the book, with nary a positive mention of the prophetic revelation of the method messages contained in RFIM.

The copyright was ultimately enforced after a lingering legal fight with the Liberty Lobby, which was represented by Mark Lane, who wrote “Rush to Judgment,” a book that challenged the Warren Commission’s account of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Victor Navasky

Victor Navasky was the editor and later the publisher of the leftist rag The Nation. The Jewish Navasky was also a supporter of alleged Soviet spy Alger Hiss, having published vociferous defenses of the man’s innocence in The Nation.

This self-admitted, takes-one-to-know-one hoaxster and liar later wrote a script called “The Experts Speak: The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation.” In 2008, he wrote a neocon Zionist puff piece called ” Mission Accomplished! (or How We Won the War in Iraq).”

In 2005, Navasky was named chairman of the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR). This appointment engendered some controversy. Critics on the political right saw this as hiding that — despite the magazine’s purported lack of political bias — a “major left-wing polemicist is calling the shots at CJR without any mention on the masthead.”

In 2008, Victor Navasky asserted his involvement in creating RFIM and named Leonard Lewin as the main writer with “input” from the aforementioned economist Galbraith, two editors of the satirical magazine Monocle (Marvin Kitman and Richard Lingeman) and himself.

Richard R. Lingeman | C-SPAN.orgRichard Lingeman in his own biography page states he was an intel agent. In the Army Counter-Intelligence Corps, wrote Lingeman, he found himself “plunked in an appalling hotbed of McCarthyism.

“By luck of the draw, I ended up in Japan, semi-undercover and spying on ultra-nationalist groups.”

Lingeman wrote “Drugs from A to Z,” a dictionary of slang and illicit substances published by McGraw-Hill. He then went on to become executive editor of The Nation.

Simon & Schuster, a unit of Viacom, Inc., has its own suppression group of electronic detectives, who aggressively patrol the Internet for copyright violations of its publications. They were helped by a tipster, who simply called himself “nobody,” an anonymous messenger, who sent emails alerting company lawyers about the appearance of pirated copies and the locations of RFIM texts.

Winter Watch Takeaway No. 2

Given that the owners of the copyright want to make a buck, the book today is not entirely suppressed and can be bought on Amazon for a reasonable price – but with the hoax disclaimer. The latest edition comes with a 20-page forward by Leonard Lewin and Victor Navasky. They laboriously drum out their reasoning as to why RFIM should be dismissed as a fraud.

Doth protest too much, in my opinion, and in an odd manner, especially when one considers that the book is so over the target.

The whole sistema has piled on to the hoax narrative. The book was even listed in the “Guinness Book of World Records” as the “Most Successful Literary Hoax.”

Regardless, and much like the “Protocols of Zion,” the important point is that RFIM, whether written as an amoral think-tank study or political satire, explains the reality that surrounds us. Regardless of its origin, the concepts presented in it are now being implemented in almost every detail. No wonder the sistema has tried to steer the narrative, memory hole and deep six the book.

17 Comments on ‘The Report From Iron Mountain’: Revelation of the Method for Warmongering and Tyranny or a Satirical Tome?

  1. Good work and interesting article. Problem is that it just doesn’t matter. They (the PTB) could come out and admit this was a real report, and it still wouldn’t matter.
    This is kinda the problem with the whole “Truth” movement in whatever arena we’re dealing with. The few of us that get “it” don’t really matter. There will never be an instance where truth will matter. We’re too far gone as a society or civilization. The masses just want to be shepherded. We really are sheep now. There’s a reason the Bible said it. It was true then, and just as true now.
    So enjoy your truth, but don’t hold out that exposing it will do anything. This is a Post Truth world now. The mask-wearers prove than beyond all doubt. So just enjoy the show.

    • Bryan,

      Although I understand your frustration, I would (humbly) submit that faith can heal concern.

      If we are to follow the Bible, then we know that there is a greater plan at our fingertips. If we are true to ourselves and the LORD, then there is no issue with the truth and the five perceptions that indicate a dismal story are just window-dressing. This is the time when faith is challenged, but the ALMIGHTY is AWESOME and never truly concerned.

      Are these times challenging? Yes. Are we without support? Never. To tell the truth brings us closer, and no power is greater.

      Please do not put belief and hope aside.

      Best,
      SC

    • Yes, we do live in the post-truth world – you can cut a knife through it. I continue with my efforts only out of habit and contrariness, and not expectation of success.

      Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Aldous Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture. Take your pick really.

  2. Interesting…I watched (on a friend’s VHS tape) back in the mid-90s a presentation by a member back then of the so-called “patriot” movement various sections of this Iron Mountain report. Shocked that JFK authorized it.

    • “Whenever the government of the United States shall break up, it will probably be in consequence of a false direction having been given to public opinion. This is the weak point of our defenses, and the part to which the enemies of the system will direct all their attacks. Opinion can be so perverted as to cause the false to seem true; the enemy, a friend, and the friend, an enemy; the best interests of the nation to appear insignificant, and the trifles of moment; in a word, the right the wrong, the wrong the right. In a country where opinion has sway, to seize upon it, is to seize upon power. As it is a rule of humanity that the upright and well-intentioned are comparatively passive, while the designing, dishonest, and selfish are the most untiring in their efforts, the danger of public opinion’s getting a false direction is four-fold, since few men think for themselves.”

      -James Fenimore Cooper

      Wow, truer words were never spoken. Thanks for the link.

  3. “Either way, the final product (RFIM) was so far from any original intent”

    I’m not so sure @Simple Citizen. I read RFIM some time ago and found it to lay out many of the mostly imagined threats used by our so called rulers today to push for global governance and the continued loss of our God given rights. It was the first serious step down the road to tyranny we are on today.

    “The objective of this report in the 60’s was to determine the nature of the problems that would confront the U.S. if a condition of permanent peace should arrive (peace meaning world socialism) They draft a program to deal with the contingency. The program agenda was: how do we control the people of America if we move to an era of peace? Not only America,the whole world at large. The “era of peace” was part of the agenda for eventual world government, under the United Nations long-planned by the elite. The report from Iron Mountain was ordered in 1961, the same year that United States made major moves towards disarmament. The Kennedy Administration knew that he U.S. would have to be submerged under the United Nations. How could the American people be convinced to give up their constitution and bill of rights? How could they be controlled and what should the government expect?”

    “Public Law 87-297 (from 1961) violates the clear intent of the constitution (our right to bear arms) calling for the disarming of all Americans. This was to be done via a period of gradual disarmament, and then building up the United Nations with a powerful standing army. The Iron Mountain report concerns with the globalist agenda, and the conclusions reached have been advanced by these groups. The groups are: United Nations etc. The hearings with CFR in the senate was to place United States under a world government were held in 1950. They wanted to provide a world government through a world government constitution.As U.S. and Russia military get reduced, the U.N. is consistently brought up to a higher position. They want to strengthen the United Nations peace force. We are to lose our sovereignty want to create a united police force to enforce peace. They bringing United Nations up to a point where no nation has the military power to challenge the U.N. There are many resolutions in the congress that wants to strengthen the United Nations.Reagan called for the world army. Bill Clinton approved UN army.” (1)

    This report was merely the precursor to Agenda’s 21 and 2030, that organizations such as the World Economic Forum, the WHO, the CFR, the IMF, and of course the UN are pushing so hard . Today we suffer under one of their most brutal and successful psyops ever, the CV scandemic. Does this virus meet RFIM qualifications as a substitute for war? You decide.

    “The Report from Iron Mountain concludes that there can be no substitute for war unless it possesses three properties. It must (1) be economically wasteful, (2) represent a credible threat of great magnitude, and (3) provide a logical excuse for compulsory service to the government.” (2)

    What is so often overlooked about Kennedy is the fact he was the consummate globalist and fan of the UN. This is what led to his ultimate demise IMHO.

    Cheers

    JWR

    More good sources on RFIM
    (1)https://jmm.nu/report-iron-mountain/

    (2)http://themillenniumreport.com/2015/12/report-from-iron-mountain-how-war-will-be-replaced-by-environmental-destruction-to-traumatize-humanity/

    • Johnny Walker Read ,

      First my friend, I wanted to apologize for how long it has taken me to circle back here. Life got a bit busy recently, and I have not been on Winter Watch for a few days now.

      Second, I wanted to thank you for your response and explanation. It was very helpful to me, and made clear several point about the RFIM.

      You see, I knew about the RFIM before I came to Winter Watch and read the thread; however, I have never actually read the document, because it was touted as a fraud. Basically, I just ignored the report. The fact that you have read it and helped me understand it a but better, has been a real gift and I am appreciative.

      My old interpretation of what I had read about the report was basically, we are shooting for peace, but in order to get everyone holding a dove, we may, just may have to unleash the four horseman of the apocalypse. It sort of reminded me of those silly color coded plans that the army developed in the 1930s to go to war with pretty much any nation on the planet. So, I ignored the RFIM.

      Your post has given me a reason to look into the report further. It will probably not be a 2020 read, but the winter of 2021 could be a good time to review it.

      Now, should you circle back this way, I could use your assistance again if you do not mind:

      What were you referring to when you stated that Bubba Clinton approved a UN army? This part was unclear to my recollection, and I would appreciate your insight.

      Now for the quick responses:

      1. Yep, Conjob-19 is a total psyop and it would seem to fit the RFIM parameters you explained to me.

      2. Kennedy was a total globalist and very dangerous in many respects; however, I do question if in the second and third quarters of 1963 if his attitude toward globalism was changing and evolving.

      3. Reagan not only called for world army, he was indicating that we would be threatened by aliens at a future date. Then if we consider the ceremonies at the 84 Olympics, you could tell that some were beginning to try and sell the psyop.

      Always happy to speak with you. Please be well.

      Best,
      Simple Citizen

      • Greetings Simple Citizen,

        The quote concerning Bill Clinton comes from G Edward Griffin’s 2002 book “The Creature From Jekyll Island”. From what I gather this quote was about Clinton’s willingness to use the US military in multinational peacekeeping missions.

        Changing the Role of America’s Armed Forces
        “The Clinton Administration appears dedicated to sending the U.S. military into dangerous seas of multinational peacekeeping in an effort to elevate the status of the United Nations into a guardian arbiter of the new world order … [with] a new world army whose singular purpose is to enforce the whims of the arcane United Nations Security Council.”
        — Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), October 5, 1993
        https://thenewamerican.com/the-changing-role-of-americas-armed-forces/

        A good source of the many UN peacekeeping missions Clinton involved the US military in.
        https://humanevents.com/2006/12/21/bill-clinton-and-the-decline-of-the-military/

        A link to a free PDF of RFIM if you are so inclined.
        https://archive.org/details/pdfy-A5uQx1ByqfwWuHma/mode/2up

        Cheers

        JWR

      • This explains it a little better Simple Citizen.

        –In June 1993, the U.S. Army issued FM-105 Operations, a document outlining a new emphasis on “conducting operations other than war.” An entire chapter of this new set of guidelines dwells on peacekeeping missions, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, riot control, and relations with nations in need of democratic assistance. The document’s declaration that “the Army will not operate alone” indicates that the other services will participate in the new assignments.

        –During the summer of 1993, President Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 13 (PDD-13), which called for rapid expansion of “the United Nation’s … peace enforcement operations around the world.” Even the pro-UN New York Times commented that PDD-13’s intention to place American forces under foreign commanders in UN operations amounted to a significant departure from “long-standing tradition.”

        –On September 23, 1993, Representative William Goodling (R-PA), the appointed congressional delegate to the United Nations, sent a strongly worded letter to President Clinton, hurriedly signed by 32 House colleagues, expressing “serious reservations” about the Clinton plans contained in PDD-13. Goodling and his fellow representatives stated:

        This proposal appears to coincide with the apparent effort on the part of the U.N. to redefine itself and expand its mission to include not simply peacekeeping, also on a more expanded scope, but also peacemaking and the nexus of “nation building.”…

        By issuing a blank check committing U.S. troops to the U.N. under foreign command, you would in effect be making U.N. initiatives U.S. commitments, and U.N. conflicts U.S. conflicts, while forfeiting the leadership of the troops on the ground.
        https://thenewamerican.com/the-changing-role-of-americas-armed-forces/

        Cheers again,

        JWR

        • JWR,

          Many, many thanks! These links will keep me busy for the week.

          On Mr. Griffin’s excellent book, I do own both the text and an audio version, but it has been quite a while since I have used either. Hence, I did not make the association. Thanks.

          Certainly, I did not doubt the fact that Bubba is a major globalist, former CIA contractor, major narcotics criminal, an absentee daddy to his son, a liar, a thief, a (potential) child rapist and an all around bad man from a town (ironically) called Hope; however, I was simply wondering what you were referencing in your excellent post.

          When I think of the Clinton administration and globalism, Albright is always the first killer that comes to mind.

          Again, thank you very much. I will be reading the links this week and hopefully I will bump into you again here later.

          Best,
          SC

  4. Let’s see here- Hudson Institute = Jews. Rand Corporation = Jews. Lingeman, Navasky, and Lewin = Jews. A 20 page forward by Lyin’ Lewin and Nasty Navasky on why a 79 page book is a hoax? Too funny.
    The basic principals of Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace had been firmly enshrined in US policy by 1905. In that year Theodore Roosevelt, who brokered the peace between Japan and Russia, established a totally unnecessary land border between the two conflicting powers, thus helping to ensure continuing hostility and thus continuing profits for arms makers and bankers.
    His cousin and son-in-law FDR pulled the same nasty trick in Korea 40 years later, creating an artificial border at the 38th parallel for the sole purpose of sparking a future conflict, which wasn’t long in coming. The Korean war has been sold to us as an war of aggression by North Korea- in fact, the North Korean army was not even mobilized on June 25th, 1950. This wall-street provoked conflict gave THEM the excuse to create a War/Security State- and the world has suffered ever since.

    • Good post worth further thought.

      Just wanted to add that showing Japan the White Fleet (a massive display of hubris that scared the pants off them) directly caused them to sign on for naval restraint (a good idea that just was poorly crafted).

      When that was not a success, they modernized their own fleet (on steroids), which provided Britain and the Rothschilds opportunities. The end result was the war gaming (thank CFR) that lead to Pearl Harbor and submarines that housed two planes, which could deliver bomb payloads in tricky times.

      Thanks for your post.

  5. The RFIM was commissioned in 1963 by the Department of Defense and was produced by the Hudson Institute.

    The person who always get a pass for this is the person I believe to be foremost in the formation of this “study”. That would be one President John F Kennedy. Kennedy signed HR 9118, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act on September 26th, 1961 in NYC(at the UN I believe),establishing the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). (1)

    “DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
    The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.

    In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:

    The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;

    The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;

    The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;

    The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.” (2)

    It is my belief this study was commissioned by Kennedy himself, as he needed a road map on how to get his grand vision enacted, and learn if global disarmament was even a possibility. Unfortunately for him, he was assassinated before the report was released. I feel this was a major cause for his assassination, as many generals at the time wanted no part in the plans for the dis-armament of the US Military.

    (1)https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKWHP/1961/Month%2009/Day%2026/JFKWHP-1961-09-26-C

    (2)http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/dos7277.htm

    • Johnny Walker Read,

      You present a good hypothesis of how the RFIM may have been initiated and it makes sense, especially when we consider Mr. Galbraith’s influence. President Kennedy may have been seeking a blueprint for presenting a plan toward peace.

      We might also acknowledge the Meyer family as an influence toward globalism. Mr. Cord Meyer’s original desires for world government were probably topics at the Georgetown cocktail parties the Kennedys attended. Mrs. / Ms. Mary Meyer’s was also probably an influence in a desire for lasting peace, which I read was important to her, during her personal relationship with President Kennedy toward the end of his life.

      Either way, the final product (RFIM) was so far from any original intent, and formed an operations manual for nonstop war and hostilities instead. There is a good point in this thread, which begs the question of whether the RFIM was simply documenting what was a standard of thinking and putting it to paper, or if the creation of the RFIM opened the door to a new standard that had never considered at a previous time.

      A humble thought: Whether a statement or lie is true or false, if the mind accepts the premise, then it can all become true. So the RFIM legacy developed a following and became a point of influence, even if its authors / contributors considered it a false document.

      Best,
      SC

Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this: