http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yb847gYA3M _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
In 1967 a book was published titled, The Report from Iron Mountain which was allegedly a leaked document containing the analysis of a government funded think tank which argued the case that perpetual war was needed to fuel the United States economy, and that if a state of world peace would ensue, that it would be devastating for the economy and society. If peace were to happen, the document suggested several actions to ensure a constant state of war would continue.
Shortly after The Report from Iron Mountain was published in the form of a book, it made the New York Times bestseller list and created quite a stir particularly within militia groups and those suspicious of corruption within the government. The Pentagon Papers, which were a top-secret history of the United States involvement in Vietnam, were released shortly after which added to peoples fears.
U.S. News and World Report wrote that an unnamed government official had confirmed the authenticity of the documents, and that President Johnson had “hit the roof” when word of the report was made public. The article reported that orders were sent to U.S. embassies around the world saying that the book had nothing to do with U.S. government polices.[1]
Several years later in a 1972 edition of the New York Times Book Review, Leonard Lewin took credit as the actual author, saying, “I wrote the “Report,” all of it. (How it came about and who was privy to the plot I’ll have to discuss elsewhere.) But why as a hoax? What I intended was simply to pose the issues of war and peace in a provocative way. To deal with the essential absurdity of the fact that the war system, however much deplored, is nevertheless accepted as part of the necessary order of things. To caricature the bankruptcy of the think-tank mentality by pursuing its style of scientistic thinking to its logical ends. And perhaps, with luck, to extend the scope of public discussion of “peace planning” beyond its usual, stodgy limits.”[2]
Decades later in 1996 Jon Elliston published a book titled, Report from Iron Mountain: Highbrow Hoax Mocks National Security Speak, which detailed the evolution of the report and the ensuing speculation after its publication.
Some believe the idea for writing it came from Victor Navasky who was the editor of the left wing magazine The Nation from 1978 until 1995. Navasky was also the editor of a satirical newspaper called the Monicle until it ceased publication in the mid 1960s.
Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith added fuel to the controversy when he wrote a book review for the Washington Post using the pseudonym “Herschel McLandress,” where he said, “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.”[3]
While it is officially classified as a hoax, The Report from Iron Mountain contains some chillingly accurate information and predictions about what the future would hold. Keep in mind, the book was published in 1967. If it actually is a hoax, the author had a tremendous amount of knowledge and foresight as you can see by reading an excerpt below which talks about creating a fake alien threat to unite the world, and to push the idea of ecological destruction as a terrible danger and threat to mankind.
(Excerpt from The Illuminati: Facts & Fiction by Mark Dice - Available on Amazon.com, Kindle and Nook.)
The Report reads, “It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the “last, best hope of peace,” etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by “creatures” from other planets or from outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat;…nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require “alternate enemies,” some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principle apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at the first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from the present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.”[4]
While the idea of an actual alien threat may be far fetched, or the idea of manufacturing one to appear as if it is real equally far fetched, the technology of Project Blue Beam would allow just that to happen using high-tech projection systems to create enormous three dimensional holograms in the sky.[5] Also, decades after The Report from Iron Mountain was published, President Ronald Reagan would make a similar remark. On September 21, 1987, he told the United Nations General Assembly, “In our obsession with antagonism of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”
If The Report from Iron Mountain is indeed authentic, then the best and pretty much only strategy the government would have to counter its release would be to pay someone to claim authorship and say it was a hoax.
If the document is a hoax, the author had the rare knowledge of the use of false flag terrorist attacks and the strategy of creating enemies and events so that political or military actions may be taken. The report reads, “However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented rather than developed from unknown conditions.”[6]
Leonard Lewin, who claimed authorship and said it was a hoax, sued several individuals who believed the report was authentic and had reprinted it and were selling it themselves as a way to make money and spread the word about this diabolical plan. Lewin technically had the copyright and was legally entitled to the ownership of the text. Such an action is suspicious if in fact the document was authentic because one may think Lewin would want the document to become public domain and spread to as many people as possible. However, some suspect that the legal action was taken as a way to intimidate patriots who were spreading awareness of the report and that Lewin’s supposed admission that he was the author was not the truth, and was instead an attempt at damage control to disarm the public and persuade them the report was a hoax, when in reality it was authentic.
In 1996 the book was released again with an Afterward written by Leonard Lewin where he discussed how he was surprised that word continued to spread about the report decades after its initial release. This new edition also includes several articles that were written about the report when it was first released. The Forward to the 1996 book was written by Victor Navasky where he explains how he and Lewin allegedly concocted the idea for money, believing the book would sell due to the controversy it would cause.
Whatever the truth is regarding The Report from Iron Mountain, some its contents turned out to be chillingly accurate in regards to what the future would hold even though it was written over forty years ago. There are already plenty of authentic declassified documents, government white papers, and mainstream reports which confirm similar or even more sinister operations than the ones found in The Report from Iron Mountain. So the authenticity of the report isn’t that important, but when one is presenting information about false flag terrorism or fear mongering surrounding climate change, one is best advised to use confirmed and reputable sources, instead of The Report from Iron Mountain.
(Excerpt from The Illuminati: Facts & Fiction by Mark Dice available on Amazon.com, Kindle or Nook.)
[1] U.S. News and World Report Hoax or Horror? A Book that Shook the White House November 20, 1967
[2] NY Times Book Review The Guest Word Mach 19, 1972 by Leonard Lewin
[3] The Washington Post News of War and Peace You’re Not Ready For by Herschel McLandress November 26, 1967, p. 5.
[4] Lewin, Leonard – The Report from Iron Mountain page 66-67
[5] Washington Post When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing By William M. Arkin Feb. 1, 1999
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere, so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." -- Woodrow Wilson
A copy of the group discussions, known as Report from Iron Mountain, was leaked by a participant and published in 1967 by Dial Press.
The report’s authors saw war as necessary and desirable stating “War itself is the basic social system, within which other secondary modes of social organization conflict or conspire. (War is) the principal organizing force…the essential economic stabilizer of modern societies.” The group worried that through “ambiguous leadership” the “ruling administrative class” might lose its ability to “rationalize a desired war”, leading to the “actual disestablishment of military institutions”.
The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power…The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers. War has served as the last great safeguard against the elimination of necessary classes.”
.......
It was, he says, ‘like having a bomb dropped on your life. There is a dark side to our world, a place beyond our control where governments and their agents can do what they want.
David Painter
"The Truth, when you finally chase it down, is almost always far worse than your darkest visions and fears." - Hunter S. Thompson: Kingdom of Fear; pg. 220.
"The powers that be not only try to control events, but they try to control our memory and understanding of these events, which is part of controlling the events themselves." - Michael Parenti. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
The only bus to continue on its' way and changed the route, ended up in Tavistock Square, not a bus route, where it mysteriously exploded. A year later, QEII, Blair and all the big wigs, stood in Tavistock square and bowed their heads to the building where (the source seems to have been deleted) the Tavistock Institute, was first housed.
The Institute, Square and the whole Tavistock movement, was named after the family that funded it.
All references to "military" explosives used in the bombs, were deleted within 5 days.
And so the "fear of Terror" was introduced into Britain.
The IRA had carried out far more terror in the UK without the whole country going into "lock down".
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere, so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." -- Woodrow Wilson
A copy of the group discussions, known as Report from Iron Mountain, was leaked by a participant and published in 1967 by Dial Press.
The report’s authors saw war as necessary and desirable stating “War itself is the basic social system, within which other secondary modes of social organization conflict or conspire. (War is) the principal organizing force…the essential economic stabilizer of modern societies.” The group worried that through “ambiguous leadership” the “ruling administrative class” might lose its ability to “rationalize a desired war”, leading to the “actual disestablishment of military institutions”.
The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power…The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers. War has served as the last great safeguard against the elimination of necessary classes.”
.......
It was, he says, ‘like having a bomb dropped on your life. There is a dark side to our world, a place beyond our control where governments and their agents can do what they want.
David Painter
"The Truth, when you finally chase it down, is almost always far worse than your darkest visions and fears." - Hunter S. Thompson: Kingdom of Fear; pg. 220.
"The powers that be not only try to control events, but they try to control our memory and understanding of these events, which is part of controlling the events themselves." - Michael Parenti.
"Report From Iron Mountain"
'The Guest Word'
by Leonard Lewin
New York Times Book Review
March 19, 1972
The book came out in November, 1967, and generated controversy as soon as it appeared.
It purported to be the secret report of an anonymous "Special Study Group," set up, presumably at a very high level of government, to determine the consequences to American society of a "permanent" peace, and to draft a program to deal with them.
Its conclusions seemed shocking.
This commission found:
that even in the unlikely event that a lasting peace should prove "attainable," it would almost surely be undesirable
that the "war system" is essential to the functioning of a stable society
that until adequate replacement for it might be developed, wars and an "optimum" annual number of war deaths must be methodically planned and budgeted
And much more.
Most of the Report deals with the "basic" functions of war (economic, political, sociological, ecological, etc.) and with possible substitutes to serve them, which were examined and found wanting.
The text is preceded by my foreword, along with other background furnished by the "John Doe" who made the Report available.
The first question raised, of course, was that of its authenticity. But government spokesmen were oddly cautious in phrasing their denials, and for a short time, at least in Washington, more speculation was addressed to the Group’s members and of their sponsorship than to whether the Report was an actual quasi-official document. (The editors of Trans-action magazine, which ran an extensive round-up of opinion on the book, noted that government officials, as a class, were those most likely to accept it as the real thing.)
Eventually, however, in the absence of definitive confirmation either way, commentators tended to agree that it must be a political satire. In that case, who could have written it? Among the dozens of names mentioned, those of J. K. Galbraith and myself appeared most often, along with a mix of academics, politicians, think-tank drop-outs, and writers.
Most reviewers, relatively uncontaminated by overexposure to real-politik, were generous to what they saw as the author’s intentions:
to expose a kind of thinking in high places that was all too authentic, influential, and dangerous, and to stimulate more public discussion of some of the harder questions of war and peace.
But those who felt their own oxen gored-who could identify themselves in some way with the government, the military, "systems analysis", the established order of power-were not.
They attacked, variously, the substance of the Report; the competence of those who praised its effectiveness; and the motives of whomever they assigned the obloquy of authorship, often charging him with an disingenuous sympathy for the Report’s point of view.
The more important think-tankers, not unreasonably seeing the book as an indictment of their own collective moral sensibilities and intellectual pretensions, proffered literary as well as political judgments: very bad satire, declared Herman Kahn; lacking in bite, wrote Henry Rowen, of Rand. Whoever wrote it is an idiot, said Henry Kissinger. A handful of far-right zealots and eccentrics predictably applauded the Report’s conclusions.
That’s as much background as I have room for, before destroying whatever residuum of suspense may still persist about the book’s authorship. I wrote the "Report," all of it. (How it came about and who was privy to the plot I’ll have to discuss elsewhere.) But why as a hoax?
What I intended was simply to pose the issues of war and peace in a provocative way. To deal with the essential absurdity of the fact that the war system, however much deplored, is nevertheless accepted as part of the necessary order of things. To caricature the bankruptcy of the think-tank mentality by pursuing its style of scientistic thinking to its logical ends. And perhaps, with luck, to extend the scope of public discussion of "peace planning" beyond its usual, stodgy limits.
Several sympathetic critics of the book felt that the guessing-games it set off tended to deflect attention from those objectives, and thus to dilute its effects. To be sure. Yet if the "argument" of the Report had not been hyped up by its ambiguous authenticity-is it just possibly for real?-its serious implications wouldn’t have been discussed either. At all.
This may be a brutal commentary on what it sometimes takes to get conspicuous exposure in the supermarket of political ideas, or it may only exemplify how an oblique approach may work when directed engagement fails. At any rate, the who-done-it aspect of the book was eventually superseded by sober critiques.
At this point it became clear that whatever surviving utility the Report might have, if any, would be as a point-of-departure book-for the questions it raises, not for the specious "answers" it purports to offer. And it seemed to me that unless a minimum of uncertainty about its origins could be sustained-i.e., so long as I didn’t explicitly acknowledge writing it-its value as a model for this kind of "policy analysis" might soon be dissipated.
So I continued to play the no-comment game.
Until now. The charade is over, whatever is left of it. For the satirical conceit of Iron Mountain, like so many others, has been overtaken by the political phenomena it attacked. I’m referring to those other documents-real ones, and verifiable-that have appeared in print. The Pentagon papers were not written by someone like me.
Neither was the Defense Department’s Pax Americana study (how to take over Latin America). Nor was the script of Mr. Kissinger’s "Special Action Group," reported by Jack Anderson (how to help Pakistan against India while pretending to be neutral).
So far as I know, no one has challenged the authenticity of these examples of high-level strategic thinking. I believe a disinterested reader would agree that sections of them are as outrageous, morally, and intellectually, as any of the Iron Mountain inventions.
No, the revelations lay rather in the style of the reasoning-the profound cynicism, the contempt for public opinion. Some of the documents read like parodies of Iron Mountain, rather than the reverse.
These new developments may have helped fuel the debates the book continues to ignite, but they raised a new problem for me.
It was that the balance of uncertainty about the book’s authorship could "tilt," as Kissinger might say, the other way. (Was that Defense order for 5,000-odd paperbacks, someone might ask, really for routine distribution to overseas libraries-or was it for another, more sinister, purpose?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbCmV9nz0-A
357 views•2 May 2020 - Erik Markham = 2K subscribers
You be the judge and do the research. This video is meant to be provocative, cause debate and critical thinking that is so lacking these days. Whether I agree or not, debate is the key to wisdom and learning. Being able to question everything in life is a main element of a cognitive human being. This is based on a documentary from 1993.
DISCLAIMER: This video is being presented for historical preservation, educational, and entertainment purposes. This video does not express the views of this channel or persons thereof. Make up your own mind and do your own research, moreover think for yourself.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
