Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The Report from Iron Mountain - Hoax

Threaded View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,798

    The Report from Iron Mountain - Hoax

    Colonel Fletcher Prouty as played by Donald Sutherland in the movie JFK by Oliver Stone delivers a scathing indictment upon the US Government and what runs the US government. I know what was said is true enough regardless of the fact that Stone used Prouty's book which used a hoax document. I can equate it with the Protocols - it does not matter if the document is an actual government report. The author Lewin admitted why he did what he did - and his reasons are sound - it worked! It got people talking and thinking! Phillip Coppens says these words about it.

    "By 1980, the book was out of print. The controversy seemed forgotten. World peace had not materialised. But in the 1990s, Lewin discovered that bootleg editions of his book were being distributed by and to members of rightwing militia groups who claimed it was an authentic report. His 1972 admission seemed to have bypassed rightwing America. Lewin sued for copyright infringement, though the groups argued it was a public domain document – i.e. an official document – and that Lewin’s name as author was part of the government deception. In short, they argued that the publication was genuine, but, once leaked, the government did damage control and claimed it was a hoax, asking Lewin to admit to it.

    The judge ruled in favour of Lewin, and all remaining copies were turned over to him. But… In 1993, the book made an appearance in the controversial movie JFK, in such a way that it was one of the most powerful scenes of the movie; a scene that “explained” why there was – could be? – a conspiracy why the “military-industrial complex” would want to kill Kennedy. How did this happens? Because Col. Fletcher Prouty believed the Report was authentic and cited it as such in his book, JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy –which was worked into the film script, Fletcher being portrayed by Donald Sutherland, meeting Kevin Costner (Jim Garrison) in Washington – a meeting that never occurred in reality. Stone used a section from Prouty’s book that comes from the Report and worked it into the dialogue: “The organizing principle of any society is for war. The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers. . . . War readiness accounts for approximately a tenth of the output of the world's total economy.” For Stone – and many others – it was clear that the government was a co-existence of various interest groups: the oil industry; the pharmaceutical industry; but mainly, the military-industrial complex… warmongers.

    In his book, Prouty goes in more detail, writing that the Group’s existence “was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of the government or private life they were connected.” Still, he claimed to have managed an exclusive interview with a “purported member of the Iron Mountain Special Study Group", who told Prouty he "believes that the group's mission was delineated by McNamara, William Bundy, and Dean Rusk." In 1996, Simon & Schuster reprinted the Report, with a new introduction, underlining that the book was a political satire.

    Though a hoax, it is a political satire, and thus not without merit. And whereas many Americans are divided over its status as a genuine report or a hoax, in the end, this should not really matter. Whether someone wrote it for the US government, or Lewin wrote it for the American public, there is a message. Full stop. As Lewin himself pointed out: by 1972, reality seemed to have become based on the Iron Mountain Report… because, in essence, the underlying premise is true: war is part of our economy, and definitely so in the United States, whose economy is partially kept in balance by military expenditure. Lewin wrote that at the time, the "world war industry" accounted “for approximately a tenth of the output of the world's total economy. […]The United States, as the world's richest nation, not only accounts for the largest single share of this expense, currently upward of $60 billion a year, but also ‘... has devoted a higher proportion of its gross national product to its military establishment than any other major free world nation. This was true even before our increased expenditures in Southeast Asia.’” In fact, America’s military spending is often bigger than the total public spending of many nations – specifically so in Africa.

    One of the more controversial statements of the book is no doubt this statement: “Wars are not ‘caused’ by international conflicts of interest. Proper logical sequence would make it more often accurate to say that war-making societies require – and thus bring about – such conflicts. The capacity of a nation to make war expresses the greatest social power it can exercise; war-making, active or contemplated, is a matter of life and death on the greatest scale subject to social control.” After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, this statement is largely supported by the world’s population – but was even in the days of Lewin “old news”. Intriguingly, the now notorious “weapons of mass destruction” was a term used in the Report: “The production of weapons of mass destruction has always been associated with economic ‘waste.’”

    Lewin argued that war was an important tool, as it created artificial demand, a demand which did not have any political issues: “war, and only war, solves the problem of inventory.” The conclusion of the book is that peace, though extremely unlikely, was actually not in the best interest of society, as war not only served important economical functions, but also social and cultural roles. “The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable government, it supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority.” As well as: “War is virtually synonymous with nationhood. The elimination of war implies the inevitable elimination of national sovereignty and the traditional nation-state.” And: “War has been the principal evolutionary device for maintaining a satisfactory balance between gross human population and supplies available for its survival. It is unique to the human species.”

    Lewin proposed that until substitutes for war were developed, “war” needed to be maintained, if not improved in effectiveness. Part of the “genius” of Lewin is in the type of proposed potential substitutes he proposed – some of which may have given various governments some inspiration… or is it just coincidence that “reality” mimics fiction? The Report’s recommendations were:
    - a giant space-research programme whose goal was largely impossible to achieve (a black hole, budget-wise and hence able to feed the economy);
    - create a new, non-human enemy, e.g. the potential threat of an extra-terrestrial civilisation
    - create a new threat to Mankind, e.g. pollution
    - new ways of limiting births, e.g. via adding drugs to food or water supply
    - create fictitious alternate enemies
    - create an omnipresent, virtually omnipotent international police force."


    http://philipcoppens.com/ironmountain.html

    Please read the words of Marine General Smedley-Butler and the thread The Most Important Man of the 20th Century. There are many threads here which have a direct bearing on this, but those things should be enough to get you thinking.

    Will a visionary truth teller with a plan to address the issues facing our planet be forthcoming without any 'messiah' status required?

    The degree of manipulation you know about is directly related to the amount of what you think about. Thinking is not a skill you learn in school and presumably your parents were too busy to teach you even if they knew what was going on - which would make them very unusual. In fact what you think about - the thinking process itself is by-passed and less than the importance given to it in our educational environment, I say by design.

    There is no black and white boogeyman but both sides of every issue are managed and considered with resultant contingencies generated when necessary. The politicians are not all that capable of deciding what is needed and they listen to the bureaucrats who are supported and trained by think tanks or outgrowths of the Rhodes Round Tables and banker's monies.

    That does not mean it is wrong and I agree with Professor Quigley and other whistleblowers who say the institutions they expose do a lot of necessary things. Unfortunately the rage of stupidity by so-called 'truthers' and Tea party cretins is all 'in vogue' and being 'liked' through eubonics and social media. Shrub and Trump are the result.

    It may be better today, or it might not be. When Eckart heralded a new Messiah and Armand Hammer was teaching Al Gore about how to manage Russia, things got pretty bad. They were just as bad in Canada under the Family Compact in a century before that as The Gangs of New York created Tammany Hall. There is always room for a Thule Society or a Leni Riefenstahl as long as people have no Critical Thinking skills and allow those who do (Like Socrates) to be eliminated.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-30-2016 at 10:15 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •