REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace | 
| Author: Leonard C. Lewin
Creator: Victor Navasky
Publisher: Free Press
Category: Book
List Price: $20.00
Buy Used: $18.00
You Save: $2.00 (10%)
New (5) Used (8) Collectible (3) from $18.00
Avg. Customer Rating:  12 reviews
Sales Rank: 68081
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 176
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.6
Dimensions (in): 7.8 x 5.3 x 1
ISBN: 068482390X
Dewey Decimal Number: 355.02
EAN: 9780684823904
ASIN: 068482390X
Publication Date: May 6, 1996
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: Good in Good jacket
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com
From 1963 to 1966 the U.S. government assembled a team of prominent thinkers from all walks of life to determine what would happen if "peace broke out." The group, surprisingly but with unassailable logic, determined that war was necessary and desirable and that the government should do all it could to maintain the status quo. If peace became inevitable, the report suggested everything from creating an outer-space menace to setting up some new, socially acceptable form of slavery. The report was leaked in 1967 by a conference member harboring a guilty conscience, and it scandalized Washington.Not. The ultimate compliment for any form of political satire is to be taken seriously by the people it is skewering. On that scale Report from Iron Mountain, which has been a lightning rod for both Right and Left since its appearance, could hardly be more successful. The hoax, written in perfect think-tankese, captures the mix of Olympian detachment and awesome cynicism that has flowed out of Washington for much of the American Century. Lewin's book (and he really did write it) exposes the mindset that we can thank for Vietnam and so much else. Report from Iron Mountain was bolstered, if not trumped, by reality--the Pentagon Papers and the Pax Americana, a Defense Department plan to take over Latin America, emerged soon after. But the book's enduring popularity, particularly among those who never got the joke (apparently Lewin had to sue to get right-wing groups convinced of the book's authenticity to stop printing and selling copies) suggests that the governmental worldview that Report from Iron Mountain lampoons--as well as the paranoia that that immorality unleashes in the citizenry--is very much with us. --Michael Gerber
Book Description
Unveils a hitherto top-secret report of a government commission that was requested to explore the consequences of lasting peace on American society. The shoching results of the study, as revealed in this report, led the government to conceal the existence of the commission - they had found that, among other things, peace may never be possible; that even if it were, it would probably be undesirable, that "defending the national interest" is not the real purpose of war; that war is necessary; that war deaths should be planned and budgeted. REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN tells the story of how the project was formed, how it operated, what happend to it. It includes the complet, verbatim text of the commission's hitherto classified report.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 7 more reviews...
 The Art of War May 4, 2008
5 out of 5 found this review helpful
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.
NOT A HOAX April 12, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
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.
 Hoax with some interesting points February 27, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
So I finally got my hands on the infamous book that allegedly started the whole conspiracy theory movement.
By first glance, I believe that the Report from Iron Mountain is, indeed, a hoax, though I was hoping it wasn't. The alleged author (John Doe) claimed to be a professor at some university, but academics simply do not write without citations on previously published works. This is particularly true if the work presents drastically new ideas, and academics will exhaustively support their arguments with references. This is heavily lacking for Iron Mountain. An academic work will also attempt to outline all resoultions in detail, yet this section is very vague. Even if the government has commission a "Special Study" for this report, the officials would not find it useful due to its sloppy recommendations.
This also sums up my feelings for this report. The concept of a "substitute" war still happens to-day (just think about "research" in general ... it works outside of the supply/demand cycle, is (potentially) wasteful, and funding can be arbitrarily assigned or removed. Yet we are convinced it is important to find a "cure" for AIDS and Cancer, dump tonnes of money on "alternative" energy. The same applies are the "war" on drugs and terror. Voluntary slavery is enforced through consumerism and (subsequently) debt. The report is dead on. Whether these phenomena are results of this report, or simply something that fall into social-economical equilibrium, I do not know. I would vouch for the latter, though.
An Alleged Antimilitarist Hoax (Or is it?). May 17, 2007
10 out of 11 found this review helpful
_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.
Deviant but brilliant !! April 1, 2006
9 out of 9 found this review helpful
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...
|
|
|
