THE GREENINGAPPENDIX

THE VIEW FROM IRON MOUNTAIN(PLANNING GLOBAL ECO-WAR)

Full title: Report From Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace

Author identified as : John Doe

Author of the books forward: Leonard Lewin

SPECIAL STUDY GROUP

Purpose of the Group: To determine accurately and realistically the nature of the problems that would confront the United States if and when a condition of permanent peace should arrive ,and to draft a program for dealing with this contingency.

THE GROUP CONSISTED OF 15 MEN The areas of

specialty included : history, international

law, economy, sociology, cultural anthropology, psychology, psychiatry, mathematics and astronomy

Meetings were held all over the country, but NEVER in: Washington or on

government property.

THE GROUP RECOMMENDED:

That its findings not be released for publication Such actions would

not be in the public interest

The group concluded: War is the corner

stone of social order and the foundation of social institutions.

Some outside threat or conflict is needed to maintain the social cohesion and political organization that we call a “nation”.

THE LOOKING GLASS WORLD ~The Report from Iron mountain states that “Wars are

not “caused” by international conflicts of interest. Proper logical sequence would make it more often accurate to say that war- making societies requires- and thus brings about – such conflicts. (p.30)

~This quote is inferring that our nations comes up with conflicts in order to go to war. Nations need to be at war in order to sustain power over the economy, politics and other functions so they come up with excuses to enter into war.

~Thus external conflict = social order!

PEACE OR WAR? The special study group brought about the question, is peace

instead of war for a nation a good idea?

They came to the conclusion that an alternative system of human governance through peace would cause a revolution and chaos where economics would be thrown into disarray and societies would experience upheaval.

The group thought that peace would be unwise, but that it would also be unwise if we did not plan for peace.

THE FUNCTIONS OF WAR The report identifies seven non military functions of war in order from most

important to least important as follows. “Economic” “political” “sociological” “ecological” (which was described as the

effect of war on human population- Malthusianism) “cultural” “scientific” and “other”.

In every case the war system functions to create and maintain a stable society. The economical function of war is that military spending balances the advance

of economics. The nations economy or the way a nation manages its resources is it’s national power.

The demands that war makes on a nation’s resources is the most effective way of controlling that power. If military spending turns into civilian spending, it will become part of the general economy, becoming useless as an instrument of economic influence.

The total cost of war for the U.S.A since 2001 has been $995,631, 300,000 (keeps going up every minute). The total cost in Iraq at this time is

$723,424,600,000 (keeps rising), the total cost in Afghanistan at this point in time is $272,207, 120,000. http://www.costofwar.com/

The total number of casualties from the War in Iraq is 870,840 and 18,955 have been killed in Afghanistan. http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

POLITICAL FUNCTIONS OF WAR Political contributions of the war system is to create the “Nation” itself,

as a focus of collective identity and a motive for collective purpose. The report discusses how the war system has been essential to the

existence of nations as independent political entities, and their stable political structure. With out war no government has been able to obtain the right to rule its society. No government can remain in power with out war. The organization of a society for the possibility of war is its principle political stabilizer. War also serves politically as the “last great safe guard against elimination of necessary social class”. (p.40)

Continuance of the war system must be assured to preserve whatever degree of poverty a society requires to maintain the stability of its internal organization of power. (p.41)

Abraham states that the affluence of our society has tended to blur social categories.

REPLACING THE FUNCTIONS OF WAR• The report comes to the conclusion that despite appearances

to the contrary, war is a system of order, not an outbreak of disorder, therefore, war cannot simply be abolished it has to be replaced.

• The study group thought peace and the end of hostilities would create an anarchy or in other words the absence of political authority.

• They thought it was important to prepare for peace by preparing an effective replacement program.

• Thus they came to the idea of a war surrogate, which should present a serious, believable external threat.

• This idea represents the fact that if we want to achieve peace we must come up with an alternative threat that people can believe in. Then mobilize society against it in ways that people think it will work and reorganize society around it.

Map derived from the 2000 census http://www.visualizingeconomics.com

WHICH REPLACEMENTS?

A comprehensive social-welfare program

A giant open-end space research program

An omnipresent international police force

Fictitious alternate enemies

If no workable substitute for war can be found or created, then the coming of peace means the coming of chaos and dissolution

THE GROUP’S CHOICE? Environmentalism

Most credible & effective In Iron Mountain, our environmental

problems need to mature & reach a more obvious danger point.

“…But from present indications it will be a generation to generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing enough, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution… ” (66-67).

WAR/PEACE RESEARCH AGENCY (WPRA)

Responsibilities/Functions:Process informationDevelop possible substitute institutions

(nonmilitary functions of war) Proposed & evaluated Developed & tested Maintain & improve effectiveness

of the war system Keep peace from happening

accidentally

THE RIDDLE OF IRON MOUNTAIN

Not universally acceptedManhunt for the authors

i.e., Dean Rusk, Walter Rostow, Robert McNamara, Kenneth Boulding.

Chief Suspect: John Kenneth Galbraith

JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITHHad reviewed Iron Mountain

for Book WorldArticle title: “News of War and

Peace You’re Not Ready For.”Didn’t own up to authorship

but acknowledged being involved

He wrote: “The public would not be more assured had I written it myself.”

AUTHENTICITY?

Some people believe the book is ridiculous or something of a hoax.

Its statements “are not ludicrous versions of serious views, they are merely ludicrous”. Henry Rowen, President of RAND Corporations

As well as “a hilarious hoax - a kind of dead-pan parody of the studies emanating from the nation’s ‘think tanks’.”

THE “SATIRE THEORY” Compared Iron Mountain to Jonathan

Swift’s Modest Proposal Swift attacked economic greed by exposing

its ultimate implications In same way, Iron Mountain ridicules

Government think-tanks by taking their logic to the level of outrage.

Swift’s satire “worked” because his jump from the normal to the grotesque was a quantum leap

Iron Mountain isn’t funny because there is little difference between what it proposes, what is under discussion or already underway.

WHAT IS REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN?

Is it a leak, a hoax, a satire?

“ flat metallic jargon of the United States Bureaucrat “

“ doesn’t fit the authentic jargon of a government research report “

“ the book has proved in some ways a kind of Rorschach test for social scientists “

SO WHAT CATEGORY IS IT IN?

The official report of a committee of incognito geniuses assembled by the government?

Unresolvable on the basis of evidence available to us.

The question itself is beside the point.

“ Whether this book is a hoax or not is irrelevant. What is important is the fact that it exists, and that it reflects a particular style of thinking (Duhl, 1968; p. 18) ”

25 YEARS HAVE PASSED

Historical distance gives us an advantage over early reviewers of the book.

2 basic questions:

Does the Report describe ideas that actually shape our government’s policy planning?

Is the so called “plan to replace war” an actual, long-term policy objective?

What has happened since 1966?

“TO PREVENT A WORLD WASTELAND– A PROPOSAL”

George Kennan Government policy planner

Article made 3 points: The eco-crisis is a global threat so great that it

endangers life on earth. The crisis should be controlled by a partnership

between government and business, operating under a central, international Super-Agency to regulate environmental issues.

The new crusade “must proceed at least to some extent at the expense of the … immensely dangerous preoccupations that are now pursued under the heading of national defense.”

IN OTHER WORDS ..

The military threat will be phased out, and the eco-threat phased in, while national sovereignty is whittled away.

DURING THE ‘70’S AND ‘80’S

Globalism Peace Environmentalism

Iron Mountain’s agenda was pushed into public view Create acceptance of the eco-danger as a

credible threat

March 27, 1990 “ From Red Menace to Green Threat ”

“ as the cold war recedes, the environment is becoming the number one international security concern ”

BUT REMEMBER

“ a generation to a generation and a half before it would be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale ”

The Group was coming to these conclusions between 1963-1965. Webster’s New World Dictionary

generation = 30 years

Transition from war to environmentalism should be ready to happen right about NOW.

AL GORE’S BOOK, EARTH IN THE BALANCE

“ we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing ”

2 examples of using a common goal to unify and organize society: The cold war against communism The struggle of World War II against fascism

Both based on the war system

The (nationalistic) functions of military danger give way to the (globalistic) functions of eco-danger.

IMPACT ON POLICY THINKING

Key constellation of ideas: That the threat of war must be replaced by

another threat, preferably global scope. That the eco-threat is the best of several

possible replacements. That the threat must be cultivated and the

populace prepared before the “solution” to the threat can be applied.