Report From Iron Mountain: Fact Disguised As Fiction?

The Report From Iron Mountain falls into the category of "It sure feels real". It is my understanding that this report as been de-bunked as far as being presented as an "official" government document. But does that make it necessarily untrue?

Link To Report
www.mega.nu:8080...

Exerpt From Original Text:

We had originally planned, when our study was initiated, to address ourselves to these two broad questions and their components: What can be expected if peace comes? What should we be prepared to do about it? But as our investigation proceeded it became apparent that certain other questions had to be faced. What, for instance, are the real functions of war in modern societies, beyond the ostensible ones of defending and advancing the "national interests" of nations? In the absence of war, what other institutions exist or might be devised to fulfill these functions? Granting that a "peaceful" settlement of disputes is within the range of current international relationships, is the abolition of war, in the broad sense, really possible? If so, is it necessarily desirable, in terms of social stability? If not, what can be done to improve the operation of our social system in respect to its war-readiness?

Whether it is real - or not - isn't the question in my mind. My concern lies in the strategy and economic impact it details. Given all of the threads on the board lately about NWO and also the threads about the War on Terror, war in Iraq and the seemingly inevitable war with Iran, I think the hypothesis put forth in the report merits discussion.

Ask yourself: "What would happen to our country if there was no war?" What would be the economic, social and political effects?

Thousands of unemployed?
A more discerning eye toward domestic issues?
A change in the political power structure?

Then ask yourself: "Who stands to benefit from war?" The answer ain't pretty. And it just maybe all of us. Could the de-bunking of this report merely be dis-information?

A great analysis of the economic benefits of crisis and chaos here:

The Shock Doctrine: Disaster Capitalism
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

I tried to further this discussion in a previously existing thread. However, upon reflection I feel the title of the thread was too narrowly focused and divisive for my purposes. I think these questions need scrutiny from all Americans, not just those with a certain perspective

The Bastards Want Peace... (an interesting discussion)
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

So what, no takers?

I admit it may well be a hoaxed document but the premise is still very likely true.

I can neither confirm nor deny that the Iron Mountain Report was a hoax.

Even if the report was/is proven to be a hoax, I have an unnerving sense that there's more truth to it than what one's led to believe. There's simply too many "coincidences" happening in our lives today as depicted, or suggested, to say this wasn't "real".

Bill Cooper's "Behold, A Pale Horse" goes a bit further in depth as far as pointing to the direction of the attempts to disarm the American populous by being given a peaceful means to an end.

Either way you look... the current war machine is going to continue unless they can unite everyone into a peaceful future. And by a peaceful future... I'm referring to everyone across this globe not fighting amongst ourselves... but united, fighting against another race.


I'm not against a peaceful future. I'm against being a slave in order to achieve that peaceful future. I am a free man. Don't take away my freedoms in order to make myself equal with a lesser man. Give the lesser man the same freedoms as I have.

Originally posted by Infoholic

Either way you look... the current war machine is going to continue unless they can unite everyone into a peaceful future...

But my point, and I think the point of the report as well, is - there is just too much financial incentive to turn away from war. The PTB have no interest in peace. Our entire economy is derived from triangulation. Having a "bad guy" to fight. The added bonus to this is how war distracts from real problems in society and corruption in government.

A great example of this is how, last spring, the president and his administration scoffed at military officials who dared disagree with the cost estimates for the war in Iraq. The administration was fighting critics who were demanding accountability in Iraq and so wanted no dissent within the military ranks to undermine their position or draw negative attention to the issue. The dissent was focused on how the budget estimates were ridiculously low in order to succeed in the mission (thus prolonging it and needing more money!). Now, just a few weeks ago, the budget request for the war was doubled. In the meantime, last week, the president vetoed additional funding to help middle-class families care for physically and mentally ill children. Why? Too costly.

More war means more government spending and private contracting (read Blackwater). More contracts mean more money. This is good for the economy. This is bad for taxpayers and the average middle-class citizen.

However, you are the first person I have encountered on ATS who is putting action to their words. I will sign your petition and link the site to my firends and family. I thank you for your patiotism and I am proud to list you among my "friends" on ATS. Here''s hoping you are not a government lurker!

Originally posted by kosmicjack
But my point, and I think the point of the report as well, is - there is just too much financial incentive to turn away from war. The PTB have no interest in peace. Our entire economy is derived from triangulation. Having a "bad guy" to fight. The added bonus to this is how war distracts from real problems in society and corruption in government.

You're correct. There is financial incentive from war. Now what would be better than having a financial foundation built by a mere 300 million people? A financial foundation built by a few billion, perhaps?

There is no interest in peace, from my research... there is a major interest in power and control, though. The endgame result is going to be all people ruled by a few. Totalitarian dictatorship on a global basis. Having that bad guy around is great for the PTB. It keeps people afraid. It keeps people begging for that false sense of security. And that security will come, but at a price. What price would the masses be willing to pay for the PTB to provide that security? How could the PTB provide a bad guy, to get the masses to ask for that security, and how could this be applied to effect a much much more grand amount of people... enabling a tighter power grab?

Finding that common enemy.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
A great example of this is how, last spring, the president and his administration scoffed at military officials who dared disagree with the cost estimates for the war in Iraq. The administration was fighting critics who were demanding accountability in Iraq and so wanted no dissent within the military ranks to undermine their position or draw negative attention to the issue. The dissent was focused on how the budget estimates were ridiculously low in order to succeed in the mission (thus prolonging it and needing more money!). Now, just a few weeks ago, the budget request for the war was doubled. In the meantime, last week, the president vetoed additional funding to help middle-class families care for physically and mentally ill children. Why? Too costly.

Christ... Bush went as far as signing Executive Order 13438, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq... as to where, he can basically say anyone speaking against the war is aiding the war... thus giving him more control.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
More war means more government spending and private contracting (read Blackwater). More contracts mean more money. This is good for the economy. This is bad for taxpayers and the average middle-class citizen.

What happens when the money runs out? The rate at which this war is costing... and Bush is requesting... there will be no more "cash" to support it. Eventually there's going to have to be another means to the PTB's goal.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Here''s hoping you are not a government lurker!

I'm not sure what to say.

Originally posted by Infoholic
..The endgame result is going to be all people ruled by a few. Totalitarian dictatorship on a global basis. Having that bad guy around is great for the PTB. It keeps people afraid. It keeps people begging for that false sense of security. And that security will come, but at a price. What price would the masses be willing to pay for the PTB to provide that security?

I completely agree with you. They have possibly had the mechanisms in place for years in order to achieve just this result:

SWFQW
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Originally posted by Infoholic
Christ... Bush went as far as signing Executive Order 13438, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq... as to where, he can basically say anyone speaking against the war is aiding the war... thus giving him more control.

I agree - it's an outrage.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Here''s hoping you are not a government lurker!

Originally posted by Infoholic
I'm not sure what to say.

Just trying to make a joke, although its a lame one. You never know who is on ATS or anyother site and since I am going to out myself as a dissenter by signing your petition...just thought I would give myself the luxury of a little nervous laughter.

(This text is so cut and pasted who knows what it will look like when i actually post! Sorry in advance if it is jacked up!)

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Just trying to make a joke, although its a lame one. You never know who is on ATS or anyother site and since I am going to out myself as a dissenter by signing your petition...just thought I would give myself the luxury of a little nervous laughter.

(This text is so cut and pasted who knows what it will look like when i actually post!

Sorry in advance if it is jacked up!)

No offense taken. Your point is completely understood. And the post looked fine.

Nice thread.

Topics like these need to be brought up over and over... discussed from multiples of angles... in order to get more people involved and educated.

Again, I appreciate the support. Send me a U2U if there's anything you need help with.



Info.

Addressing the need for war, I think the presumed need is fueled by what the power wishes to have society do.

The added boost to the economy can have gains for industry, but any gains in the general population get offset by inflation caused by an increase in money supply from credit loaned on any savings from extra work. Also economic confidence leads to more credit/larger money supply and again maintains inflation, removing any real gain of economic prosperity from society at large.

I feel the OP article in first posts explains the need, keep people working not thinking. People fear unemployment, this could easily be fixed by offering more schooling, or lowering the length of the work day, thereby spreading the work to more people. Europe has far more vacation time then the US. 1 more week of vacation for everyone lowers unemployment by 2%. For every 50 workers a business must fill those 50 weeks with a new hire.

Anyway, there are plenty of ways to handle economy without consumerism, but these efforts lower profits, or increase taxes of the wealthy, and they give the rabble time to think and communicate with friends and family. I think this is the goal of robust economy, wealth to the top and keeping people working not thinking.