From the October 2001 Idaho Observer:

The Iron Mountain War

The Report from Iron Mountain is almost unerringly prophetic. The rulers of the world tried to implement the alternatives to war, which has been used for millennia to control resources--including people. But we just didn't go for them. One of the alternatives mentioned in the Report was to fund an expensive space program that had no clear and definable goals. That was going fine until we had launched so many space shuttles that we all got bored with the idea and it lost our support. Another alternative to war was to manufacture a giant environmental threat to their very existence. But ozone holes and global warming turned out to be hoaxes. So what are we to do? It appears that by not cooperating with their plans for our peaceful exploitation, we have forced the rulers of the world to launch another world war to keep us and our resources in proper alignment.

By Hari Heath

As our nation and the world forges blindly ahead towards a possible world war, do we have any idea where we are going, or more importantly why? The talking heads on TV tell us this is a war on terrorism, that it will be an entirely different kind of war than we have ever fought before. We are being told to prepare for a very long war, a “100-year-war,” that we have the resolve to fight this war until the enemies in this war have been defeated.

But, is this war really the kind of war we are being told about? After all, many of our new Afghani “enemies” received training from our own clandestine agencies. They used to be our friends and allies. Ironically, as we pursue these former allies-turned-terrorist, several of the nations which are now part of the coalition forming to help us fight this war on terrorism, recently were, or still are, branded by us as terrorist states. Enemies are hard to define anymore. Coincidence?

Take China for example. They were our enemy in Korea and Vietnam. They are one of the few remaining avowed communist regimes. They continue to threaten our ally, Taiwan. They have stolen and were given our missile technology -- which they are now selling to third world countries, including our “enemies.” How were such acts punished by our government? The Panama Canal was handed over to them. They bought our Navy base in Long Beach, California, as we downsized our military and now ship boatloads of made-in-China goodies for the American market. Our enemy, or our friend?

What happened as we continued to watch reruns of the Twin Towers falling to the ground? China became a full member of the WTO while our minds were busied with “the event.” In the past, there has been great opposition to this oppressive communist nation entering the globalist “free trade” arena. Instead, we have been entranced into a state of patriotic, catatonic shock as we fly the U. S. flag everywhere to demonstrate the “unity” of our condition. We cannot produce enough U.S. flags here at home to supply the demand, so our new partner in commerce, China, is cranking them out in their factories. Is there something wrong with this picture?

Do we really have an enemy here? Did some “them” do something to “us.” And who are “they?” Economic alliances seem to carry more force these days than military alliances. Former soviet nations are now our NATO partners. Europe is uniting under a single currency. Russia, once our enemy, competing in an arms race of mutually assured destruction, now receives billions of dollars of our foreign aid. Globalism, like it or not, is the wave washing over our future. War, in our time, is more about the color of money than the sovereignty of nations or expansion of their borders. Who will be our enemy in an age of an interdependent and interlocking global economy? Does this mean we are finally destined to an age of peace and prosperity? And what are the consequences of a transition to peace for a humanity whose history is punctuated by war?

Just such a question was asked and answered by the elite powers with a study group that began meeting secretly in 1963. Published in 1967, the Report From Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace, was commissioned by either an unknown government agency or a secret society. After its publication, the editor, Leonard Lewin, claimed it was a satire and a hoax in an apparent effort to discredit the report. Whatever the truth is about its validity and source, a simple fact remains: What the report proposes is coming to pass almost line for line as it was outlined in 1967.

The Iron Mountain Report discusses the necessity of a war system for the management of society. It ponders the elite's question of what alternatives can be implemented to manage human populations should peace prevail over the maintenance of the war system. As the foreword explains, “War fills certain functions essential to the stability of our society; until other ways of filling them are developed, the war system must be maintained -- and improved in effectiveness.”

Peace is a threat to the globalist's agenda. Peace exists when there is a lack of ambition -- individually, or as a society -- to violate others for profit, power, resources or territory. It is something the globalist managers are not yet prepared to deal with. Their history is one of personal and societal violations.

The full report provides greater detail of the elite's plans and motives, but the following gives a glimpse of their mentality: “War is not, as is widely assumed, primarily an instrument of policy utilized by nations to extend or defend their expressed political values or their economic interests. On the contrary, it is itself the principle basis of organization on which all modern societies are constructed...[A]t the root of all obstensible differences of national interest lie the dynamic requirements of the war system itself for periodic armed conflict. Readiness for war characterizes contemporary social systems more broadly than their economic and political structures...Economic analyses of the anticipated problems of transition to peace have not recognized the broad pre-eminence of war in the definition of social systems. The...real situation of conversion to...peace...can be developed only from the premise of full understanding of the nature of the war system it proposes to abolish, which in turn presupposes detailed comprehension of the functions the war system performs for society. It will require the construction of a detailed and feasible system of substitutes for those functions that are necessary to the stability and survival of human societies...”

When this was first published our nation and its adversaries were well defined. There was a “cold war” to bind us together with “us” against “them” worldview. In this age of globalism, trade treaties, the WTO, the G-8, the IMF, the World Bank and the UN have begun to supercede national sovereignty.

“War has provided both ancient and modern societies with a dependable system for stabilizing and controlling national economies. No alternate method of control has yet been tested in a complex modern economy that has shown itself remotely comparable in scope or effectiveness. The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable government; it supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has ensured the subordination of the citizen to the state... No modern political ruling group has successfully controlled its constituency after failing to sustain the continuing credibility of an external threat of war... As the most formidable of threats to life itself...the war system has provided the machinery through which the motivational forces governing human behavior have been translated into binding social allegiance...”

Prior to September 11, 2001, our people were losing their faith in the American government. The seemingly different faces of Democrats and Republicans have become blurred by the corruption, deceit and broken promises of both sides and at all levels of government. Our faith in the fiat economy was on the verge of a collapse. With the trauma based conditioning of the WTC attack and a new “terrorist” enemy to unite us, the disintegration of our hollow economy and political institutions has been postponed.

“Discussion of the ways and means of transitions to such a [warless] world are meaningless unless, a) substitute institutions can be devised to fill these functions, or b) it can reasonably be hypothecated that the loss or partial loss of any one function need not destroy the viability of future societies... An acceptable economic surrogate for the war system will require the expenditure of resources for completely nonproductive purposes at a level comparable to that of the military expenditures otherwise demanded by the size and complexity of each society. Such a substitute system of apparent “waste” must be of a nature that will permit it to remain independent of the normal supply-demand economy; it must be subject to arbitrary political control.”

Advances in technology prevent an all out war. In the age of mutually assured destruction, the major war powers must limit their activities to “police actions.” No longer genuine national “defense,” UN “peacekeeping” missions have been substituted to “waste” our excess industrial/military capacity under arbitrary political control. But these surrogate mini-wars have lost the attention of the American people. They are no longer an effective substitute system for war.

“A viable political substitute for war must posit a generalized external menace to each society of a nature and degree sufficient to require the organization and acceptance of political authority...[A] credible substitute for war must generate an omnipresent and readily understood fear of personal destruction... A substitute for war in its function as the uniquely human system of population control must ensure the survival, if not the improvement, of the species, in terms of its relation to environmental supply... The only apparent problem in the application of an adequate eugenic substitute for war is that of timing; it cannot be effectuated until the transition to peace has been completed, which involves a serious temporary risk of ecological failure...”

Have we transitioned to a state of peace through contentedly consuming the bounty of the global marketeers? What adequate eugenic substitute do the global managers have in store for us? Are they preparing us for the next wave, with news stories about the threat of “terrorist” activated bio-warfare? Has this terrorist menace been sufficient to restore the acceptance of our political authorities? Are not Americans falling hook, line and sinker for all the media delivered, political diatribe that is striking a major blow to the Bill of Rights?

“[T]he war system cannot responsibly be allowed to disappear until, 1) we know exactly what it is we plan to put in its place, and 2) we are certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that these substitute institutions will serve their purposes in terms of the survival and stability of society... Some observers, in fact, believe that it cannot be...[allowed to disappear] at all in our time; that the price of peace is, simply, too high... It is uncertain, at this time, whether peace will ever be possible... [However], it is possible that one or more major sovereign nations may arrive, through ambiguous leadership, at a position in which a ruling administrative class may lose control of basic public opinion or of its ability to rationalize a desired war... As our report made clear, this could be catastrophic.”

To whom would peace be catastrophic? How high is the price of peace? It would seem to cost the citizens nothing, but the “ruling administrative class” could lose everything they have “worked” so hard for. Perhaps in recognition of that, the elite are not yet prepared for peace and need more time for such a transition. The talking heads are already calling this war on terrorism the “Hundred Years War.”

“It seems evident that, in the event an important part of the world is suddenly plunged without sufficient warning into an inadvertent peace, even partial and inadequate preparation for the possibility may be better than none.”

It is too early to tell who is ultimately answerable for the events of September 11. Was the ruling administrative class behind the event or have they merely taken full advantage of the situation? The questions will probably remain unanswered for some time, like the JFK assassination, Waco and the OK City bombing. But as the wave of the New World Order crests in its final assault upon its newfound dominion, there is on the horizon a war; a war like no other; an “Iron Mountain” war.