We know who "they" are. The only "they" of consequence is the police-state.
The rest of them are making money.
The internet is the tool we will use to reverse decades of police-state work in a short time.
Maybe we should start with a field trip to the Rand Corporation.
If I set it up do you want to come along? The guy with the boat next to ours works at SRI. I wonder if that counts?
I'm sure there is plenty of ground to cover before we will need to "go secret". In the meantime we can still begin denying we are up to anything.
From: "mike@..." <mike@...>
To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, February 1, 2013 1:12 PM
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Guest Post: The Linchpin Lie: How Global Collapse Will Be Sold To The Masses
They know who they are and we don’t….and that’s the way they like it.
From:firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of lpsfactivists
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 12:38 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Guest Post: The Linchpin Lie: How Global Collapse Will Be Sold To The Masses
Where do you get these great articles, Mike!? My very small disagreement, and my almost cynical questions of who "they" are and "why," remain.
I see nothing nefarious about "Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money;" or for that matter, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, public housing, non-profits funded by City money; because no one is forcing anyone to take any public
money; you can even refuse to take Social Security if you want to. There is no need for deep thinking about a "Scientific Dictatorship;" all one needs is to start giving away money, and one will have a crowd of followers. It does not matter if the crowd of
followers are welfare queens, scientists working on a cure for cancer, or developers of great products such as the Internet. So the "they" gets kind of murky in my view.
I do not see humanity "battling the formation of this tyranny for much of known history." I see a majority of any public devolving towards it, with a few voices crying in the wilderness, who might succeed temporarily once in a while. For example, the Internet
might be, as the article indicates, "an unprecedented tool for surveillance" -- most of the surveillance done by private businesses wanting to know who you are, what you do, what you like, so they can sell you stuff!
"Much of the Scientific Dictatorship's agenda would stop dead in its tracks in response to the simple act of the people becoming aware that there are attempts to manipulate our minds." In my view, the general public does not give a rat's tail about mind manipulation,
as long as the freebies keep coming in. What would stop the agenda cold would be if the public stopped accepting the freebies. Does anyone visualize that any time soon?
The "why" for an agenda such as the articles describe, has stayed murky in my mind also. My own personal guess is that some "true believers" with strong personalities, great minds, and great ambition, espouse the belief that everybody would be better off without
those pesky individualists, so they work on destroying individualism for the greater good. The work goes unopposed, since the great minds in the individualists' side are useless in situations where concerted effort is the best route to success.
Read below for answers regarding ¡°who are they?¡± A number of Rand Corporation mentions. The Heritage Foundation is also mentioned with the ¡°bad guys¡± in this article about the History of US Interventions in the world going back to the 1800s. http://www.apk2000.dk/netavisen/artikler/global_debat/2002-1126_us_imp_basic_stats.htm
The Reason Foundation is mentioned too.
The ¡°why¡± is to implement a scientific dictatorship making the people subservient to the government.
I also have a controversial article I¡¯ll share with anyone who requests it. Back in the 60s there were people giving academic presentations about the ¡°New World System¡± and what was going to be done to implement this plan and how society would be molded.
This article was written by a doctor who attended a Pittsburg Pediatric Society lecture on the ¡°New World System¡± in 1969 by Dr. Richard Day. He was Professor of Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. Previously he had served as Medical Director
of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. At the time he was an insider for the ¡°plan¡±. This has been going on for a long time. And we are the laboratory rats.
The Scientific Dictatorship Explained
Old-Thinker News | July 26, 2011
By Daniel Taylor
President Dwight D. Eisenhower¡¯s legendary farewell speech is often cited in condemnation of the Military Industrial Complex, which is intimately connected to the subject at hand. However, there is another little discussed yet vital topic in the latter half
of his speech. ¡°The prospect of domination of the nation¡¯s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded,¡± warned Eisenhower. ¡°Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery
in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.¡±
Who Are ¡°They¡±?
I firmly believe that in the absence of historical background and full spectrum context, present day and future issues cannot be fully understood. This report will attempt to clarify the essence of the term ¡°Scientific Dictatorship¡± by providing historical
context and stories of the individuals involved in its modern manifestation.
The ideological roots of the Scientific Dictatorship can be traced to the works of Plato some 2,000 years ago. In truth, humanity has been battling the formation of this tyranny for much of known history. The formation of the United States Constitution created
a barrier that H. G. Wells wrote in 1901, had ¡°¡to be modified or shelved at some stage¡¡± The focus here is on the modern forms of scientific power that began in the 20th Century and are blossoming in the 21st Century. The Scientific Dictatorship is composed
of unelected individuals that have access to the reigns of power. These individuals have access to undisclosed future technology, classified intelligence, and the ability to steer scientific research that impacts our entire society.
The works of Bertrand Russel , Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley, Charles Galton Darwin , H.G. Wells and many others provide the mental framework from which this modern tyranny is based upon. The following are several examples of men who helped form the Scientific
Dictatorship of the 21st Century. For readers who are new to this information, what you see here is a small portion of the full kaleidoscope of information available. This will give you a start for any in-depth research that you should decide to do.
Vannevar Bush: First Science Advisor, Founder of Raytheon
Born in 1890, Vannevar Bush would become the first Science Advisor to the United States government during World War II under President Franklin Roosevelt. Bush played a vital role in the creation of what we know today as the Military Industrial Complex. Specifically,
the method of scientific research of this gargantuan organization ¨C beginning with the Office of Scientific Research and Development ¨C was devised by Vannevar.
The roots of the internet can be traced to Bush¡¯s ideas in 1945. The forerunner to the computer itself can also be attributed to his early designs. With the help of the large foundations, Vennevar Bush pioneered many of the modern instruments of the Scientific
Dictatorship. Bush¡¯s most notable accomplishment was serving as the organizer of the Manhattan Project which produced the Atomic bomb.
Bush¡¯s work with the Manhattan Project helped to cement the centralization of scientific research under the U.S. Military. This combine of research and development has since then developed into a network of contractors and various agencies. One of the world¡¯s
largest defense contractors of today is the Raytheon Company, founded by Vannevar in 1922. Much of the technology that is initially developed by the military is inevitably released into society.
One such example is the internet. Vannevar Bush¡¯s initial ideas are considered to be the ideological roots of the internet. In a 1945 paper titled ¡°As We May Think¡± Bush writes on his ¡°memex¡± concept,
¡°The owner of the memex, let us say, is interested in the origin and properties of the bow and arrow. He has dozens of possibly pertinent books and articles in his memex. First he runs through an encyclopedia, finds an interesting but sketchy article, leaves
it projected on his screen¡ Occasionally he inserts a comment of his own, either linking it into the main trail or joining it by a side trail to a particular item¡ Thus he builds a trail of his interest through the maze of materials available to him.¡±
DARPA would eventually develop the internet and bring it to reality. While the internet is being used today as an unprecedented tool for surveillance , it is at the same time serving as an unmatched medium for activism.
Bush with his mechanical differential analyzer
From 1935 to 1946 the Rockefeller Foundation funded Vannevar Bush¡¯s development of the mechanical differential analyzer at MIT for a total of $230,500. This device, along with the Hollerith machine, is considered to be one of the forerunners of the desktop
computer that we all know and use today.
Bush also served as president of the Carnegie Institution from 1939 to 1955, where he helped shift the organization¡¯s focus away from old-style eugenics to population control. In A social history of anthropology in the United States , Thomas Carl Patterson
writes that as President, ¡°¡Vannevar¡ ended its support for Davenport¡¯s projects [The Eugenics Records Office]. The eugenics movement was transformed with Rockefeller support as its focus shifted from heredity to population control and to birth-control
experiments on an international scale.¡±
As G. Pascal Zachary documents in his book Endless Frontier, Bush gave lip service to the importance of the individual, but he was an advocate of a type of technocracy in which society is ruled ¡°¡by the well-to-do and highly educated.¡± He also saw ¡±¡populism
and the widening participation of citizens in the machinery of government as a recipe for decline.¡± Zachary comments that ¡°Bush¡¯s fear of the ¡®blind mass¡¯ was widely shared in his circle of senior scientists and engineers.¡± Also documented in Endless
¡°As the years went on, the prevailing respect for experts emboldened Bush to advocate technocracy even more unabashedly. In the mid 1950s, he made headlines by calling for a ¡°natural aristocracy¡± that would govern ¡°the climate of opinion¡± in the country
out of which politics and values arise.¡±
Much of what Vannevar Bush set in motion led directly to the explosion of technological advancement that we are witnessing today. While technology itself is neutral, the elites that are directing its development are doing so with specific agendas in mind,
and we are not being asked to debate it.
Herman Kahn: Father of Scenario Planning
¡°Herman Kahn has been a major figure in one of the most fascinating shifts of power in U.S. History: from identifiable public leaders to the ¡®action intellectuals.¡¯¡± ¨C Life Magazine, December 6, 1968
Herman Kahn is known as one of the founding fathers of future studies. After working for the RAND Corporation, Kahn founded the Hudson Institute in 1961. The satirical film Dr. Strangelove is largely based on real documents and ideas that came from RAND.
The December 6, 1968 edition of Life Magazine details Kahn¡¯s career, and the larger implications of an unprecedented shift of power to unelected ¡°action intellectuals.¡± As Life Magainze reports,
¡°¡Herman Kahn has been a major figure in one of the most fascinating shifts of power in U.S. History: from identifiable public leaders to the ¡®action intellectuals.¡¯ As counselors to the decision-makers, men such as Kahn often have access to future technology
(what is known, but not yet disclosed) and official intelligence (what is known, but not yet revealed, about the capacities and plans of other nations).
Thus, decisions ¨C based on private knowledge, analyzed by private consultants and debated in private ¨C can become public policy. This is a process of invisible power. At its extreme this influence can commit a nation to social programs and military actions
which have neither been fully explained nor publicly debated. One day, as that power pervades and grows more sophisticated, it may so affect the course of government that any nation¡¯s policies may be locked in, as if by automatic pilot, years before the men
who are elected to govern ever take office.¡±
This process of invisible power is further enabled by the annual secret gatherings of the Bilderberg Group ¨C founded in 1954 ¨C which consist of international bankers, CEO¡¯s of major tech corporations, editors of major news outlets, and other power brokers.
An historical example of this process in action is the formation of the European Union¡¯s common market, which was developed behind closed doors at a 1955 Bilderberg conference in Germany.
Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays: Modern public relations and perception management
Ivy Lee is considered to be the first public relations man. Lee was hired by John D. Rockefeller Jr. to recast the family¡¯s image after the infamous Ludlow massacre. A more widely recognized figure in PR is Edward L. Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud,
who helped to significantly advance the study of propaganda into the 20th Century.
In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays informs readers about the true ruling class in our society.
¡°The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling
power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.¡±
In 1953 Bernays aided the United States government in its overthrow of Guatemala. As Mark Crispin Miller notes in the introduction of Propaganda, ¡°Bernays was¡ employed by the United Fruit Company, at whose behest the Eisenhower administration used the
CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz.¡±
This clip form the documentary Century of the Self details the incident:
Water Fluoridation was also sold to America with the help of Bernays. As detailed in The Fluoride Deception, Christopher Bryson explains Bernays¡¯ connection with the National Institute of Dental Research.
The study of the mind of man has enabled advanced forms of subtle influence, of ¡°manufacturing consent.¡± The U.S. Army War College noted in 1998 that the ¡°Mind has no firewall ,¡± and that ¡°We are on the threshold of an era in which these data processors
of the human body may be manipulated or debilitated.¡±
Much of the Scientific Dictatorship¡¯s agenda would stop dead in its tracks in response to the simple act of the people becoming aware that there are attempts to manipulate our minds.
How does the Scientific Dictatorship operate?
Eisenhower¡¯s warning is especially prescient here. ¡°The prospect of domination of the nation¡¯s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded,¡± he warned. Tax-exempt foundations
have played a critical role in directing society and technological development. For example, as president of the Carnegie Institution, Vannevar Bush ¡°¡was able to influence research in the U.S. towards military objectives and could informally advise the
government on scientific matters.¡±
As Dr. Lily E. Kay has documented in her book The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology, large foundations effectively set in motion the entire scientific technological agenda for the 20th Century.
Under the ¡°Science of Man¡± agenda, the physical makeup of human beings was studied, and methods to alter various biological processes were devised. This inertia rippled throughout society and impacted the minds of the intelligentsia that were totally unconnected
to the core group responsible for organizing the central project.
The Scientific Dictatorship often operates under the cover of darkness, under national security, private contractors, and deep levels of government secrecy.
One area of operations for this group is in bio weapons laboratories across the globe. As revealed by The Age , Nobel prize winning Australian microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet secretly urged the Australian government in 1947 to develop bio weapons for
use against the ¡°overpopulated countries of South-East Asia.¡± In a 1947 meeting with the New Weapons and Equipment Development Committee, the group recommended that ¡°the possibilities of an attack on the food supplies of S-E Asia and Indonesia using B.W.
agents should be considered by a small study group.¡±
The anthrax attacks that occurred shortly after 9/11 have exposed the underbelly of this system, along with the murder of Dr. David Kelly in 2003. Investigative journalist and film maker Bob Coen examined the anthrax case and concluded that an ¡°international
biological weapons mafia¡± is operating in total secrecy.
How can such a vast project go seemingly un-noticed? Why don¡¯t I know about this?
The professional classes of society have largely been schooled and specialized to a degree that limits their perspective on the full spectrum view of society; That is, until they are ¡°brought into the fold.¡± This is not by accident or happenstance. Just
as Vannevar Bush desired rule by the ¡°¡well-to-do and highly educated,¡± Bertrand Russel, in his 1954 book The Scientific Outlook writes,
¡°¡the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented.¡±
To a great extent we are facing an open conspiracy, which H. G. Wells aptly named one of his many books. Herein lies one of our greatest challenges. We are not facing a clear and present danger that would normally trigger natural human instinct to fight back.
It is a creeping death that is subtly eroding the human species.
Report from Iron Mountain; Using fear to make people subservient to government.
Barb¡¯s note: Here is the Iron Mountain Report that this article references: Report from Iron Mountain
(c) 2002 by G. Edward Griffin
Freedom Force International
This is taken from Chapter 24 of The Creature from Jekyll Island
(When added to The Freedom Manifesto, this material should be expanded to include the concept of deliberate waste. With that included, it will make an excellent chapter.)
The substance of these stratagems [for the weakening of the United States so it can be more easily merged into a global government based on the model of collectivism] can be traced to a think-tank study released in 1966 called the Report from Iron Mountain.
Although the origin of the report is highly debated, the document itself hints that it was commissioned by the Department of Defense under Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara and was produced by the Hudson Institute located at the base of Iron Mountain in Croton-on-Hudson,
New York. The Hudson Institute was founded and directed by Herman Kahn, formerly of the Rand Corporation. Both McNamara and Kahn were members of the CFR.
The self-proclaimed purpose of the study was to explore various ways to ¡°stabilize society.¡± Praiseworthy as that may sound, a reading of the Report soon reveals that the word society is used synonymously with the word government. Furthermore, the word
stabilize is used as meaning to preserve and to perpetuate. It is clear from the start that the nature of the study was to analyze the different ways a government can perpetuate itself in power, ways to control its citizens and prevent them from rebelling.
It was stated at the beginning of the Report that morality was not an issue. The study did not address questions of right or wrong; nor did it deal with such concepts as freedom or human rights. Ideology was not an issue, nor patriotism, nor religious precepts.
Its sole concern was how to perpetuate the existing government. The Report said:
Previous studies have taken the desirability of peace, the importance of human life, the superiority of democratic institutions, the greatest ¡°good¡± for the greatest number, the ¡°dignity¡± of the individual, the desirability of maximum health and longevity,
and other such wishful premises as axiomatic values necessary for the justification of a study of peace issues. We have not found them so. We have attempted to apply the standards of physical science to our thinking, the principal characteristic of which is
not quantification, as is popularly believed, but that, in Whitehead¡¯s words, ¡°¡it ignores all judgments of value; for instance, all esthetic and moral judgments.¡± (1)
The major conclusion of the report was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint.
Fear of conquest and pillage by an enemy can make almost any burden seem acceptable by comparison. War can be used to arouse human passion and patriotic feelings of loyalty to the nation¡¯s leaders. No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected.
Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace, people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. When they become disrespectful of their leaders, they become dangerous. No government has long survived without enemies
and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an indispensable condition for ¡°stabilizing society.¡± These are the report¡¯s exact words:
The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its ¡°legitimacy,¡±
or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility
of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, of reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer¡. It has enabled
societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood. (2)
A NEW DEFINITION OF PEACE
The report then explains that we are approaching a point in history where the old formulas may no longer work. Why? Because it may now be possible to create a world government in which all nations will be disarmed and disciplined by a world army, a condition
which will be called peace. The report says: ¡°The word peace, as we have used it in the following pages, ¡ implies total and general disarmament.¡± (3)
Under that scenario, independent nations will no longer exist and governments will not have the capability to wage war. There could be military action by the world army against renegade political subdivisions, but these would be called peace-keeping operations,
and soldiers would be called peace keepers. No matter how much property is destroyed or how much blood is spilled, the bullets will be ¡°peaceful¡± bullets and the bombs ¨C even atomic bombs, if necessary ¨C will be ¡°peaceful¡± bombs.
The report then raises the question of whether there can ever be a suitable substitute for war. What else could the regional governments use ¨C and what could the world government itself use ¨C to legitimize and perpetuate itself? To provide an answer to
that question was the stated purpose of the study.
The Report from Iron Mountain concludes that there can be no substitute for war unless it possesses three properties. It must (1) be economically wasteful, (2) represent a credible threat of great magnitude, and (3) provide a logical excuse for compulsory
service to the government.
A SOPHISTICATED FORM OF SLAVERY
We will examine ¡ the time-honored use of military institutions to provide anti-social elements with an acceptable role in the social structure. ¡ The current euphemistic clich¨¦s ¨C ¡°juvenile delinquency¡± and ¡°alienation¡± ¨C have had their counterparts
in every age. In earlier days these conditions were dealt with directly by the military without the complications of due process, usually through press gangs or outright enslavement. ¡
Most proposals that address themselves, explicitly or otherwise, to the postwar problem of controlling the socially alienated turn to some variant of the Peace Corps or the so-called Job Corps for a solution. The socially disaffected, the economically unprepared,
the psychologically uncomfortable, the hard-core ¡°delinquents,¡± the incorrigible ¡°subversives,¡± and the rest of the unemployable are seen as somehow transformed by the disciplines of a service modeled on military precedent into more or less dedicated social
service workers. ¡
Another possible surrogate for the control of potential enemies of society is the reintroduction, in some form consistent with modern technology and political processes, of slavery. ¡ It is entirely possible that the development of a sophisticated form of
slavery may be an absolute prerequisite for social control in a world at peace. As a practical matter, conversion of the code of military discipline to a euphemized form of enslavement would entail surprisingly little revision; the logical first step would
be the adoption of some form of ¡°universal¡± military service. (4)
The Report considered ways in which the public could be preoccupied with non-important activities so that it would not have time to participate in political debate or resistance. Recreation, trivial game shows, pornography, and situation comedies could play
an important role, but blood games were considered to be the most promising of all the options. Blood games are competitive events between individuals or teams that are sufficiently violent in nature to enable the spectators to vicariously
work off their frustrations. As a minimum, these events must evoke a passionate team loyalty on the part of the fans and must include the expectation of pain and injury on the part of the players. Even better for their purpose is the spilling of blood and
the possibility of death. The common man has a morbid fascination for violence and blood. Crowds gather to chant ¡°Jump! Jump!¡± at the suicidal figure on a hotel roof. Cars slow to a near stop on the highway to gawk at broken bodies next to a collision.
A schoolyard fight instantly draws a circle of spectators. Boxing matches and football games and hockey games and automobile races are telecast daily, attracting millions of cheering fans who give rapt attention to each moment of danger, each angry blow to
the face, each broken bone, each knockout, each carrying away of the unconscious or possibly dying contestant. In this fashion, their anger at ¡°society¡± is defused and focused, instead, on the opposing team. The emperors of Rome devised the Circuses and
gladiator contests and public executions by wild beasts for precisely that purpose.
Before jumping to the conclusion that such concepts are absurd in modern times, recall that during the 1985 European soccer championship in Belgium, the spectators became so emotionally involved in the contest that a bloody riot broke out in the bleachers
leaving behind 38 dead and more that 400 injured. U.S. News & World Report gives this account:
The root of the trouble: A tribal loyalty to home teams that surpasses an obsession and, say some experts, has become a substitute religion for many. The worst offenders include members of gangs such as Chelsea¡¯s Anti-Personnel Firm, made up of ill-educated
young males who find in soccer rivalry an escape from boredom.
Still, the British do not have a patent on soccer violence. On May 26, eight people were killed and more than 50 injured in Mexico City,¡ a 1964 stadium riot in Lima, Peru, killed more than 300 ¨C and a hotly disputed 1969 match between El Salvador and Honduras
led to a week-long shooting war between the two countries, causing hundreds of casualties.
The U.S. is criticized for the gridiron violence of its favorite sport, football, but outbursts in the bleachers are rare because loyalties are spread among many sports and national pride is not at stake. Said Thomas Tutko, professor of psychology at California¡¯s
San Jose State University: ¡°In these other countries, it used to be their armies. Now it¡¯s their competitive teams that stir passions.¡± (5)
Having considered all the ramifications of blood games, The Report from Iron Mountain concluded that they were not an adequate substitute for war. It is true that violent sports are useful distracters and do, in fact, allow an outlet for boredom and fierce
group loyalty, but their effect on the nation¡¯s psyche could not match the intensity of war hysteria. Until a better alternative could be found, world government would have to be postponed so that nations could continue to wage war.
FINDING A CREDIBLE GLOBAL THREAT
In time of war, most citizens uncomplainingly accept their low quality of life and remain fiercely loyal to their leaders. If a suitable substitute for war is to be found, then it must also elicit that same reaction. Therefore, a new enemy must be found that
threatens the entire world, and the prospects of being overcome by that enemy must be just as terrifying as war itself. The Report is emphatic on that point:
Allegiance requires a cause; a cause requires an enemy. This much is obvious; the critical point is that the enemy that defines the cause must seem genuinely formidable. Roughly speaking, the presumed power of the ¡°enemy¡± sufficient to warrant an individual
sense of allegiance to a society must be proportionate to the size and complexity of the society. Today, of course, that power must be one of unprecedented magnitude and frightfulness. (6)
The first consideration in finding a suitable threat to serve as a global enemy was that it did not have to be real. A real one would be better, of course, but an invented one would work just as well, provided the masses could be convinced it was real. The
public will more readily believe some fictions than others. Credibility would be more important than truth.
Poverty was examined as a potential global enemy but rejected as not fearful enough. Most of the world was already in poverty. Only those who had never experienced poverty would see it as a global threat. For the rest, it was simply a fact of everyday life.
An invasion by aliens from outer space was given serious consideration. The report said that experiments along those lines already may have been tried. Public reaction, however, was not sufficiently predictable, because the threat was not ¡°credible.¡± Here
is what the report had to say:
Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic space
project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the ¡°last best hope of peace,¡± etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by ¡°creatures¡± from other planets or from
outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain ¡°flying saucer¡± incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind.
If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. (7)
This report was released in 1966 when the idea of an alien presence seemed far fetched to the average person. In the ensuing years, however, that perception has changed. A growing segment of the population now believes that intelligent life forms may exist
beyond our planet and could be monitoring our own civilization. Whether that belief is right or wrong is not the issue here. The point is that a dramatic encounter with aliens shown on network television ¨C even if it were to be entirely fabricated by high-tech
computer graphics or laser shows in the sky ¨C could be used to stampede all nations into world government supposedly to defend the Earth from invasion. On the other hand, if the aliens were perceived to have peaceful intent, an alternative scenario would
be to form world government to represent a unified human species speaking with a single voice in some kind of galactic federation. Either scenario would be far more credible today than in 1966.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL-POLLUTION MODEL
The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution¨C in other words, it would be based partly
on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare. Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not to inform. It might even be necessary
to deliberately poison the environment to make the predictions more convincing and to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy, more fearful than any invader from another nation ¨C or even from outer space. The masses would more willingly accept a falling
standard of living, tax increases, and bureaucratic intervention in their lives as simply ¡°the price we must pay to save Mother Earth.¡± A massive battle against death and destruction from global pollution possibly could replace war as justification for social
Did The Report from Iron Mountain really say that? It certainly did ¨C and much more. Here are just a few of the pertinent passages:
When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war ¡ the ¡°alternate enemy¡± must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. It must justify the need for taking and paying a ¡°blood price¡± in wide areas of human concern.
In this respect, the possible substitute enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary
conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life. ¡ It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to
the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social
organization and political power. ¡
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose. ¡ But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be
implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternative enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable,
in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented. (8)
AUTHENTICITY OF THE REPORT
The Report from Iron Mountain states that it was produced by a Special Study Group of fifteen men whose identities were to remain secret and that it was not intended to be made public. One member of the group, however, felt the Report was too important to
be kept under wraps. He was not in disagreement with its conclusions. He merely believed that more people should read it. He delivered his personal copy to Leonard Lewin, a well-known author and columnist who, in turn, negotiated its publication by Dial Press.
It was then reprinted by Dell Publishing.
This was during the Johnson Administration, and the President¡¯s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs was CFR member Walt Rostow. Rostow was quick to announce that the report was a spurious work. Herman Kahn, CFR director of the Hudson Institute,
said it was not authentic. The Washington Post ¨C which was owned and run by CFR member Katharine Graham ¨C called it ¡°a delightful satire.¡± Time magazine, founded by CFR-member Henry Luce, said it was a skillful hoax.
Then, on November 26, 1967, 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, 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 reservations relate only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public. (9)
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.¡±(10)
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.¡± (11)
The reporter who conducted the original interview was embarrassed by the allegation and did further research. Six days later, this is what he reported: 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 ¨C Mr. Lewin.¡± (12)
So, on at least three occasions, Galbraith publicly endorsed the authenticity of the Report but denied that he wrote it. Then who did? Was it Leonard Lewin, after all? In 1967 he said he did not. In 1972 he said that he did. Writing in The New York Times
Book Review Lewin explained: ¡°I wrote the ¡®Report,¡± all of it. ¡ What I intended was simply to pose the issues of war and peace in a provocative way.¡± (13)
But wait! A few years before that, columnist William F. Buckley told the New York Times that he was the author. That statement was undoubtedly made tongue-in-cheek, but who and what are we to believe? Was it written by Herman Kahn, John Kenneth Galbraith,
Dean Rusk, Clare Booth Luce, Leonard Lewin, or William F. Buckley?
In the final analysis, it makes little difference. The important point is that The Report from Iron Mountain, whether written as a think-tank study or a political satire, explains the reality that surrounds us. Regardless of its origin, the concepts presented
in it are now being implemented in almost every detail. All one has to do is hold the Report in one hand and the daily newspaper in the other to realize that every major trend in American life is conforming to the blueprint. So many things that otherwise are
incomprehensible suddenly become clear: foreign aid, wasteful spending, the destruction of American industry, a job corps, gun control, a national police force, the apparent demise of Soviet power, a UN army, disarmament, a world bank, a world money, the surrender
of national independence through treaties, and the ecology hysteria. The Report from Iron Mountain is an accurate summary of the plan that has already created our present. It is now shaping our future.
ENVIRONMENTALISM A SUBSTITUTE FOR WAR
It is beyond the scope of this study to prove that currently accepted predictions of environmental doom are based on exaggerated and fraudulent ¡°scientific studies.¡± But such proof is easily found if one is willing to look at the raw data and the assumptions
upon which the projections are based. More important, however, is the question of why end-of-world scenarios based on phony scientific studies ¨C or no studies at all ¨C are uncritically publicized by the CFR-controlled media; or why radical environmental
groups advocating collectivist doctrine and anti-business programs are lavishly funded by CFR-dominated foundations, banks, and corporations, the very groups that would appear to have the most to lose. The Report from Iron Mountain answers those questions.
As the Report pointed out, truth is not important in these matters. It¡¯s what people can be made to believe that counts. ¡°Credibility¡± is the key, not reality. There is just enough truth in the fact of environmental pollution to make predictions of planetary
doom in the year two-thousand-something seem believable. All that is required is media cooperation and repetition. The plan has apparently worked. People of the industrialized nations have been subjected to a barrage of documentaries, dramas, feature films,
ballads, poems, bumper stickers, posters, marches, speeches, seminars, conferences, and concerts. The result has been phenomenal. Politicians are now elected to office on platforms consisting of nothing more than an expressed concern for the environment and
a promise to clamp down on those nasty industries. No one questions the damage done to the economy or the nation. It makes no difference when the very planet on which we live is sick and dying. Not one in a thousand will question that underlying premise. How
could it be false? Look at all the movie celebrities and rock stars who have joined the movement.
While the followers of the environmental movement are preoccupied with visions of planetary doom, let us see what the leaders are thinking. The first Earth Day was proclaimed on April 22, 1970, at a ¡°Summit¡± meeting in Rio de Janeiro, attended by environmentalists
and politicians from all over the world. A publication widely circulated at that meeting was entitled the Environmental Handbook. The main theme of the book was summarized by a quotation from Princeton Professor Richard A. Falk, a member of the CFR. Falk wrote
that there are four interconnected threats to the planet ¨C wars of mass destruction, overpopulation, pollution, and the depletion of resources. Then he said: ¡°The basis of all four problems is the inadequacy of the sovereign states to manage the affairs
of mankind in the twentieth century.¡± (14)
The Handbook continued the CFR line by asking these rhetorical questions: ¡°Are nation-states actually feasible, now that they have power to destroy each other in a single afternoon?¡ What price would most people be willing to pay for a more durable kind
of human organization ¨C more taxes, giving up national flags, perhaps the sacrifice of some of our hard-won liberties?¡± (15)
In 1989, the CFR-owned Washington Post published an article written by CFR member George Kennan in which he said: ¡°We must prepare instead for ¡ an age where the great enemy is not the Soviet Union, but the rapid deterioration of our planet as a supporting
structure for civilized life.¡± (16)
On March 27, 1990, in the CFR-controlled New York Times, CFR member Michael Oppenheimer wrote: ¡°Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation and overpopulation are the four horsemen of a looming 21st century apocalypse. ¡ as the cold war recedes, the
environment is becoming the No. 1 international security concern.¡± (17)
CFR member, Lester Brown, heads up another think tank called the Worldwatch Institute. In the Institute¡¯s annual report, entitled State of the World 1991, Brown said that ¡°the battle to save the planet will replace the battle over ideology as the organizing
theme of the new world order.¡± (18)
In the official publication of the 1992 Earth Summit, we find this: ¡°The world community now faces together greater risks to our common security through our impacts on the environment than from traditional military conflicts with one another.¡±
How many times does it have to be explained? The environmental movement was created by the CFR. It is a substitute for war that they hope will become the emotional and psychological foundation for world government.
HUMANITY ITSELF IS THE TARGET
The Club of Rome is a group of global planners who annually release end-of-world scenarios based on predictions of overpopulation and famine. Their membership is international, but the American roster includes such well-known CFR members as Jimmy Carter,
Harlan Cleveland, Claiburne Pell, and Sol Linowitz. Their solution to overpopulation? A world government to control birth rates and, if
necessary, euthanasia. That is a gentle word for the deliberate killing of the old, the weak, and of course the uncooperative. Following the same reasoning advanced at Iron Mountain, the Club of Rome has concluded that fear of environmental disaster could
be used as a substitute enemy for the purpose of unifying the masses behind its program. In its 1991 book entitled The First Global Revolution, we find this:
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. ¡ All these dangers are caused by human intervention. ¡ The real enemy, then, is humanity
Collectivist theoreticians have always been fascinated by the possibility of controlling population growth. It excites their imaginations because it is the ultimate bureaucratic plan. If the real enemy is humanity itself, as the Club of Rome says, then humanity
itself must become the target. Fabian Socialist Bertrand Russell expressed it thus:
I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. ¡ War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black
Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. ¡
A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is world government. ¡ It will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilences and famines, it will demand a powerful
international authority. This authority should deal out the world¡¯s food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishments of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population, it should not on that
account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling. (21)
Very compelling, indeed. These quiet-spoken collectivists are not kidding around. For example, one of the most visible ¡°environmentalists¡± and advocate of population control was Jacques Cousteau. Interviewed by the United Nations UNESCO Courier in November
of 1991, Cousteau spelled it out. He said:
What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It is a wonderful idea but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it we may jeopardize the future of our species. It¡¯s terrible to have to say this. World population
must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn¡¯t even say it, but it is just as bad not to say it. (22)
GORBACHEV BECOMES AN ECOLOGY WARRIOR
We can now understand how Mikhail Gorbachev, formerly the leader of one of the most repressive governments the world has known, became head of a new organization called the International Green Cross, which supposedly is dedicated to environmental issues.
Gorbachev has never denounced collectivism, only the label of a particular brand of collectivism called Communism. His real interest is not ecology but world government with himself assured a major position in the collectivist power structure. In a public
appearance in Fulton, Missouri, he praised the Club of Rome, of which he is a member, for its position on population control. Then he said:
One of the worst of the new dangers is ecological. ¡ Today, global climatic shifts; the greenhouse effect; the ¡°ozone hole¡±; acid rain; contamination of the atmosphere, soil and water by industrial and household waste; the destruction of the forests; etc.
all threaten the stability of the planet. (23)
Gorbachev proclaimed that global government was the answer to these threats and that the use of government force was essential. He said: ¡°I believe that the new world order will not be fully realized unless the United Nations and its Security Council create
structures ¡ authorized to impose sanctions and make use of other measures of compulsion.¡± (24)
Here is an arch criminal who fought his way up through the ranks of the Soviet Communist Party, became the prot¨¦g¨¦ of Yuri Andropov, head of the dreaded KGB, was a member of the USSR¡¯s ruling Politburo throughout the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and
who was selected by the Politburo in 1985 as the supreme leader of world Communism. All of this was during one of the Soviet¡¯s most dismal periods of human-rights violations and subversive activities against the free world. Furthermore, he ruled over a nation
with one of the worst possible records of environmental destruction. At no time while he was in power did he ever say or do anything to show concern over planet Earth.
All that is now forgotten. Gorbachev has been transformed by the CFR-dominated media into an ecology warrior. He is calling for world government and telling us that such a government will use environmental issues as justification for sanctions and other ¡°measures
of compulsion.¡± We cannot say that we were not warned.
U.S. BRANDED AS ECOLOGICAL AGGRESSOR
The use of compulsion is an important point in these plans. People in the industrialized nations are not expected to cooperate in their own demise. They will have to be forced. They will not like it when their food is taken for global distribution. They will
not approve when they are taxed by a world authority to finance foreign political projects. They will not voluntarily give up their cars or resettle into smaller houses or communal barracks to satisfy the resource-allocation quotas of a UN agency. Club-of-Rome
member Maurice Strong states the problem:
In effect, the United States is committing environmental aggression against the rest of the world. ¡ At the military level, the United States is the custodian. At the environmental level, the United States is clearly the greatest risk. ¡ One of the worst
problems in the United States is energy prices ¨C they¡¯re too low. ¡
It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class ¡ involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and `convenience¡¯ foods, ownership of motor-vehicles, numerous electric household appliances,
home and work-place air-conditioning ¡ expansive suburban housing ¡ are not sustainable. (25)
Mr. Strong¡¯s remarks were enthusiastically received by world environmental leaders, but they prompted this angry editorial response in the Arizona Republic:
Translated from eco-speak, this means two things: (1) a reduction in the standard of living in Western nations through massive new taxes and regulations, and (2) a wholesale transfer of wealth from industrialized to under-developed countries. The dubious
premise here is that if the U.S. economy could be reduced to, say, the size of Malaysia¡¯s, the world would be a better place. ¡ Most Americans probably would balk at the idea of the U.N. banning automobiles in the U.S. (26)
Who is this Maurice Strong who sees the United States as the environmental aggressor against the world? Does he live in poverty? Does he come from a backward country that is resentful of American prosperity? Does he himself live in modest circumstances, avoiding
consumption in order to preserve our natural resources? None of the above. He is one of the wealthiest men in the world. He lives and travels in great comfort. He is a lavish entertainer. In addition to having great personal wealth derived from the oil industry
in Canada ¨C which he helped nationalize ¨C Maurice Strong was the Secretary-General of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio; head of the 1972 UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm; the first Secretary-General of the UN Environment Program; president of
the World Federation of United Nations; co-chairman of the World Economic Forum; member of the Club of Rome; trustee of the Aspen Institute; and a director of the World Future Society. That is probably more than you wanted to know about this man, but it is
necessary in order to appreciate the importance of what follows.
A PLOT FOR ECONOMIC CRISIS
Maurice Strong believes ¨C or says that he believes ¨C the world¡¯s ecosystems
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)