Published On: Wed, Nov 15th, 2017

A report on the “Report from Iron Mountain” – introduction

The “Report from Iron Mountain (on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace)” is legendary – for those who have heard of it, that is. That the very origins of the work are shrouded in mystery assist its status, although they are surely down to the cunning of its author, Leonard C Lewin, who claimed that the bulk of the book was never meant for publication, but had been leaked to him by a person who had served on a secret US government commission. At one time – and this should serve as a clue as to the nature of the work – the book was a New York Times best seller, but now it seems to be obscure and very seldom referred to by the mainstream, so-called, “truth movement”, despite the assertion by the Wiki contributor who wrote the following: “The document is a favorite among conspiracy theorists, who reject the statement made in 1972 by satirist Leonard Lewin that the book was a spoof and that he was its author.” It could be that the post-911 “truth movement” just accepts the book as a hoax, like it has been told to – or the book, more simply, has escaped notice. Maybe it is significant by its absence from the new news-media environment which likes to discuss Globalism as the nemesis of nationalism because the operatives who people that arena are naturally averse to anything tarred with the “conspiracy” brush. On the other hand, maybe mainstream alternative media understands it is not to touch the book with a barge pole, because of how it demonstrates that the geopolitical environment in which we live today was being envisioned a few years before 1967, when the book was published.

The opinion at FBEL is that the “Report from Iron Mountain” is definitely not a hoax, but was actually probably written to manage expectation about the direction of society; to condition its audience, exactly as H.G. Wells’ “The Shape of Things to Come” was a work for establishing normalcy bias in engineered society where personal freedoms were to become restricted in the name of necessary realisation of political science – and progress; (find FBEL analysis here). The comparison with Wells’ work is appropriate on another particular point, because the “Report from Iron Mountain” is an ultra-aggressive version which takes over where “The Rights of Man” leaves off; (FBEL analysis here). Both, then, can be identified as coming from the camp that wants to rule the world because it thinks it is entitled to do it – and for that ends has a socialist utopia that fits humanity like a glove, or a shackle. Of course, the reference is to the Masonic Great Work; the insane insistence on the Hermetic prerogative whereby those gifted with Gnosis should oversee the masses in the task of beautifying the cosmos. All, of course, pretend nonsense coming from deep psychological disturbance, and the original lie that man could be as a god. Psychotic delusion is the religion intended for the New World Order.

From our previous reading, we’d naturally expect that the Special Study Group, that is alleged by Lewin to have collaborated on the production of a report to which the book’s title refers, is made up of university professors, political theorists, economists, lawyers, scientists, industrialists – evidently all of the potential technocratic class, and not one of them a Pascal who recognised that humanity’s ills are all due to an incapacity to sit quietly at home. One is tempted to conclude that this forum was a figment of Lewin’s imagination, but it needn’t necessarily be. As Lewin relates, the commission met first at Iron Mountain, New York – hence the name – and then would meet periodically over the duration of a number of years, once a month, at different hotels, universities or private estates. One cannot help but be reminded of the Bilderberg Group; perhaps the “Report from Iron Mountain” gives us a valuable insight as far as that policy steering committee goes. In turn, does the reality of the Bilderberg Group inform us of the authenticity of the Iron Mountain study group? It is plausible that a “think tank” was formed to produce material for conditioning – the hoax being that it was supposed to be secret, which then becomes a fantastic marketing tool.

The Special Study Group that first met at Iron Mountain sometime in the early 1960s had been tasked at looking at

…the problems that would confront the United States if when a condition of ‘permanent peace’ should arrive, and to draft a program for dealing with this contingency.

There is so much to take from this mission statement. A world without war is one in which there is no conflicting national interests; it is the World Pax, or the One World Government. Featuring in the detail of this outcome in the “Report” is the welfare state and other indicators of the same socialist utopia that was the vision of H.G. Wells in his various Luciferian manifestos. This is important because “peace” has a different meaning in such a context than the reader might have had in mind. In this respect, peace is not about one party doing what it wants on one side of a border, while on the other, another party, with conflicting interests – and both managing to find enough mutual benefits to live peaceably side by side. Peace, in this respect, is submission to a system that its proponents want to impose on others without reference to any other system. The reader might notice that critics of Islam say this about that religion. This is not a simple topic. What we’re actually seeing is how the socialist utopia shares the same Mystery Babylon roots – which form branches within all the main religions.

This is not the only thread that brings us to Masonry. Notice that the problems of the World Pax are a burden for the United States alone. This is confirmation that the “Report” is Masonic literature, for here it is talking about the secret destiny of the United States – which is to be the vehicle for the execution of the Masonic Great Work, or a return of the masses to servitude under the Babylonian potentate, but on a world scale. Indeed, the findings of the Iron Mountain commission, which include “a modern sophisticated form of slavery”, serve as an unmistakable thumb print that identifies the culprits behind the production. These findings will be analysed in greater depth in later articles or papers. It suffices at the moment to show how the conclusions of the “Report” are based on false assumptions, or rather, an assertion about the nature of the societies of the world that isn’t necessarily true, but only constitutes a step in logic that the Iron Mountain Special Study Group absolutely requires in order to arrive at its conclusions. the “Report” maintains that societies of men are dependent on war. While this is not a truism, it might have come true in the 20th century only as a consequence of the Masonic philosophy of American Exceptionalism. What the “Report” suggests is that global peace comes from war waged by America.

So, the Iron Mountain Special Study Group predicates the outcome of a socialist World State on the supposed fact that the world runs on warfare systems. This means that everything is about, or geared towards war. According to the authors of the “Report”, this notion forms the pattern for transition from a world invested in war systems, to one that doesn’t need to be. In other words, to successfully enact peace, the war systems must be replaced by substitutions that perform the same function in society.  The reader of FBEL may not be surprised to learn that welfare, for instance, is recommended to replicate the financial waste of war. Furthermore, clinical eugenics is to replace population control through warfare; an emphasis on ecological preservation is to replicate a restriction to individual wealth that was a consequence of how a war system quashed the energy of an economy (Agenda 21, or Agenda 2030); a phantom menace (replacing the threat of other nation states) is required to make the world population sufficiently fearful to acquiesce to authoritarian government,; the “Report” also allows us to understand the meaning of the book “The Hunger Games”: a blood sacrifice is required as a substitute expunging ritual to relieve people of their supposed “individual aggressive impulses”  that would otherwise find an outlet through war.

There is much more to examine (please await further publications), but we’ll limit ourselves for now to an example that shows that the war system pretext for a world government as asserted in the “Report from Iron Mountain” is specious. In the area of its study that the commission groups under the headline “culture”, all Art, believe it or not, is said to be inspired by war. Now, in terminology that wouldn’t be allowed in a formal critique, this is complete pants. The Greeks invented Art, and they were concerned about Man, and what he was capable of, and how he was capable through his physical form. War, like cookery, is merely one of a number of human activities. It is not the be all and end all. It was the Romans who turned Art into a triumphal expression of adeptness at war – which, being somewhat more barbarous than the Greeks, they were more interested in. Indeed, and this is somewhat controversial, the Romans, who could only duplicate what the Greeks invented, should be considered as the first step down into the black waters of the dark ages. Unfortunately, it is from this dead-end-trail tradition where the Iron Mountain special study group evidently found the association between war and Art. But this won’t have been an accident; the Iron Mountain think-tank have picked from history the application of art that supports their scheme – and their pick tells us all about them. In the great struggle that spans human history, Greece is forever identified with Republic, while Rome is associated with Empire. Greece is Renaissance and individualism, while Rome is Medievalism and collectivism.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.