Iron Mountain

I’ve been doing a lot of research lately on the internet. I’ve also been experiencing a bit of synchronicity lately. In the course of my research I came across a reference to a document called the “Iron Mountain Report”. So I googled it, found it and book marked it for later perusal.

Well, this afternoon I walked out of D&D, looked up after taking a sip of coffee and saw on the side of a truck plastered right in front of me: www.IronMountain.com. An advertisement for some Data company I think. The context of the situation was irrelevant. I decided to move up in priority my reading of the Iron Mountain Report.

What is the "Iron Mountain" report of the 1960's? Well it's either a hoax or an authentic (and disturbing) report on the viability of a world peace model versus world war model which was offered to the U.S. government and may or may not have had significant influence.

The report can be found here: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/iron_mountain_full.htm

For some general background information have a look at this Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Report_From_Iron_Mountain



In this age of information one must not be blind to the art of "dis-information". It is often difficult or damn near impossible to ascertain the real from unreal, the truth from lies, and the fact from fiction. So to my mind it is prudent to examine all the information available and rely on one's personal acumen to determine to the best of one's ability the most practical model of truth, based on one's relative understanding of how things relate.

Whether or not the Iron Mountain Report is a hoax or not, one thing seems apparent to me. Its contents caught the attention and admiration of those running the show. The mentality within the report can be seen as the norm in practice. Whether or not it is a hoax, an honest attempt to objectively investigate a world peace model, or simply propaganda it is in my opinion disturbing and dangerous. Not because it was written or published, but that documents like this exist "under the radar" so to speak without much of a chance for the public to weigh in.

Perception is reality. One’s man’s rubbish is another's treasure. One man’s hoax is another’s belief. So without debating its authenticity one has to admit that to some extent the document has some intrinsic power (It's motivated me to write on it and fueled debate for countless others). I believe this document is at best extremely short-sided. Or to be more blunt, extremely ignorant!

Maybe it was a sign of the times. Spiritual consciousness was only in its infancy when it was written so maybe some slack should be cut for the group’s lack of understanding. For their inability to take in to account the inherent human ability to adapt and transcend social and economic difficulties. Especially those difficulties created by inherently flawed social and economic systems perpetrated by the same government entities that introduced them in the first place and now seemingly want to investigate changing things, but somehow can't fathom putting the genie back in the box! Blind should not lead the blind. Spiritually inept people should not try to solve problems created by spiritual ineptitude.

If you want to think outside of the box to discover a solution you need to step out of the box!

Here is a quote and an example of what the view from inside the box looks like:

"It is uncertain, at this time, whether peace will ever be possible. It is far more questionable, by the objective standard of continued social survival rather than that of emotional pacifism, that it would be desirable even if it were demonstrably attainable. The war system, for all its subjective repugnance to important sections of "public opinion" has demonstrated its effectiveness since the beginning of recorded history; it has provided the basis for the development of many impressively durable civilizations, including that which is dominant today."

Antiquated thought patterns perpetuating itself. This group which self declaringly operated from
"1) military-style objectivity;
2) avoidance of preconceived value assumptions;
3) inclusion of all relevant areas of theory and data."
failed miserably on all three accounts.

There is only one sentence in the entire document which shows even a glimpse of wisdom and it reads: "It by no means stretches the imagination to visualize comparable developments which may compromise the efficacy of war as, for example, an economic controller or as an organizer of social allegiance." However, it is extremely disappointing that they were not the least bit able to "stretch their imagination to visualize" the fact the difficulties in progression to peace that they foresaw require an existential approach. Then again maybe that wasn't their intent.

Below is an excerpt explaining what they believe are integral contributions of war to society and therefore what must be fulfilled by any replacement Peace system. Bear in mind that it was their conclusion that the probability of the Peace alternative being successful was too low at their time and quite possibly for all time. (My comments in green)


THE FUNCTIONS OF WAR

The visible, military function of war requires no elucidation; it is not only obvious but also irrelevant to a transition to the condition of peace, in which it will by definition be superfluous. It is also subsidiary in social significance to the implied, nonmilitary functions of war; those critical to transition can be summarized in five principal groupings.

1. ECONOMIC. 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.

This premise is flawed on two accounts:
1) It assumes the "complex modern economy" works and is worth keeping intact. Evidence to the contrary is self evident today, but even back then it was apparent that the economic system was flawed and had an expiration date (at least to those who created/allowed it to be created).
(Don't even get me started)>http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/18696/48/

2) It assumes or denies the possibility of an Economy which is inherently stable and doesn't require national controlling mechanisms.


2. POLITICAL. 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, by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood. No modern political ruling group has successfully controlled its constituency after failing to sustain the continuing credibility of an external threat of war.

I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence so my first reaction is not even to bother commenting on this, but just in case I later publish this rant under the title: "Getting a Clue- For Dummies" I'll say this:
1) If war is the foundation of government, F*ck government!!!!
2) If you have an innate need to submit to authority get into S&M! At least get some fun out of it!
3) Class distinctions aren't necessary anymore than racism, sexism or any other "ism"!
4) "subordination of the citizen..." Well, I agree with this one. I wake up every morning earnestly contemplating how I can subordinate myself to the state comprised of greedy, morally corrupt, ignorant psychotic maniacs of the world. It makes me happy. NOT!
5) The last sentence of the paragraph is Gold. If you are not happy with the "ruling group", simply Reject War!

3. SOCIOLOGICAL. War, through the medium of military institutions, has uniquely served societies, throughout the course of known history, as an indispensible controller of dangerous social dissidence and destructive antisocial tendencies. As the most formidable of threats to life itself, and as the only one susceptible to mitigation by social organization alone, it has played another equally fundamental role: the war system has provided the machinery through which the motivational forces governing human behavior have been translated into binding social allegiance. It has thus ensured the degree of social cohesion necessary to the viability of nations. No other institution, or groups of institutions, in modern societies, has successfully served these functions.

So they are saying:
1)The only solution for dealing with those of us who are disgruntled enough to act out in violence is to make them slaves in the military machine and every once in awhile provide the opportunity for them to kill themselves and their counterparts in other nations. It couldn't be that the crazy world the war mongers create and manipulate is inherently responsible for these "dissidents' " malcontent! Nope, war is the answer, not the problem. Oh, and please don't look up the meaning of Orwellian Doublespeak.

Side note: 1b.) Although not apparent from this excerpt, one problem the group has with conventional war is that it is inefficient with regard to evolutionary growth since the "genetically strong" are sacrificed. In other words, they paradoxically believe that it is beneficial to the species to have these people in existence, but not in society!

2) "motivational forces governing human behavior have been translated into binding social allegiance"- In other words, we trick you into behaving the way we want by creating false patriotism.
3) "ensured the degree of social cohesion necessary to the viability of nations" - In other words, they have been very good so far at controlling the cattle and really can't be bothered with putting that in jeopardy or seeking an alternative. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
4) "No other institution,....has successfully served these functions" In other words, these functions are necessary, no discussion. They choose not to explore alternatives, no discussion. They are right. Screw you, Screw you, SCREW YOU!

How about instead of war we just expand the mixed martial art competitions? If you want to hurt someone then go play with others that want to hurt someone. Have Fun, enjoy, have release. And sell a hell of a lot of tickets too.


4. ECOLOGICAL. War has been the principal evolutionary device for maintaining a satisfactory ecological balance between gross human population and supplies available for its survival. It is unique to the human species.

1) What is also unique to the human species is rationality!

2) The basic urge for procreation is:

a. the instinctual want/need of survival and it is greatly dependent on fear. ie. "we need as many people as possible for the species to survive"

b. the need to express unconditional love. Greatly dependent on fear of others, we have an inability to unconditionally love everyone and because this creates a blockage for a necessary human outlet we create something that doesn't cause fear and provides an outlet for unconditional love, babies. ie. "If we could love all unconditionally we would have more of an outlet and less of a need to create new ones.

c. to a lesser extent ego. ie. Me vs. You, Us vs. Them. More often than not at this point in evolution the ego causes more harm than good. Create a society which doesn't bolster the defensive actions of ego and you create a place in which the ego will rest and not impose its influence unnecessarily and negatively on society. ie. If one already understands their interconnectedness to others one is less likely to feel the need to have children to "carry on our name" or "continue our bloodline" etc.

3) "war has been the principal evolutionary device" "principal evolutionary device"?!?! Are they saying amoebas battled other amoebas and as a result became viruses. Fish warred with other fish to transmute to lizards. Neanderthal threw sticks at Homo Erectus and this spawned Homo Sapien. Did I miss the discovery of fossil remains showing the evolution of man into missile? This is absurd! Evolution is supposed to be marked by transitions which foster efficiency in a species. Did you guys even consider education and condoms? Maybe something voluntary?


In Summary: If you remove fear from people’s lives and soften the ego's grip by fostering the truth of oneness there will be room for rational planning. We could attack the root cause of overpopulation. Not immorally wipe out the effect of that cause! Better to prevent the disease than treat it.


5. CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC. War-orientation has determined the basic standards of value in the creative arts, and has provided the fundamental motivational source of scientific and technological progress. The concepts that the arts express values independent of their own forms and that the successful pursuit of knowledge has intrinsic social value have long been accepted in modern societies; the development of the arts and sciences during this period has been corollary to the parallel development of weaponry.

Faulty Logic, pure and simple.
Premise: "A" happens and at the same time "B" happens.
Conclusion: Therefore if "A" is missing, "B" won't happen.
A 13 year old can see through this one.

Yes, technological progress in weaponry necessitates technological progress in general. And it's obvious that if money is being poured into weaponry then general technological progress will benefit. But it would benefit all that much more if the money wasn't diverted to weaponry, but instead directly into benign technology.

The idea that war somehow is a required impetus for Art is insane. Artists will depict what they experience. If they experience war they will be heavily influenced by war. If they experience something positive well..... say no more.

I think perhaps that the writers of this Iron Mountain Report were simply addicted to violent art. That would most simply explain their conclusions. Or maybe they were Illuminati. Or maybe they were mentally deficient. Or maybe it was propaganda. Or maybe it was smoke and mirrors. Or maybe it was a hoax.

What do you think?