"Substitute scamdemics for war and the same "Iron Mountain" authority over people is put in play...substitutes or enhancements to the war system must be credible and must be accepted by the vast majority of the population.

RFIM states that 'new political machinery would be needed at once" and "the threat will have to be invented.'"

 'The Report From Iron Mountain': Revelation of the Method for Warmongering and Tyranny or a Satirical Tome?

by Russ Winter

(abridged by henrymakow.com) 

Dial Press in 1967 published an unauthored book titled "The Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace" that the publisher put forth as a report from a government-appointed panel. 

The publisher claims it's the product of a special and secret study group of 15 men whose identities were to remain secret. The year it was published, it became a New York Times bestseller.

A 79-page pdf of "The Report from Iron Mountain" (RFIM) is available via Wikispooks.

The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society and that even if lasting peace "could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it."

 War was a part of the economy. Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy.

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.

RFIM sets up the false dialectic of nations versus world government. It's implies that the national system is highly dependent on war, and that the cure is one-world government. This is invalid on its face.

Examples of "Iron Mountain" logic and revelation of method:

War is the defining element of any nation's existence vis-a-vis any other nation. Without the war system no government has ever been able to acquiesce in its legitimacy or right to rule society.

The possibility of war provides the external necessity without which no nation can remain in power. The basic authority of the modern state over it's people resides in it's war power."

War is a necessary economic waste. It operates outside the normal supply and demand system. It creates artificial demand. Defense spending is a simulator of national metabolism. War is progressive for research and development of weapons systems spurring technological advances.

WINTERWATCH TAKEAWAY NO.1

Substitute scamdemics for war and the same "Iron Mountain" authority over people is put in play. In the RFIM scheme, substitutes or enhancements to the war system must be credible and must be accepted by the vast majority of the population.

RFIM states that "new political machinery would be needed at once" and "the threat will have to be invented."

Interpretation: Keep war system until all substitutes (such as scamdemics) are in place and running so that justification for autocratic kakistocracy rule has continuity.

A member of the panel, an unknown professor at a college in the Midwest, decided to release the report to the public.

On Nov. 26, 1967, RFIM was reviewed in the book section of the Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, which was the pen name for John Kenneth Galbraith, a Harvard economics professor and U.S. Ambassador to India John Kenneth Galbraith during President Kennedy's administration.

Galbraith, who also had been a member of the CFR, said that he knew firsthand of RFIM'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.

G. Edward Griffin wrote in his book "Creature from Jekyll Island":

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 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- 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.

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."

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.

  JEWISH ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THIS REPORT 

Three men -- Victor Navasky, Richard Lingeman and Leonard C. Lewin -- allege they lied to create a political parody as a leaked government report supposedly delivered to Mr. Lewin by one of the 15 members of a special government group.

Having read "Iron Mountain," I really don't see how these echo-chamber leftists would have had the motivation, insight and ability to concoct this book. It's a non-starter for me, but decide for yourselves.

But in 1972, after the book gained significant traction for over half a decade in the patriot community, Mr. Lewin suddenly materialized to announced that he was the real author of the report; and furthermore, it was written anomalously as a "satire."

Lewin, the Jewish self-proclaimed "author," denied that RFIM was a real government report; and therefore, was not in the public domain and insisted on copyright protection. Rather than allow free and open discussion, his posse then proceeded to devote all of their energy to exposing his own alleged work as a hoax and suppress the book, with nary a positive mention of the prophetic revelation of the method messages contained in RFIM.

The copyright was ultimately enforced after a lingering legal fight with the Liberty Lobby, which was represented by Mark Lane, who wrote "Rush to Judgment," a book that challenged the Warren Commission's account of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Victor Navasky was the editor and later the publisher of the leftist rag The Nation. The Jewish Navasky was also a supporter of alleged Soviet spy Alger Hiss, having published vociferous defenses of the man's innocence in The Nation.

This self-admitted, takes-one-to-know-one hoaxster and liar later wrote a script called "The Experts Speak: The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation."In 2008, he wrote a neocon Zionist puff piece called "Mission Accomplished! (or How We Won the War in Iraq)."

In 2005, Navasky was named chairman of the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR). This appointment engendered some controversy. Critics on the political right saw this as hiding that -- despite the magazine's purported lack of political bias -- a "major left-wing polemicist is calling the shots at CJR without any mention on the masthead."

In 2008, Victor Navasky asserted his involvement in creating RFIM and named Leonard Lewin as the main writer with "input" from the aforementioned economist Galbraith, two editors of the satirical magazine Monocle (Marvin Kitman and Richard Lingeman) and himself.

 Richard Lingeman in his own biography page states he was an intel agent. In the Army Counter-Intelligence Corps, wrote Lingeman, he found himself "plunked in an appalling hotbed of McCarthyism.

"By luck of the draw, I ended up in Japan, semi-undercover and spying on ultra-nationalist groups."

Lingeman wrote "Drugs from A to Z," a dictionary of slang and illicit substances published by McGraw-Hill. He then went on to become executive editor of The Nation.

Simon & Schuster, a unit of Viacom, Inc., has its own suppression group of electronic detectives, who aggressively patrol the Internet for copyright violations of its publications. They were helped by a tipster, who simply called himself "nobody," an anonymous messenger, who sent emails alerting company lawyers about the appearance of pirated copies and the locations of RFIM texts.

 WINTERWATCH TAKEAWAY #2

Given that the owners of the copyright want to make a buck, the book today is not entirely suppressed and can be bought on Amazon for a reasonable price - but with the hoax disclaimer. The latest edition comes with a 20-page forward by Leonard Lewin and Victor Navasky. They laboriously drum out their reasoning as to why RFIM should be dismissed as a fraud.

Doth protest too much, in my opinion, and in an odd manner, especially when one considers that the book is so over the target.

The whole sistema has piled on to the hoax narrative. The book was even listed in the "Guinness Book of World Records" as the "Most Successful Literary Hoax."

Regardless, and much like the "Protocols of Zion," the important point is that RFIM, whether written as an amoral think-tank study or 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. No wonder the sistema has tried to steer the narrative, memory hole and deep-six the book.

----

Related- Report from Iron Mountain - Blueprint for Tyranny  (Video)

----------------------------

A Better Economy is Possible but we Need to Reimagine Capitalism to Do It

by Klaus Schwab

(Excerpt by henrymakow.com) 

 ...The same economic system that created so much prosperity in the golden age of American capitalism in the 1950s and 1960s is now creating inequality and climate change.

 And the same political system that enabled our global progress and democracy after World War II now contributes to societal discord and discontent. Each was well-intended but had unintended negative consequences.

Yet there are reasons to believe that a better economic system is possible--and that it could be just around the corner. As the initial shock of the COVID crisis receded, we saw a glimpse of what is possible, when stakeholders act for the public good and the well-being of all, instead of just a few.

Mere months after the pandemic began, work was started on more than 200 potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Many of them resulted from a multinational collaboration involving both the public and private sectors, like AstraZeneca's collaboration with Oxford University in the U.K. Companies like Unilever approached the World Economic Forum's COVID Action Platform with offers to supply hygiene products, ventilators or simply logistical help. There was also strong cooperation between governments and business, to secure the funds needed for vaccine development and distribution.

Looking forward, such virtuous instincts can become a feature of our economic systems rather than a rare exception. Rather than chasing short-term profits or narrow self-interest, companies could pursue the well-being of all people and the entire planet. This does not require a 180-degree turn: corporations don't have to stop pursuing profits for their shareholders. They only need to shift to a longer-term perspective on their organization and its mission, looking beyond the next quarter or fiscal year to the next decade and generation. Some are already doing so.

Maersk, a Danish shipping giant, for example, divested its oil and gas divisions, and is focusing on providing sustainable shipping solutions. Reacting to increasing pressure from climate activists and younger generations, BlackRock asked the CEOs of companies it invested in to more explicitly pursue environmental, social and governance goals. These decisions may hurt short-term profits for itself as shareholder, but it maximizes long-term returns in a world where people increasingly revolt against a system they perceive as unfair.

Building such a virtuous economic system is not a utopian ideal. Most people, including business leaders, investors and community leaders, have a similar attitude about their role in the world and the lives of others. Most people want to do good, and believe that doing so will ultimately benefit everyone, including a company's shareholders. But what's been missing in recent decades is a clear compass to guide those in leading positions in our society and economy.

(Klaus Schwab, human benefactor, and visionary)

For the past 30 to 50 years, the neoliberalist ideology has increasingly prevailed in large parts of the world. This approach centers on the notion that the market knows best, that the "business of business is business," and that government should refrain from setting clear rules for the functioning of markets. Those dogmatic beliefs have proved wrong. But fortunately, we are not destined to follow them.

In September, my belief that a more virtuous capitalist system is possible was reaffirmed by an initiative of the forum's International Business Council led by Brian Moynihan of Bank of America. They released the Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics: nonfinancial metrics and disclosures that will be added (on a voluntary basis) to companies' annual reporting in the next two to three years, making it possible to measure their progress over time.

Doing so requires answering questions such as: What is the gender pay gap in company X? How many people of diverse backgrounds were hired and promoted? What progress has the company made toward reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions? How much did the company pay in taxes globally and per jurisdiction? And what did the company do to hire and train employees?

The initial idea that companies should try and optimize for more than just short-term profits came around 2016 from a handful of business leaders who wanted the private sector to play a role in achieving the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Individuals such as Moynihan, Frans van Houten of Philips and Indra Nooyi, then at PepsiCo, enlisted many of their peers in this commitment.

In the following years, pressure from social- and climate-justice movements such as Fridays for Future (inspired by Greta Thunberg), #MeToo and Black Lives Matter added to the sense of urgency. Business needed to do more than make a well-intentioned but vague pledge. By the summer of 2019, Moynihan and others put forth the idea of creating a tool to measure themselves. By the fall, the work was under way, and the Big Four consulting firms--Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC--signed on to define the metrics.

By January 2020, a first consultation draft of the metrics was ready, and enthusiastically received. 

Then the COVID-19 disaster struck. Would the project survive this global crisis? And, more broadly, would the whole idea of stakeholder capitalism die in the COVID crisis? The concept had been embraced by the U.S. Business Roundtable--a major Washington-based lobbying group of U.S. firms-- just months earlier. Now, it was feared, that nascent commitment to stakeholder capitalism could make way for a more realistic approach in companies: save what you can, even if it means laying off employees or cutting off suppliers.

But if anything, the enthusiasm of the companies working on the project increased. "There was a sense that this was really important, especially in the crisis," said Maha Eltobgy, who headed the initiative for the World Economic Forum. In the fall of 2020, the metrics were finalized and publicly released.

Of course, we remain far from our goal of achieving a better global economic system for all. The Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics are just one of many initiatives that are needed to get to such an outcome--and time is quickly running out. But in a world where pessimism is increasingly the order of the day, and narrow and short-term self-interest is still alluring, initiatives like these demonstrate that a more inclusive and sustainable model is possible. It is up to us to replicate and follow such an approach. When that happens, those who follow the path of stakeholder capitalism will soon find that it leads to a more inclusive and sustainable economy for all.

This essay was adapted from his book Stakeholder Capitalism, to be published in the U.S. by Wiley in January 2021

------

Thanks, John B!

Related- Davos Launches Reset on Back of COVID

NOTE---

 8 predictions for the world in 2030 from the World Economic Forum

1.  You'll own NOTHING and you'll be happy; whatever you "want" (if deemed necessary by your overlords) -- you will rent and it will e delivered by drone

 2. The US won't be the world's leading superpower; a handful of countries will dominate (pre-selected by the overlords decades in advance) 

3. You won't die waiting for an organ donor; we (whichever satanists they are) won't transplant organs; we'll print new ones instead 

4. You will eat much less (real) meat (because they destroyed all the good producers); an occasional treat not a staple for the good of the environment (they don't like cow farts) and our health (Lies) 

5. A billion people will be displaced by climate change; we'll have to do a better job at welcoming and integrating refugees (creative destruction; planned chaos) 

6. Polluters will have to pay to emit carbon dioxide (guess who will keep all these extorted funds?) There will be a global price on carbon.  This will help make fossil fuels history.  Pay to Pay - THEY own everything and rent it out to you out of your pathetic UBI (universal basic income) 

7.  You could be preparing to go to Mars (or more like Timbuktu because we can't get through Van Allen radiation belt). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsY7eEQX9-w  

8. Western values will have been tested (aka destroyed) to the breaking point.  Checks and balances that underpin or democracies must not be forgotten  (note: what democracy? you'll be AI vaccinated DNA slaves in 24/7 surveilled stack & pack zombie high rises to either serve lucifer or be eliminated - latter being better)