Deep Politics Forum

Full Version: Hoax or Cloaks? Valid or Squalid? "Report from Iron Mountain"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Ran across a reference to the "Report from Iron Mountain" and thought I ought to verify that it existed; I'd heard of it a long time ago but ...

Goggling finds it, finds some discussion of it, and finds a good deal of debate from both sides... it's a great hoax, or _______.

Slippery like a fish, it seems; what say you all?
Ed, I believe it is a satire written by Leonard Lewin on the Rand Corporation:
Well I know all the government records of Australians are kept on a data base or two of a foreign private company called 'Iron Mountain'. I never remember saying it was okay for the government to farm out our personal information to a overseas private company. Most people would think that government records are kept by the government.

As for "Report from Iron Mountain", I don't know. It seems to be a hoax since Lewin admitted it here. It would not surprise me in the least if it were true though. The RAND corp has it coming to them and it does seem the way they think (See elsewhere here a post about RAND recommending war/invasion as a way to save the economy). There are other neo-con groups that have the same philosophy and were heavily represented in the Bush administrations. On the other hand it does seem to be the way things do work and if it is a government report it does reflect reality in so many ways. Look at the defense budget. Look at the peace budget. No comparison. I've seen the look on some pollies faces when they think there may be an out break of peace and they just don't look at all happy. War is the perfect consumer industry. A perpetual cycle of destruction using up all that ordnance and resources and humans and then mopping up and moving on to do the same thing some where else. I, personally, think the same economic outcomes can be achieved if we take in each others laundry and with much less mess and destruction. John Kenneth Galbraith would have been the sort of person invited to participate in such a committee and he says he was part of it. One of the giveaways to its status as a hoax is the court case Lewin sued for breach of copyright when the Liberty Lobby published it. Liberty Lobby claimed that as a government document it was public domain. Neither side would disclose the terms of settlement all of which leads me to conclude that it was not a government document and was copyrighted to Lewin and a work of fiction (though based on fact :vroam: ).
So, even if it is not true it is definitely a case of art imitating life. :bebored:
Thanks, David and Magda.

All of that which you say I did discover.

Magda's explanation of the spot-on nature of the satire is, well, spot on. There's a lot of that about these days and sometimes satire is indeed good enough to be mistaken for reality. I've even seen a lot of commentary on discussion boards along the lines of "didn't you recognize the satire?!" when you call out someone on their BS, and much of what deep political investigators is then turned immoebiously into an argument.

The reference in question comes generally at about 12:30 into the video "In Lies We Trust" and specifically at about the 13:30 mark in which the development of political substitutes for war and the creation of an enemy you don't have to send tens of divisions against, or nuke, is good for society. An old philosophy, to be sure, but some of it sounded suspiciously similar to four pronouncements in the recent past: a) a 1988 document created by a committee chaired by John Deutch of the CIA and some fellow named Zelikow; b) two pronouncements by Zbigniew Brzezinski (one of which is in PD Scott's book "The Road to 9/11"), and C) the PNAC document that spoke (like at least one other) of "a new Pearl Harbor").

The narrator in the film is Len Horowitz. I haven't yet finished the entire 150-minute video. I stopped right there because, lately, I've wanted to be more assured that I'd done some fact-checking so that when I put forth a source I'm comfortable with its research quality. You can't be calling out others on poor argument or support when your own needs repair.

My question, then, is re-phrased:

Why would someone like Horowitz put forth a quote from a document that some time ago was theorized and then proven to be a hoax?

I'll go back and continue the video and see the extent to which his argument ends up being pivotally based on the "Report From Iron Mountain".
Here is Paul's post about RAND and the desirability to start war for a good economy. You will find the anti-dote for such thinking somewhere in Michael Parenti's work and that of other sane people.
I don't know about Horowitz.
What ever the status of the report as hoax or not it is so true to real life it may as well be true.

Seen the Yes Men?
Interestingly, I found this while bumbling around reading other things:

"It was obviously written from the perspective of the corporatists, allowing for satirical effect. Jonathan Swift would approve."

I admit it, my satire detector is burnt out.

Too many pundits and politcians seriously supporting positions which would be considered satire in a saner age.

Posted Sunday, 30 December 2007 at 08:12 AM