Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility & Desirability of Peace

by Leonard C. Lewin, Victor S. Navasky (Introduction)

This satire from the 1960s makes a convincing claim to be a government document on the destructive effects of the post-Cold War peace on American society and economy and illustrates the fears of a society struggling with its own identity and purpose. New material explores the history of this book.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Satire, Conspiracy Theories, Sociology

176 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1967

About the author

Leonard C. Lewin was an American writer, best known as the author of the bestseller The Report from Iron Mountain (1967). He also wrote Triage (1972), a novel about a covert group dedicated to killing people it considers to be not worth having around.

Lewin graduated from Harvard University. Before becoming a writer, he worked as a labor organizer in New England and in his father's sugar refinery in Indianapolis, Indiana. He was twice married: first to Iris Zinn Lewin and later to poet, playwright and children's book author Eve Merriam. Both marriages ended in divorce. Later, his "longtime companion" was Lorraine Davis.

Father of mystery author Michael Z. Lewin.

Reviews

[Robert Wechsler · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best satires I’ve ever read. Forget the history of it — from a literary point of view, this is a classic. Posing as a secret government report, this parodic satire consistently uses the appropriate language and, despite a few winks and nods, Lewin tries to make the arguments as rational and believable as possible. After all, that is the point: that supposedly neutral, expert committees can draft outrageously immoral reports that hide their immorality behind bureaucratic language.

It amazes me that Lewin is not spoken of in the same breath as Swift. And the bonus is that, although written during the Vietnam War, the Report is still timely. This is an awe-inspiring book. I can't believe I hadn't heard of it (I learned of it from a footnote in Hannah Arendt's On Violence).

Here are three juicy excerpts from the book, to get you wanting more:

“Military spending can be said to furnish the only balance wheel with sufficient inertia to stabilize the advance of [modern industrial] economies. The fact that war is ‘wasteful’ is what enables it to serve this function.”

“Even if [the use of modern methods of mass destruction] is not required to meet the world population crisis, they offer, perhaps paradoxically, the first opportunity in the history of man to halt the regressive genetic effects of natural selection by war.”

And for you (us) literary types, “many artists and writers are now beginning to express concern over the limited creative options they envisage in the warless world they think, or hope, may be soon upon us. They are currently preparing for this possibility by unprecedented experimentation with meaningless forms; their interest in recent years has been increasingly engaged by the abstract pattern, the gratuitous emotion, the random happening, and the unrelated sequence.”

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked up “Iron Mountain” while browsing around in the Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago. Still an impressionable youth (I’ve been a youth most of my life) I was wowed by this seemingly out-of-the-box, off-the wall satire of the prognostication of our possible doom. An excellent satire to read for those who wonder why big powers do the stupid things they do and what possible, if not probable, consequences might result.

It reminded me of an assignment given to us in my English class at West Point years earlier, which was for us to write a satirical essay during the class period similar to "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift, an assignment that I thought was right up my alley. I loved satire and like the kid in the movie "Christmas Story", I wrote it with gusto and licked my lips with gleeful trust that my teacher, a Captain Rasmussen, would hold it up to the class as a model of exactly what a modern satire a la Swift should look like. Who knows, maybe Captain 'Rass' would shoot it over to a friend at the “New York Times” and say keep your eye on this young literary buck after his service to the U.S. Army is completed.

Well, the next week, Captain Rass began the class by pulling out my bright and shining literary attempt and said, "Let me, without naming the cadet who wrote this, tell you that this is not how to write an essay. It’s really awful.” He read through the whole 3-page essay aloud noting every spelling, grammar, and vocabulary mistake. By the time he finished, everyone of my classmates knew it was me, because I had turned as red as a Christmas candle with embarassment and shame. But then he doubled down on the clunker which was my "modest proposal" of subjugating weak countries (we had troops fighting in the jungles of Southeast Asia by this time) by engaging them in wars that they were unable to win but we would keep aflame just to boost the productivity of our industrial capacity, provide jobs, hence income, and provide a plethora of opportunities for military promotions and honors. If they surrendered because they couldn't take it anymore then we would incorporate them as our territories, enslave the populations and start the next cycle of subjugation and the ultimate conquest of Central and South America and even Canada. Captain Rass made it obvious to all in the class that he was outraged and that they should be too.

What happened to satire, over-the-top to make a point, tongue in cheek, sarcasm, irony? I'll never know, for that was the end of it. I never discussed it with him or anyone else, hoping that people would just forget about it. (One classmate came up behind me as we left the class and said, "That was you who wrote that essay, wasn't it, Lemons?" I ignored the interrogator.) And Captain Rass? He gave me a B for the semester; but I never got my corrected essay returned to me while the others did, which means it went into a file--one of the many dints in the romantic armor that sent me to such a school in the first place.

Anyway, I haven't re-read that wonderful little "Report from Iron Mountain" and I haven't re-read "Modest Proposal" --too post-traumatic for me. But I intend to, just as my fellow Goodreaders should, too.

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book towards the end of high school in one of the early editions which maintained it represented the conclusions of a federal government think tank posed with the question of how to maintain the power structure in the event that a stable peace was accomplished. Although the cold war with the Warsaw Pact was still going on and despite the war in Indochina, the USA and USSR had been improving relations and futurologists did often raise the issue, so the claim seemed plausible.

The content of the report was certainly the kind of thing you'd expect from government experts speaking frankly. Government authority, the tax structure, popular acquiescence to glaring economic inequities and foreign interventions had been predicated since at least the time of the Korean war to a continuous state of military preparedness. Such control as the federal government maintained over the economy had been substantially exercised through a military form of Keynsianism whereby radical fiscal intervention was practiced by Republican and Democratic administrations alike, year after year, ostensibly justified as being for defense.

Reading the book seriously, I found its economic position and authorial style to be reminiscent of John Kenneth Galbraith and long suspected that he contributed to its writing. This may, in fact, be the case as he appears to have been in on the joke, but Leonard C. Lewin, author of A Treasury of American Political Humor, was in fact the primary author.

[Mike Cheng · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite what has been said or reported about this monograph since it was published (or leaked), it does not seem like a spoof, satire, or hoax. Instead it reads like (what I imagine) how a think-tank memorandum would look. The premise is that war, aside from its purported objectives, also serves other crucial economic, political, and sociological functions; in the absence of war a new surrogate / threat (such as an impending global environmental disaster) must be fabricated to take its place in order for governments to remain in power. Not nearly as nefarious as portrayed in G. Edward Griffin’s Creature From Jekyll Island, but still a fun conspiratorial read for those who are suspicious of a secret branch of government pulling the strings.

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just finished reading a library copy of this compelling book and ordered a reference copy for my home library. I don’t know if this thought provoking work is a total hoax, as some believe, a satire as some have said, or a truthful report, but regardless, it is a necessary read in our current times just, as it was in the sixties.

[David Schwan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A satire from the early 1960's that some still embrace today as a real US government report. In the beginning the satire is apparent, later on, harder to detect, as the text seems to match official reports.

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read The Report from Iron Mountain (RFIM) after reading The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin (I highly recommend!) since he referenced RFIM on numerous occasions in the last few chapters.

Whether RFIM is an authentic government study or a hoax I don't think even matters. RFIM goes a long way towards explaining the reality that surrounds us.

As G. Edward Griffin says of the report, it "is an accurate summary of the plan that has already created our present. It is now creating our future."

[Robert Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN IN 1967 AND WAS BANNED FROM THE PUBLIC. THE AUTHOR CLAIMED, AS A RESULT OF FEAR FOR HIS LIFE, THAT THE BOOK WAS A SATIRE. THE BOOK IS VERY WELL WRITTEN BY A MAN ''ON THE INSIDE'' AND EVERYTHING THAT HE TALKED ABOUT HAS COME TO FRUITION. THE PREMIS OF HIS STORY IS HOW AND WHY THE ''ELITE'' PROPULGATE WARS TO CREATE JOBS AND MUCH WEALTH FOR THE WORLDS MAJOR INDUSTRIALISTS......JUST AS GEN. EISENHOUR SPOKE OF THE ''MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX''.

[Ian Hamilton · Rating 3 out of 5]

After learning about the report, its impetus, contextual information, etc. via this year’s Ghosts of Iron Mountain, I had to read the Iron Mountain source document itself. Upon its release in the late 60s, it makes sense that it was a stunner and that people questioned its authenticity. Nothing therein blew me away; it’s actually rather broad and dull, especially in the context of 2025. If one reads Ghosts, there’s really no need to explore this one unless you’re a total nerd like me!

[Michael Walters · Rating 4 out of 5]

Such a fun book. My conclusion is that this book is exactly what it says it is. A product of a secret government panel. Answering the big "what ifs" that powerful minds with access to unlimited resources asked back in the 60's.

[Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very cold and chilling companion book to “The Creature from Jekyll Island.” In fact, this book provides the basis for why the Central Bank and Federal Reserve were set up. War is a necessary human evil, and still today, a very profitable one at that. This book was written in 1967 as a ‘think tank’ study, and is just as chillingly relevant today as when it was written!

At the center of the problem of war is the conundrum that while all people desire peace, we also are never sure that if we disarm ourselves, would we then be open (vulnerable) to attack from someone else. However, as the book outlines, there is but so much of the war machine with its necessary controls, that can go on indefinitely, i.e., how much innovation can be created before someone finally decides to utilize it for his/her own (or national) gain? Hence, the aforementioned conundrum.

The book looks at alternatives to war. Politically, for example, social (and cultural) allegiance must be just as strong as it was in the time of the war machine. The authors point out that in the time of the war machine, people are less inclined to be(come) dissidents, anarchists, delinquents, as there is a militarized social control against that behavior. Moreover, those energies are ‘best’ utilized in defending one’s nation against other nation of dissidents, anarchist, and/or delinquents, real or imagined, which is another scary point. Nevertheless, whatever socio/political/economic/cultural substitution(s) come about for peace, any must still be accepted by the people, within and ultimately, beyond one’s own nation. However, with people’s right and choice to choose, any alternative(s) to what people believe already provides them with stability, will be questionable, if not also short-lived.

The book reads very coldly; logically. Yet and understandably, the book has to take the partisanship and emotion out in order for the reader to be able to clearly see what the argument for, and against war really is. It is not a simple matter of disarmament; even in what arms each nation has, there still has to be an entity to verify what each nation has, which in turn, diminishes the overall objective to peace, as the weapons are still there, ready to use. The book also entertains the dystopian alternatives for peace, but in those scenarios, whose peace is it, really? Who makes the decision as to who lives, who dies, who’s a slave and who’s not? Who decides what is art, and what is not – the book suggests that art in the time of war is used for war purposes, and it is, propaganda wise, and for recruitment for war. However, art is motivated for other purposes, beyond war, i.e., entertainment. Yet, even that, is to show other nations one’s own art being superior to others; feeding the war (propaganda) machine. Still, people have to agree and accept this too, if even dystopia is to survive.

Whatever one’s position is on war or peace, the book explores the purpose of war, the benefit of war, but also the costs of war, along with alternatives. All require someone making the decision for good or ill, what is best for one’s nation and ‘imposes’ or manipulates the same for other nations … yet and again, people and other nations still can decide whether or not one’s decision can and/or will work for them, respectively. So humanity can find a way to end war as we know it, but we also have to work just as diligently, and crucially, honestly toward peace.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not sure whether I would prefer Report from Iron Mountain to be a hoax or not. If it is a hoax it is one of the greatest pieces of stony-faced, bone-dry satire ever written. If it is not (on its leak apparently LBJ "hit the roof" and ordered its suppression for all time), it would indict a government that is willing to perpetuate war as a form of peace - bringing to mind Orwell's famous doublethink: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." However, regardless of the report's authenticity the argument presented is savagely sound and perfectly pitched bureaucratic claptrap.

From page 99:

Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternative enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. 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. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.

And page 103:

Like its political function, the motivational function of war requires the existence of a genuinely menacing social enemy. The principal difference is that for purposes of motivating basic allegiance, as distinct from accepting political authority, 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 [emphasis added] would have to carry the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life; the construction of an up-to-date mythological or religious structure for this purpose would present difficulties in our era, but must certainly be considered.

[Dan Zarfati · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was very curious about this text, a lot of important writer have been pointing out the importance of this text and the likelihood that this is an authentic document, to back this up they claim that a lot of what you find here have been turning up in a crescendo since the seventies and it is more true than ever. It has been a discovery journey for me reading some of this texts, such as this, or "silent weapons for a quiet war", or the revelations of Dr. john day. It does appear that there is a lot of social engineering going on since a long time, really interesting read, short but very interesting.

[Wayne Reske · Rating 5 out of 5]

To the young, the naïve, and the morally upright it is a cold shock and the tone is entirely consistent with Machiavellian politics as taught in colleges all over the country. To say it is satire is to excuse it and deny the whole sweep of human history. The truth is often ugly.

The copy I'd read in 1970 had no cover because it had been withdrawn from public distribution - I've seen similarly supressed, coverless books as well. I used it as a pillow on my last night in Vietnam.

https://twentiethman.wordpress.com/20...

[Eddie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This I can say, the author did a splendid job of writing something that sounded like it came from a political entity. The nearly unreadable nature of the wording, the redundancy of thought. In the end, it kind of felt like a lot of talking and not really saying as much as you think might be said. The conclusions are pretty outrageous, but given the way they were written, it feels plausible that a governmental study group would come to such a disturbing conclusion (possibly because it's easy to see overtones of the 'solution' happening today).

[Anonymous4999]

This report is full of fallacies and faulty premises, not to mention that it naturally hasn't taken into account every social, political and scientific/technological developments after 1967.
Even though Report from Iron Mountain was likely supposed to be satirical in the same vein as Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, there are still doubts about its authenticity and authorship due to being strongly subject to Poe's Law.
A very disturbing read, read it at your own precaution.

[John Crippen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read solely to see what Ghosts of Iron Mountain: The Hoax of the Century, Its Enduring Impact, and What It Reveals About America Today was all about.

[Sally · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating and thought provoking.
Proven to be a hoax, but this doesn't detract from it.

[Alicia Joy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a riveting read that goes into great background as to why their will never be world peace.

[Shaun · Rating 2 out of 5]

Political satire or not, it reads like a Sears catalogue. It is boring and difficult to wrap one’s mind around. This is not Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” RIP in Leonard C. Lewin.

[Ray · Rating 5 out of 5]

I never knew this study had been conducted, but I knew all along that war was good for the economy and population control. Read if you want to really understand why we will never have peace.

[Mike Gonzalez · Rating 5 out of 5]

23

[Max Nova · Rating 1 out of 5]

"Report From Iron Mountain" is a book whose history is much more interesting than the book itself. Originally proclaimed as a "top secret" 1960's report that had been leaked to the public, Leonard Lewin ultimately claimed authorship and revealed the whole thing as a satirical hoax. Or did he...?

Turns out that famous economist/diplomat John Kenneth Galbraith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ke...) claimed he was on the committee that compiled the top secret report. Writing under his pseudonym Herschel McLandress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hersche...) (the plot thickens!), he penned an editorial in the Washington Post called "News of War and Peace You're Not Ready For" (http://archives.chicagotribune.com/19...) in which he claimed that the document was authentic. He later recanted and stated, "Nothing shakes my conviction that it was written by either Dean Rusk or Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce." Wait what? The full saga is detailed on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rep...).

But in the end, this document has to be a hoax. Its grand pronouncements, sloppy argumentation, and lack of evidence clearly mark it as amateur work. The Kindle edition is also horrifically riddled with typos.

The book itself does make some provocative claims (which it doesn't deign to back up) that are worth thinking about. The most interesting is the anti-Clausewitzian idea that:

It is an incorrect assumption that war, as an institution, is subordinate to the social systems it is believed to serve... Few social cliches are so unquestioningly accepted as the notion that war is an extension of diplomacy (or of politics, or of the pursuit of economic objectives)... War itself is the basic social system

I also found the section on using environmental threats to unify humanity as uncannily relevant to our political situation today.

Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require “alternate enemies,” some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. 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.

My full review and highlights at http://books.max-nova.com/report-from-iron-mountain/

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fascinating book. It came out, professing to be a top secret, suppressed government report, during a new presidency. It was so controversial, it even gained the attention of that presidency, who admitted no knowledge of it's genuineness. It is still unknown. This edition confesses it to be a fake. However, when it was released, for many years it had a single publisher (the same publisher as the current edition). But as an unclaimed government report, they were unable to gain any kind of copyright for it. Thus other publishers multiplied in time, taking profits from the current publisher. For the conspiracy theorists out there, it is easy to account for the admission of the forgery as an attempt (and a successful attempt) to secure a copyright, and crush the competition. If it was a forgery, then they could claim authorship, and thus claim copyright. Interesting. I don't know if we will ever know.

What is interesting is not the historical veracity of this book, but that its proposal so many years ago is almost identical to that pursued by modern liberal administrations and advocated by men like former Vice President Al Gore.

The book considers the possibility that worldwide peace might suddenly break out in the world. If it did, governments would find themselves in the difficult situation of having to justify their existence. Modern literature proffers examples such scenarios where the entire world is divided between a few governments, who pretend to be at war with each other to justify their rule over their people. This book considers various "threats" that could justify governments, including the threat of alien invasion. In the end, the book concludes that the most likely candidate for such a justifier would be the threat of ecological disaster (a.k.a., human contamination of the environment and ecosystems). In fact, Al Gore has proposed just that, that military spending needs to be channeled into green programs and saving the environment. Pollution and human-caused global warming are the new threat that necessitates the people's support of the government.

Whatever the origins of this book, its continued historical significance will lie in its being an early blueprint of modern liberal agendas.

[Yifan (Evan) Xu (Hsu) · Rating 5 out of 5]

War is a necessary part of human society.
　　
　　In human history, wars tended to be healthy to human species and society. Operation of our society such as economic, social and governmental activities and sustainability of human community resort to the requirements and preparation of war without substitutes.
　　
　　The reason is that war provides many essential functions to our society. It justifies governmental regime; It becomes an essential component of modern economy stabilizing and controlling fluctuations; it stimulates technological innovations; it inspires creativity in art; it strengthens inner coherence of a society and minimizes destructive anti-social tendencies; and it balances our human population with nature whenever food shortage triggers war.
　　
　　But the existence of nuclear weapons made perpetual peace a likely scenario for us. Then how do we protect and maintain human welfare and civilization in such circumstance?
　　
　　Effective substitutes of war must be provided, despite that they are enormously difficult to achieve. The followings are recommended substitutes of war.
　　
　　Economically, gigantic welfare system is needed to improve human living conditions; a costly space program attracts both funds and publicity is needed to operate for years; and a long-term disarmament program shall be installed internationally.
　　
　　Politically, an international police force is needed to maintain world order; extraterrestrial menance shall be established and make known to the public; global environmental pollution must take place.
　　
　　Sociologically, a mandatory peace corps that requires two years of every young man in our society shall be implemented; alternative option is modern slavery system that is compatible with western moral values and complicated by modern technology. These two options can be combined into a universal military service that serves both purposes.
　　
　　Ecologically, an eugenic program that controls human population is needed.
　　
　　In case of contingencies, governments should also be prepared. Two scenariso are given as substitutes faile and war system is continued or substitutes succeed and a viable peace is achieved. Government policies shall prepared for both with maximum options.

[Scot León Pfuntner · Rating 2 out of 5]

Apparently the god of war, Mars, is still worshiped in modern times by our government. Blood sacrifices are made to appease him and obtain economic, ecological, sociological, cultural, and political gains. These blood sacrifices must be offered to him as resource waste on the scale of 10% of the national GDP or the stability of our nation is at risk of stoking his wrath. Oh, and by the way, we are considered part of those resources to be wasted as a means of population control. The elephant in the reading room for this report is that the government assigns value to types of individuals, some are worth more than others, and evidently there is a surplus of us always in contention at our govt's discretion. Losers.

This is what happens when evolution and secular humanism are elevated to heights of a national religion. The elitists of society believe they have to control everything because they are gods, and no one else will. We are just sheep to be led to slaughter by them and they have no qualms about claiming God's creation as their own to manage, waste, and ultimately malign and destroy.

[Micah · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you're looking for good -- but dry (partially what makes it so good, in this case) -- satire, this book may be for you. Basically, it's a fake government report put out in the height of Hippie-dom that questions whether peace (here defined as the absence of active warfare) is a valid state for the world and furthermore argues that world peace would bring a host of other problems much more dangerous and destructive than war itself. It caused quite a ruckus when it was first published, but has lost some of its bite in the Bushie years... shocking, no? :)

Sometime my AP Language students read a chapter from this text in our mini-unit on satire and irony.

[Cwn_annwn_13 · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a leaked document from a secret government funded think tank study group that many say is a hoax. Personally I think its probably for real. Various foundation/government think tanks have been caught saying and doing things just as bad, if not worse, than whats in The Report From Iron Mountain so I don't see why this would be unbelievable to anyone with half a clue as to how the world really operates. As far as reading it, well its horribly boring. You can get overviews in various "conspiracy" related books so I don't know if this is necessary reading.

[Dreepa · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not the biggest page turner in the world but the book is very interesting.
It is under 100% so well worth the read.
Does the US want Peace?
Does being at war serve a purpose beyond the actual fighting?
This book takes a detailed look at what war (and the 'war machine') is for.

If 'peace' were declared we might need something to take war's place? How about 'Terrorists'? How about 'Global Warming'? This book came out in the 1960s and is very interesting.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

This work captures the kind of "mad world" irony typical of Dr. Strangelove. The presumption is that war is not only man's natural state, but that the abolition of war would cause incalculable damage and social disequilibrium. The book war apparently written very much as a "spoof," and received as a serious commentary at the time by at least some members of the chattering classes.

It has its place, and the sustained tone of irony is itself no small feat.