Rating: 
Summary: satire at its best
Review: As the forward says this book is a hoax. But in what sense is this book a hoax? Certainly war does play a role in the maintenance of social order. People are said to need heros; war provides an outlet for heroism. The justifacation of war on economic grounds--as put forward in this book, however, is falacious-- if it were true that war is 'good' economically speaking, why not save yourself the trouble and trash your house with a baseball bat, so you will be forced to fix you house later, "boosting the housing sector?" In fact, war impoverishes the many at the expense of the few-- which again is a means of social control(though not metioned by the book). This report circulated among groups labled as "white supremists" and "right-wing extremists" in the '90's as well as "left-wing radicals" in the '60's. It should be read with an open mind. When this book first came out there was enough truth in it to hit a raw nerve. It still makes an interesting read today.
Rating: 
Summary: A Hoax in Bureaucratese
Review: First, let's make it clear that this book is a hoax. Victor Navasky, publisher of The Nation, let the cat out of the bag in the June 12, 1995, issue of his publication. Iron Mountain was a brilliant satire, the more so because the war system hypothesis remains an interesting one, even though the book is pure fabrication. According to Navasky, the citations are authentic except for two or three. More important, as he points out, we still have a Cold War economy despite the end of the Cold War--making the Report from Iron Mountain still relevant. Last, I find it ironic that five years after Navasky's confession, Jim Marrs can seriously cite, in his Rule by Secrecy, Iron Mountain as a case study without a hint that it is fake. Report from Irony Mountain perhaps?
In any case, the so-called report deserves five stars, not only as a brilliant work of fiction, but perhaps also as nonfiction in a backhanded way. It's worth looking through the second-hand bookstores for a copy--and perhaps some publisher might consider doing a reprint.
Rating:
Summary: A nightmare for paranoids (is it REALLY fiction?).
Review: I originally encountered this book over 25 years ago (maybe earlier). I have continually referred it to particular friends over the interevening years. I just recently told a political affairs "junkie" about it. This report fascinated me way back then and has stayed with me through the years. I was rapt from start to finish and defy anyone to willingly abandon it in the middle. The answer to the question: "Is peace desirable?" would seem obvious. If there were any answer other than yes, what would be the justification? The end(?) of the cold war did not bring a breakout of peace. This exposition anticipated that peace could conceivably bring as many or more problems than war. Sound bizaare? The report makes it VERY plausible. Sweet dreams!
Rating:
Summary: A nightmare for paranoids (is it REALLY fiction?).
Review: I originally encountered this book over 25 years ago (maybe earlier). I have continually referred it to particular friends over the interevening years. I just recently told a political affairs "junkie" about it. This report fascinated me way back then and has stayed with me through the years. I was rapt from start to finish and defy anyone to willingly abandon it in the middle. The answer to the question: "Is peace desirable?" would seem obvious. If there were any answer other than yes, what would be the justification? The end(?) of the cold war did not bring a breakout of peace. This exposition anticipated that peace could conceivably bring as many or more problems than war. Sound bizaare? The report makes it VERY plausible. Sweet dreams!
Rating:
Summary: The hoax (yes, HOAX!) that won't die.
Review: It is not simply the fact that this (admittedly leftist) satire on the military-industrial complex is written in painful bureaucrat-ese, but that after it was exposed as such (and even listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "Most Successful Literary Hoax"), there are those in the Far Right who embrace it as reality! Do a websearch on this book's title, and you'll be amazed at the number of conspiracy theorists who use this book as a reference in their writings as if it were Gospel. I've even come across people who insist that the author was some type of front who was set up to discredit the book's "factual content".
I'm certain that Leonard C. Lewin wanted to write something he would be remembered for, but I doubt that this is how he wanted it.
Rating:
Summary: it was LEAKED: LATER the later spin was that it was a "hoax"
Review: It's very real.
The foreword is only by Leonard Lewin. He is not the author. It was first published by the Dial Press, NY.
It is not a novel, but rather a report written by the members of a 15-man "Special Study Group" commissioned, they believe, by some governmental entity which wished to remain unknown. The report is addressed to that unknown requestor, the work of the group having been completed after about two and a half years of labor. The members of the group knew that they had been carefully screened and selected for the task, that they represented the highest levels of scholarship, experience, and expertise in a wide range of the physical and social sciences, that they possessed years of service in business, government, and academe, and that among them they had access to a vast proportion of the country's resources in the social and physical science fields. The Special Study Group was clearly possessed of outstanding establishmentarian credentials.
The book comes to us because one of the members of the group, identified only as John Doe, approached Mr. Lewin several months after the completed report had been submitted, and sought his help in getting the report commercially published, since he ("Doe") felt that the public had a right to be apprised of its existence, even though the group had previously agreed to keep it secret. Mr. Lewin, having agreed to serve in that capacity, wrote a foreword spelling out these circumstances and passing on what little he learned from "Doe" concerning the study's origin and its participants.
He further revealed his personal reaction to the conclusions of the report, conclusions which he said he does not share.
In Griffin's The Creature From Jekyll Island, he makes reference to The Report From Iron Mountain. I encourage you to read and absorb his interpretation, which has an emphasis somewhat different than this review. Griffin supplies evidence of the authenticity of the Report by quoting the written assertion to that effect by Harvard's establishmentarian professor John Kenneth Galbraith, who admitted to participating in the study in at least a consultative capacity.
I would also like to borrow from Griffin's conclusions concerning the study's importance. He asks why this study differs from any other think tank effort, and then writes (p. 525): "The answer is that this one was commissioned and executed, not by ivory tower dreamers and theoreticians, but by people who are in charge. It is the brainchild of the CFR....So many things that otherwise are incomprehensible suddenly become perfectly clear: foreign aid, wasteful spending, the destruction of American industry, a job corps, gun control, a national police force, the apparent demise of Soviet power, a UN army, disarmament, world bank, a world money, the surrender of national independence through treaties,..."
Rating:
Summary: first read this in college, had to read again.
Review: still a very good satire on "what if" from the past. reads very quickly.
Rating:
Summary: first read this in college, had to read again.
Review: still a very good satire on "what if" from the past. reads very quickly.
Rating:
Summary: first read this in college, had to read again.
Review: still a very good satire on "what if" from the past. reads very quickly.
Rating: 
Summary: Be Prepared if Peace Breaks Out
Review: The Foreword tells of a "Special Study Group" that produced a Secret Report. It concluded that "peace is not in the best interest of a stable society". The space program, the anti-ballistic missile, the fallout-shelter programs were all designed to spend vast sums of tax dollars. The purpose of this book is to explain "aspects of American policy otherwise incomprehensible by the ordinary standards of common sense", and warn about the schemes of the ruling class. But not all readers will appreciate this subtle satire. Does the "high uric acid" symbolize something wrong (p.xxii)?Section 1 says their mission was to study the effects of peace on society. Section 2 tells of problems in converting war factories to peaceful use (p.22). Section 3 discusses the problems of disarmament: economic reinvestment, or "the non-military functions of war in modern societies" (p.25). Section 4 points out that plans for peace assume wars support the social systems. War resolves conflicts of interest between nations or classes (p.28). Since conflicts of interest are eternal, so is war. Peace is what breaks out between wars (p.29). Section 5 discusses the function of war: it is used by and for a ruling class to defend "the national interest". Its non-military function is to subject the economy to complete and arbitrary central control (p.35). It stabilizes the economy of industrial societies by creating an artificial demand, and protects against another depression. The civilian standard of living rose during WW II. A military force is needed both for a foreign policy, and to assure the legitimacy and existence of a government (p.39); it can absorb the unemployed. One item in this satire is to link restrictions on grain production in America to "famine in Asia"! Another is to claim a lower speed limit would save 40,000 lives a year (p.46)! But the funniest item is the claim that the Department of Defense is stockpiling birds (p.51)! "War is the principal motivational force for the development of science at every level." From poison gas to atomic bombs. Section 6 says substitutes for the functions of war must be "wasteful", and operate free of the supply-demand system. All depressions occurred during low military spending (p.58). Alternatives to military spending are inadequate because they cost too little (p.60). The uncontrolled and arbitrary spending on space research make it a good alternative. The end of war would mean the end of national sovereignty. There would be no effective external pressure for a nation to organize itself politically. How to employ the unemployed? The WPA and CCC provide examples. An expanded prison system ("slavery"?) holds the unemployed. Do we need a "menacing social enemy" to serve a function? Would we need to re-create the Spanish Inquisition or witch hunts for "national security" (p.71)? Should procreation be limited to artificial insemination and laboratory embryos to control population levels (p.73)? Would birth control pills be put into water and essential foods? An excess population is war material (p.74). Would scientific progress cease in a peaceful world (p.78)? Section 7 has a Summary and Conclusions. War is not a means to an end but the purpose of modern societies. War has five non-military functions: economic, political, sociological, ecological, and cultural-scientific. They discuss the criteria, models, and evaluation of substitutes for the functions of war. "Genuine total peace ... would be destabilizing" (pp.90-91) Our government should plan for the possibility of a general peace because of its dangers to society (p.94). Section 8 has their recommendations. The best satire is the last sentence in the book (p.101). But the book seems to use a lot of words to say very little. It wasn't written by a George Orwell or Aldous Huxley.
|
