A Blueprint for the Meticulous Engineering of a New World Order

The Report from Iron Mountain Perfectly Outlines the Subjugation of Humanity to the Whims of the Elite.

In the annals of controversial literature that touch upon the mechanisms of governance and power, few documents are as provocative and enigmatic as the Report from Iron Mountain. Despite its profound implications on understanding the nexus of war, peace, and societal control, it remains a topic that is underreported and shrouded in a mist of ambiguity. The report, alleged to be the product of a secretive assembly of intellectuals and policymakers, ostensibly lays bare the unspoken truths of statecraft and the deliberate perpetuation of war as an instrument of social order.

This document, which surfaced during a period of considerable geopolitical tension, posits a grim tableau of governance where perpetual conflict is not an unfortunate byproduct of political failure but a foundation for national stability and hierarchy.

Unpacking the layers of the report's narrative presents a challenge: distinguishing between calculated prognostication and fiction, between the sinister realities of political machinations and the fanciful creations of a satirical mind. Yet, the very existence of the debate – the whispers of its accuracy and the echoes of its influence – signals the necessity to examine it more closely. The content, implications, and the ensuing discourse surrounding the Iron Mountain Report offer a disturbing vision of what might lie behind the curtain of global affairs, a scenario where war is more than a tragedy – it is a tool.

This article is free. And so are most. However, your support as a paid subscriber enables me to continue producing high-quality, independent journalism on these important topics. As an ad-free platform, I rely on the support of my readers to keep this content accessible and free from external influence.

In 1966, a cohort of 15 self-proclaimed environmental specialists convened at 'Iron Mountain', a location known for its massive, semi-clandestine subterranean government complex in upstate New York. Their objective was to devise a method for managing population and consolidating authority in a world increasingly averse to conflict.

The report they produced has since surfaced, though its authenticity is hotly debated, often dismissed as an intricate ruse—a common tactic of refutation. Despite this, the report, real or fabricated, has shown an uncanny foresight into the trajectory of the subsequent four decades.

This document outlines a potential strategy for the global dominance of populations through the specter of ecological collapse, attributing imminent disaster to anthropogenic climate change.

At its core, the report acknowledges warfare as the foundational structure of civilization, asserting,

“War itself is the basic social system, within which other secondary modes of social organization conflict or conspire. It is the system which has governed most human societies of record, as it is today.”

The report contends, “The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers.” It further warns that any lack of resolve by those in power might precipitate “actual disestablishment of military institutions,” with 'catastrophic' consequences.

Upon its emergence, coinciding with the Vietnam War's escalation, the report ignited public uproar. It detailed mechanisms for maintaining control over the populace of an advanced nation without resorting to overt warfare that would interrupt their everyday lives. One controversial method proposed was: “A possible surrogate for the control of potential enemies of society is the reintroduction, in some form consistent with modern technology and political process, of slavery. The development of a sophisticated form of slavery may be an absolute prerequisite for social control.”

Contemporary society exhibits echoes of this 'sophisticated form of slavery.' Consider a system that binds people with immense personal and familial debt, exacerbates the wealth divide, and incessantly wages wars under the guise of combating ‘terrorism.’ This system also perpetuates the gradual stripping away of individual liberties, increasingly empowers the military and police forces, engages in widespread surveillance, and exhibits a disturbing tolerance for political deception and misconduct without repercussion. Furthermore, it fosters a media landscape that often seems to echo the voice of the ruling establishment.

The document asserts that the propensity for war does not arise from actual threats; rather, 'threats against the national interest are usually created or accelerated to meet the changing needs of the war system.'

“The significance of war is paramount. It shapes and dictates international relations. It upholds national sovereignty and the very concept of the nation-state. The war system is integral to maintaining domestic order. Without it, no government has historically managed to secure acquiescence in its legitimacy, or right to rule its society.”

A government's dominion over its citizens “resides in its war powers,” extending even to local enforcement, which deals with “internal enemies in a military manner.” The concept of military service is imbued with a sense of national duty “that must be maintained for its own sake.”

War also serves an ecological function – it’s meant to “reduce the consuming population to a level consistent with the survival of the species,” yet mass destruction is too crude, and nuclear arms too indiscriminate, potentially eliminating the physically robust who are vital to preserve. With advances in medicine and science, disease can no longer regulate populations in balance with the capabilities of agriculture. Consequently, alternative methods must be sought to manage “undesirable genetic traits.”

For an effective political alternative to war, there needs to be “alternate enemies... of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration.” It is likely that “such a threat will have to be invented.”

The report contains several controversial opinions, including the idea that “Poverty is necessary and desirable,” reflecting an Orwellian tactic to ensure perpetual power disparities. In this vein, a new form of slavery is seen as a means of maintaining societal order.

The governing body must “optimize the number of warfare deaths, never letting a good opportunity go to waste.” The report also suggests that “Intensified environmental pollution,” such as in air and water, could be tolerated, and in the absence of war, there may be a need for a rigorous eugenics program and a shift to “universal test-tube procreation.”

The committee dismissed the notion of individual liberty in favor of allegiance to a ruling elite—a mindset purportedly woven into the fabric of global governance since each nation’s founding, including America. It's implied that the nation’s founders designed this system to allow its proprietors to manage it efficiently and to reinforce their rule through conflict.

The Report's ultimate stance is that: “The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable government. It supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority.” This premise is considered crucial for maintaining social hierarchies and the dominance of state power by the elite, backed by “residual war powers.”

When envisioning policy measures for a peaceful world, the members express “as strongly as we can, that the war system cannot responsibly be allowed to disappear, absent a credible alternative to ensure social stability and societal control.” Only with such an alternative should any transition be entertained.

Nevertheless, the report cautions: “Such solutions, if indeed they exist, will not be arrived at without a revolutionary revision of the modes of thought heretofore considered appropriate. Some observers....believe” the challenges are insurmountable within our era, and that the cost of peace may be, simply, too steep. The possibility and even the desirability of peace remain in question, “whether peace will ever be possible. It is far more questionable that it would be desirable even if it were demonstrably attainable.”

The notion that “The war system has demonstrated its effectiveness since the beginning of recorded history” may strike many as morally abhorrent. Yet, the prospect of transitioning to a peaceful state represents a significant departure from the historical norm, venturing “into the unknown” with inherent uncertainties. Stability under a regime of lasting peace is, in the eyes of the report, unproven and speculative.

The report's propositions included the creation of a “permanent WAR/PEACE Research Agency,” endowed with an unrestricted budget and the autonomy to deploy these resources as seen fit. Its structure would parallel the US National Security Council, answering “responsible solely to the President” or his appointed representatives, and operating covertly to fulfill a dual mandate. Its first task would be to ascertain the likelihood of achieving a durable peace, utilizing all available data and research. The second task would entail ongoing “War Research” aimed at preserving “the continuing viability of the war system,” so long as its existence is deemed necessary for societal cohesion and endurance.

Given the intricate and systematic approach outlined in the report, one might question whether the contents of the Iron Mountain Report are not merely a prophecy but a prescriptive strategy actively guiding current and future geopolitical maneuvers. It's plausible to consider that our global narrative is being steered by an elite cabal, whose influence shapes international relations and whose interests are served by the maintenance of a perpetual state of conflict or the looming specter of war.

The events that have unfolded over the years since the report's conception may not be mere coincidences but rather the fruits of a deliberate, overarching scheme aimed at consolidating power through the calculated orchestration of war and peace. As the Report from Iron Mountain allegedly indicated decades ago, this could very well be a component of a grand design intended for the comprehensive domination of society—a blueprint for the ongoing, meticulous engineering of a world order where humanity is subject to the whims of a powerful few.

The true power to shape this world has always lain in your hands. Choose well!

If you found the information provided insightful, and believe that independent journalism should be supported, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for more in-depth insights on various topics.

If you don’t want to commit to a paid subscription but still wish to support me, you can donate an amount you choose here. Most of my content is free to read, so it is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

If you do not wish to make a contribution of any kind, please leave at least a like. It costs you nothing and helps others see this post. Thank You :)