April 26, 2008

THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN, Proof Of A Environmentalist Movement Take Over To Bring U.S. Under World Government

This is taken from Chapter 24 of The Creature from Jekyll Island © 2002 by G. Edward Griffin

The substance of these stratagems [for the weakening of the United States so it
can be more easily merged into a global government based on the model of
collectivism] can be traced to a think-tank study released in 1966 called the Report
from Iron Mountain. 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 self-proclaimed purpose of the study was to explore various ways to
“stabilize society.” Praiseworthy as that may sound, a reading of the Report soon
reveals that the word society is used synonymously with the word government.
Furthermore, the word stabilize is used as meaning to preserve and to perpetuate. It is
clear from the start that the nature of the study was to analyze the different ways a
government can perpetuate itself in power, ways to control its citizens and prevent
them from rebelling.
It was stated at the beginning of the Report that morality was not an issue. The
study did not address questions of right or wrong; nor did it deal with such concepts as
freedom or human rights. Ideology was not an issue, nor patriotism, nor religious
precepts. Its sole concern was how to perpetuate the existing government.
The Report said:
Previous studies have taken the desirability of peace, the importance of human
life, the superiority of democratic institutions, the greatest “good” for the greatest
number, the “dignity” of the individual, the desirability of maximum health and
longevity, and other such wishful premises as axiomatic values necessary for the
justification of a study of peace issues. We have not found them so. We have
attempted to apply the standards of physical science to our thinking, the principal
characteristic of which is not quantification, as is popularly believed, but that, in
Whitehead's words, “…it ignores all judgments of value; for instance, all esthetic and
moral judgments.”1 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. Fear of conquest and pillage by an enemy can make almost any
burden seem acceptable by comparison. War can be used to arouse human passion and
patriotic feelings of loyalty to the nation's leaders. No amount of sacrifice in the name
of victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace,
people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. When
they become disrespectful of their leaders, they become dangerous. No government
has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an
indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.” These are the report's exact words:
The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as
independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable
political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain
acquiescence in its “legitimacy,” or right to rule its society. The possibility of war
provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long
remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the
failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by
the forces of private interest, of reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative
elements. The organization of society for the possibility of war is its principal political
stabilizer…. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it
has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state by virtue of the residual war
powers inherent in the concept of nationhood.2

The report then explains that we are approaching a point in history where the
old formulas may no longer work. Why? Because it may now be possible to create a
world government in which all nations will be disarmed and disciplined by a world
army, a condition which will be called peace. The report says: “The word peace, as we
have used it in the following pages, ... implies total and general disarmament.”3 Under
that scenario, independent nations will no longer exist and governments will not have
the capability to wage war. There could be military action by the world army against
renegade political subdivisions, but these would be called peace-keeping operations,
and soldiers would be called peace keepers. No matter how much property is
destroyed or how much blood is spilled, the bullets will be “peaceful” bullets and the
bombs – even atomic bombs, if necessary – will be “peaceful” bombs.
The report then raises the question of whether there can ever be a suitable
substitute for war. What else could the regional governments use – and what could the
world government itself use – to legitimize and perpetuate itself? To provide an
answer to that question was the stated purpose of the study.
The Report from Iron Mountain concludes that there can be no substitute for
war unless it possesses three properties. It must (1) be economically wasteful, (2)
represent a credible threat of great magnitude, and (3) provide a logical excuse for
compulsory service to the government.

On the subject of compulsory service, the Report explains that one of the
advantages of standing armies is that they provide a place for the government to put
antisocial and dissident elements of society. In the absence of war, these forced-labor
battalions would be told they are fighting poverty or cleaning up the planet or
bolstering the economy or serving the common good in some other fashion. Every
teenager would be required to serve – especially during those years in which young
people are most rebellious against authority. Older people, too, would be drafted as a
means of working off tax payments and fines. Dissidents would face heavy fines for
“hate crimes” and politically incorrect attitudes so, eventually, they would all be in the
forced-labor battalions. The Report says:
We will examine … the time-honored use of military institutions to provide
anti-social elements with an acceptable role in the social structure. … The current
euphemistic clichés – “juvenile delinquency” and “alienation” – have had their
counterparts in every age. In earlier days these conditions were dealt with directly by
the military without the complications of due process, usually through press gangs or
outright enslavement. …
Most proposals that address themselves, explicitly or otherwise, to the postwar
problem of controlling the socially alienated turn to some variant of the Peace Corps
or the so-called Job Corps for a solution. The socially disaffected, the economically
unprepared, the psychologically uncomfortable, the hard-core “delinquents,” the
incorrigible “subversives,” and the rest of the unemployable are seen as somehow
transformed by the disciplines of a service modeled on military precedent into more
or less dedicated social service workers. …
Another possible surrogate for the control of potential enemies of society is the
reintroduction, in some form consistent with modern technology and political
processes, of slavery. … It is entirely possible that the development of a sophisticated
form of slavery may be an absolute prerequisite for social control in a world at peace.
As a practical matter, conversion of the code of military discipline to a euphemized
form of enslavement would entail surprisingly little revision; the logical first step
would be the adoption of some form of “universal” military service.4

The Report considered ways in which the public could be preoccupied with
non-important activities so that it would not have time to participate in political debate
or resistance. Recreation, trivial game shows, pornography, and situation comedies
could play an important role, but blood games were considered to be the most
promising of all the options. Blood games are competitive events between individuals
or teams that are sufficiently violent in nature to enable the spectators to vicariously
work off their frustrations. As a minimum, these events must evoke a passionate team
loyalty on the part of the fans and must include the expectation of pain and injury on
the part of the players. Even better for their purpose is the spilling of blood and the
possibility of death. The common man has a morbid fascination for violence and
blood. Crowds gather to chant “Jump! Jump!” at the suicidal figure on a hotel roof.
Cars slow to a near stop on the highway to gawk at broken bodies next to a collision.
A schoolyard fight instantly draws a circle of spectators. Boxing matches and football
games and hockey games and automobile races are telecast daily, attracting millions
of cheering fans who give rapt attention to each moment of danger, each angry blow
to the face, each broken bone, each knockout, each carrying away of the unconscious
or possibly dying contestant. In this fashion, their anger at “society” is defused and
focused, instead, on the opposing team. The emperors of Rome devised the Circuses
and gladiator contests and public executions by wild beasts for precisely that purpose.
Before jumping to the conclusion that such concepts are absurd in modern
times, recall that during the 1985 European soccer championship in Belgium, the
spectators became so emotionally involved in the contest that a bloody riot broke out
in the bleachers leaving behind 38 dead and more that 400 injured. U.S. News &
World Report gives this account:
The root of the trouble: A tribal loyalty to home teams that surpasses an
obsession and, say some experts, has become a substitute religion for many. The
worst offenders include members of gangs such as Chelsea's Anti-Personnel Firm,
made up of ill-educated young males who find in soccer rivalry an escape from
Still, the British do not have a patent on soccer violence. On May 26, eight
people were killed and more than 50 injured in Mexico City,... a 1964 stadium riot in
Lima, Peru, killed more than 300 – and a hotly disputed 1969 match between El
Salvador and Honduras led to a week-long shooting war between the two countries,
causing hundreds of casualties.
The U.S. is criticized for the gridiron violence of its favorite sport, football, but
outbursts in the bleachers are rare because loyalties are spread among many sports
and national pride is not at stake. Said Thomas Tutko, professor of psychology at
California's San Jose State University: “In these other countries, it used to be their
armies. Now it's their competitive teams that stir passions.”5
Having considered all the ramifications of blood games, The Report from Iron
Mountain concluded that they were not an adequate substitute for war. It is true that
violent sports are useful distracters and do, in fact, allow an outlet for boredom and
fierce group loyalty, but their effect on the nation's psyche could not match the
intensity of war hysteria. Until a better alternative could be found, world government
would have to be postponed so that nations could continue to wage war.

In time of war, most citizens uncomplainingly accept their low quality of life
and remain fiercely loyal to their leaders. If a suitable substitute for war is to be found,
then it must also elicit that same reaction. Therefore, a new enemy must be found that
threatens the entire world, and the prospects of being overcome by that enemy must be
just as terrifying as war itself. The Report is emphatic on that point:
Allegiance requires a cause; a cause requires an enemy. This much is obvious;
the critical point is that the enemy that defines the cause must seem genuinely
formidable. Roughly speaking, the presumed power of the “enemy” sufficient to
warrant an individual sense of allegiance to a society must be proportionate to the size
and complexity of the society. Today, of course, that power must be one of
unprecedented magnitude and frightfulness.6
The first consideration in finding a suitable threat to serve as a global enemy
was that it did not have to be real. A real one would be better, of course, but an
invented one would work just as well, provided the masses could be convinced it was
real. The public will more readily believe some fictions than others. Credibility would
be more important than truth.
Poverty was examined as a potential global enemy but rejected as not fearful
enough. Most of the world was already in poverty. Only those who had never
experienced poverty would see it as a global threat. For the rest, it was simply a fact of
everyday life.
An invasion by aliens from outer space was given serious consideration. The
report said that experiments along those lines already may have been tried. Public
reaction, however, was not sufficiently predictable, because the threat was not
“credible.” Here is what the report had to say:
Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political
substitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well
suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic
space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly
argued that such a menace would offer the “last best hope of peace,” etc., by uniting
mankind against the danger of destruction by “creatures” from other planets or from
outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-ourworld
invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain “flying
saucer” incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so,
they could hardly have been judged encouraging.
This report was released in 1966 when the idea of an alien presence seemed far
fetched to the average person. In the ensuing years, however, that perception has
changed. A growing segment of the population now believes that intelligent life forms
may exist beyond our planet and could be monitoring our own civilization. Whether
that belief is right or wrong is not the issue here. The point is that a dramatic
encounter with aliens shown on network television – even if it were to be entirely
fabricated by high-tech computer graphics or laser shows in the sky – could be used to
stampede all nations into world government supposedly to defend the Earth from
invasion. On the other hand, if the aliens were perceived to have peaceful intent, an
alternative scenario would be to form world government to represent a unified human
species speaking with a single voice in some kind of galactic federation. Either
scenario would be far more credible today than in 1966.

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,
more fearful than any invader from another nation – or even from outer space. 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.” A massive battle against death and destruction from global pollution
possibly could replace war as justification for social control.
Did The Report from Iron Mountain really say that? It certainly did – and much
more. Here are just a few of the pertinent passages:
When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war … 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 would have to carry
the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual
sacrifice of life. … 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. …
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this
purpose. … But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years
that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning
could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternative enemies we have mentioned
may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found of credible quality and
magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration.
It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented.8

The Report from Iron Mountain states that it was produced by a Special Study
Group of fifteen men whose identities were to remain secret and that it was not
intended to be made public. One member of the group, however, felt the Report was
too important to be kept under wraps. He was not in disagreement with its
conclusions. He merely believed that more people should read it. He delivered his
personal copy to Leonard Lewin, a well-known author and columnist who, in turn,
negotiated its publication by Dial Press. It was then reprinted by Dell Publishing.
This was during the Johnson Administration, and the President's Special
Assistant for National Security Affairs was CFR member Walt Rostow. Rostow was
quick to announce that the report was a spurious work. Herman Kahn, CFR director of
the Hudson Institute, said it was not authentic. The Washington Post – which was
owned and run by CFR member Katharine Graham – called it “a delightful satire.”
Time magazine, founded by CFR-member Henry Luce, said it was a skillful hoax.
8 Ibid., pp. 66-67, 70-71. When the Report was written, terrorism had not yet been considered as a substitute for war. Since then, it has become the most useful of them all.
Then, on November 26, 1967, the Report was reviewed in the book section of the
Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, which was the pen name for Harvard
professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith, who also had been a member of the
CFR, said that he knew firsthand of the Report'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.
Furthermore, while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about the
Report, he agreed totally with its conclusions. He wrote:
As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so
would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservations relate only to the
wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public.9
Six weeks later, in an Associated Press dispatch from London, Galbraith went
even further and jokingly admitted that he was “a member of the conspiracy.”10
That, however, did not settle the issue. The following day, Galbraith backed off.
When asked about his “conspiracy” statement, he replied: “For the first time since
Charles II The Times has been guilty of a misquotation. … Nothing shakes my
conviction that it was written by either Dean Rusk or Mrs. Clare Booth Luce.”11
The reporter who conducted the original interview was embarrassed by the
allegation and did further research. Six days later, this is what he reported:
Misquoting seems to be a hazard to which Professor Galbraith is prone. The
latest edition of the Cambridge newspaper Varsity quotes the following (tape
recorded) interchange:
Interviewer: “Are you aware of the identity of the author of Report from Iron
Galbraith: “I was in general a member of the conspiracy but I was not the
author. I have always assumed that it was the man who wrote the foreword – Mr.
So, on at least three occasions, Galbraith publicly endorsed the authenticity of
the Report but denied that he wrote it. Then who did? Was it Leonard Lewin, after all?
In 1967 he said he did not. In 1972 he said that he did. Writing in The New York Times
Book Review Lewin explained: “I wrote the `Report,' all of it. … What I intended was
simply to pose the issues of war and peace in a provocative way.”
But wait! A few years before that, columnist William F. Buckley told the New
York Times that he was the author. That statement was undoubtedly made tongue-incheek,
but who and what are we to believe? Was it written by Herman Kahn, John
Kenneth Galbraith, Dean Rusk, Clare Booth Luce, Leonard Lewin, or William F.
Buckley? In the final analysis, it makes little difference. The important point is that The
Report from Iron Mountain, whether written as a think-tank study or a 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. All one has to do is hold the
Report in one hand and the daily newspaper in the other to realize that every major
trend in American life is conforming to the blueprint. So many things that otherwise
are incomprehensible suddenly become 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, a world bank, a world
money, the surrender of national independence through treaties, and the ecology
hysteria. The Report from Iron Mountain is an accurate summary of the plan that has
already created our present. It is now shaping our future.

It is beyond the scope of this study to prove that currently accepted predictions
of environmental doom are based on exaggerated and fraudulent “scientific studies.”
But such proof is easily found if one is willing to look at the raw data and the
assumptions upon which the projections are based. More important, however, is the
question of why end-of-world scenarios based on phony scientific studies – or no
studies at all – are uncritically publicized by the CFR-controlled media; or why radical
environmental groups advocating collectivist doctrine and anti-business programs are
lavishly funded by CFR-dominated foundations, banks, and corporations, the very
groups that would appear to have the most to lose. The Report from Iron Mountain
answers those questions.
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. There
is just enough truth in the fact of environmental pollution to make predictions of
planetary doom in the year two-thousand-something seem believable. All that is
required is media cooperation and repetition. The plan has apparently worked. People
of the industrialized nations have been subjected to a barrage of documentaries,
dramas, feature films, ballads, poems, bumper stickers, posters, marches, speeches,
13 “Report from Iron Mountain,” New Your Times, March 19, 1968, p. 8.
seminars, conferences, and concerts. The result has been phenomenal. Politicians are
now elected to office on platforms consisting of nothing more than an expressed
concern for the environment and a promise to clamp down on those nasty industries.
No one questions the damage done to the economy or the nation. It makes no
difference when the very planet on which we live is sick and dying. Not one in a
thousand will question that underlying premise. How could it be false? Look at all the
movie celebrities and rock stars who have joined the movement.
While the followers of the environmental movement are preoccupied with
visions of planetary doom, let us see what the leaders are thinking. The first Earth Day
was proclaimed on April 22, 1970, at a “Summit” meeting in Rio de Janeiro, attended
by environmentalists and politicians from all over the world. A publication widely
circulated at that meeting was entitled the Environmental Handbook. The main theme
of the book was summarized by a quotation from Princeton Professor Richard A. Falk,
a member of the CFR. Falk wrote that there are four interconnected threats to the
planet – wars of mass destruction, overpopulation, pollution, and the depletion of
resources. Then he said: “The basis of all four problems is the inadequacy of the
sovereign states to manage the affairs of mankind in the twentieth century.”14 The
Handbook continued the CFR line by asking these rhetorical questions: “Are nationstates
actually feasible, now that they have power to destroy each other in a single
afternoon?... What price would most people be willing to pay for a more durable kind
of human organization – more taxes, giving up national flags, perhaps the sacrifice of
some of our hard-won liberties?”15
In 1989, the CFR-owned Washington Post published an article written by CFR
member George Kennan in which he said: “We must prepare instead for … an age
where the great enemy is not the Soviet Union, but the rapid deterioration of our
planet as a supporting structure for civilized life.”16
On March 27, 1990, in the CFR-controlled New York Times, CFR member
Michael Oppenheimer wrote: “Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation and
overpopulation are the four horsemen of a looming 21st century apocalypse. … as the
cold war recedes, the environment is becoming the No. 1 international security
The New York Times has been one of the principal means by which CFR policies are inserted into the mainstream of public opinion. The paper was purchased in 1896 by Alfred Ochs, with financial backing from CFR pioneer J.P. Morgan, Rothchild agent August Belmont, and Jacob Schiff, a CFR member, Lester Brown, heads up another think tank called the
Worldwatch Institute. In the Institute's annual report, entitled State of the World 1991,
Brown said that “the battle to save the planet will replace the battle over ideology as
the organizing theme of the new world order.”18
In the official publication of the 1992 Earth Summit, we find this: “The world
community now faces together greater risks to our common security through our
impacts on the environment than from traditional military conflicts with one another.”
How many times does it have to be explained? The environmental movement
was created by the CFR. It is a substitute for war that they hope will become the
emotional and psychological foundation for world government.

The Club of Rome is a group of global planners who annually release end-ofworld
scenarios based on predictions of overpopulation and famine. Their
membership is international, but the American roster includes such well-known CFR
members as Jimmy Carter, Harlan Cleveland, Claiburne Pell, and Sol Linowitz. Their
solution to overpopulation? A world government to control birth rates and, if
necessary, euthanasia. That is a gentle word for the deliberate killing of the old, the
weak, and of course the uncooperative. Following the same reasoning advanced at
Iron Mountain, the Club of Rome has concluded that fear of environmental disaster
could be used as a substitute enemy for the purpose of unifying the masses behind its
program. In its 1991 book entitled The First Global Revolution, we find this:
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that
pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit
the bill. … All these dangers are caused by human intervention. … The real enemy,
then, is humanity itself.19
Collectivist theoreticians have always been fascinated by the possibility of
controlling population growth. It excites their imaginations because it is the ultimate
bureaucratic plan. If the real enemy is humanity itself, as the Club of Rome says, then
partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. It is now owned by CFR member Arthur Sulzberger, who is also the
publisher, and it is staffed by numerous CFR editors and columnists.
Humanity itself must become the target. Fabian Socialist Bertrand Russell expressed
it thus: I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be
kept from increasing. … War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been
disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more
effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every
generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. …
A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is world government.
… It will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If
this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilences and famines, it will demand a
powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world's food to the
various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishments of
the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population, it should not on that
account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would
therefore be very compelling.21
Very compelling, indeed. These quiet-spoken collectivists are not kidding
around. For example, one of the most visible “environmentalists” and advocate of
population control was Jacques Cousteau. Interviewed by the United Nations
UNESCO Courier in November of 1991, Cousteau spelled it out. He said:
What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It is a wonderful idea
but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it
we may jeopardize the future of our species. It's terrible to have to say this. World
population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per
day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it, but it is just as
bad not to say it.

We can now understand how Mikhail Gorbachev, formerly the leader of one of
the most repressive governments the world has known, became head of a new
organization called the International Green Cross, which supposedly is dedicated to
environmental issues. Gorbachev has never denounced collectivism, only the label of
a particular brand of collectivism called Communism. His real interest is not ecology
but world government with himself assured a major position in the collectivist power
structure. In a public appearance in Fulton, Missouri, he praised the Club of Rome, of
which he is a member, for its position on population control.
Then he said:
One of the worst of the new dangers is ecological. … Today, global climatic
shifts; the greenhouse effect; the “ozone hole”; acid rain; contamination of the
atmosphere, soil and water by industrial and household waste; the destruction of the
forests; etc. all threaten the stability of the planet.23
Gorbachev proclaimed that global government was the answer to these threats
and that the use of government force was essential. He said: “I believe that the new
world order will not be fully realized unless the United Nations and its Security
Council create structures … authorized to impose sanctions and make use of other
measures of compulsion.”
Here is an arch criminal who fought his way up through the ranks of the Soviet
Communist Party, became the protégé of Yuri Andropov, head of the dreaded KGB,
was a member of the USSR's ruling Politburo throughout the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, and who was selected by the Politburo in 1985 as the supreme leader of
world Communism. All of this was during one of the Soviet's most dismal periods of
human-rights violations and subversive activities against the free world. Furthermore,
he ruled over a nation with one of the worst possible records of environmental
destruction. At no time while he was in power did he ever say or do anything to show
concern over planet Earth.
All that is now forgotten. Gorbachev has been transformed by the CFRdominated
media into an ecology warrior. He is calling for world government and
telling us that such a government will use environmental issues as justification for
sanctions and other “measures of compulsion.” We cannot say that we were not

The use of compulsion is an important point in these plans. People in the
industrialized nations are not expected to cooperate in their own demise. They will
have to be forced. They will not like it when their food is taken for global distribution.
They will not approve when they are taxed by a world authority to finance foreign
political projects. They will not voluntarily give up their cars or resettle into smaller
houses or communal barracks to satisfy the resource-allocation quotas of a UN
agency. Club-of-Rome member Maurice Strong states the problem:
In effect, the United States is committing environmental aggression against the
rest of the world. … At the military level, the United States is the custodian. At the
environmental level, the United States is clearly the greatest risk. … One of the worst
problems in the United States is energy prices – they're too low. …
It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent
middle class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen
and `convenience' foods, ownership of motor-vehicles, numerous electric household
appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning … expansive suburban housing …
are not sustainable.
Mr. Strong's remarks were enthusiastically received by world environmental
leaders, but they prompted this angry editorial response in the Arizona Republic:
Translated from eco-speak, this means two things: (1) a reduction in the
standard of living in Western nations through massive new taxes and regulations, and
(2) a wholesale transfer of wealth from industrialized to under-developed countries.
The dubious premise here is that if the U.S. economy could be reduced to, say, the
size of Malaysia's, the world would be a better place. … Most Americans probably
would balk at the idea of the U.N. banning automobiles in the U.S.26
Who is this Maurice Strong who sees the United States as the environmental
aggressor against the world? Does he live in poverty? Does he come from a backward
country that is resentful of American prosperity? Does he himself live in modest
circumstances, avoiding consumption in order to preserve our natural resources? None
of the above. He is one of the wealthiest men in the world. He lives and travels in
great comfort. He is a lavish entertainer. In addition to having great personal wealth
derived from the oil industry in Canada – which he helped nationalize – Maurice
Strong was the Secretary-General of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio; head of the 1972
UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm; the first Secretary-General of
the UN Environment Program; president of the World Federation of United Nations;
co-chairman of the World Economic Forum; member of the Club of Rome; trustee of
the Aspen Institute; and a director of the World Future Society. That is probably more
than you wanted to know about this man, but it is necessary in order to appreciate the
importance of what follows.

Maurice Strong believes – or says that he believes – the world's ecosystems can
be preserved only if the affluent nations of the world can be disciplined into lowering
their standard of living. Production and consumption must be curtailed. To bring that
about, those nations must submit to rationing, taxation, and political domination by
world government. They will probably not do that voluntarily, he says, so they will
have to be forced. To accomplish that, it will be necessary to engineer a global
monetary crisis which will destroy their economic systems. Then they will have no
choice but to accept assistance and control from the UN.
This strategy was revealed in the May, 1990, issue of West magazine, published
in Canada. In an article entitled “The Wizard of Baca Grande,” journalist Daniel
Wood described his week-long experience at Strong's private ranch in southern
Colorado. This ranch has been visited by such CFR notables as David Rockefeller,
Secretary-of-State Henry Kissinger, founder of the World Bank Robert McNamara,
and the presidents of such organizations as IBM, Pan Am, and Harvard.
During Wood's stay at the ranch, the tycoon talked freely about
environmentalism and politics. To express his own world view, he said he was
planning to write a novel about a group of world leaders who decided to save the
planet. As the plot unfolded, it became obvious that it was based on real people and
real events. Wood continues the story:
Each year, he explains as background to the telling of the novel's plot, the
World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs,
prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend
meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then
says: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal
risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to
survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact
on the environment. Will they do it? ... The group's conclusion is `no.' the rich
countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group
decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? …
“This group of world leaders,” he continues, “form a secret society to bring
about an economic collapse. It's February. They're all at Davos. These aren't terrorists.
They're world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world's commodity
and stock markets. They've engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and
computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world's stock markets
from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the
world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can't close. The rich countries...”
And Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette
butt out the window.
I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking, this is Maurice Strong.
He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World
Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.
“I probably shouldn't be saying things like this,” he says.
Maurice Strong's fanciful plot probably shouldn't be taken too seriously, at least
in terms of a literal reading of future events. It is unlikely they will unfold in exactly
that manner – although it is not impossible. For one thing, it would not be necessary to
hold the leaders of the industrialized nations at gun point. They would be the ones
engineering this plot. Leaders from Third-World countries do not have the means to
cause a global crisis. That would have to come from the money centers in New York,
London, or Tokyo. Furthermore, the masterminds behind this thrust for global
government have always resided in the industrialized nations. They have come from
the ranks of the CFR in America and from other branches of the International
Roundtable in England, France, Belgium, Canada, Japan, and elsewhere. They are the
ideological descendants of Cecil Rhodes and they are fulfilling his dream.
It is not important whether or not Maurice Strong's plot for global economic
collapse is to be taken literally. What is important is that men like him are thinking
along those lines. As Wood pointed out, they are in a position to do it. Or something
like it. If it is not this scenario, they will consider another one with similar
consequences. If history has proven anything, it is that men with financial and
political power are quite capable of heinous plots against their fellow men. They have
launched wars, caused depressions, and created famines to suit their personal agendas.
We have little reason to believe that the world leaders of today are more saintly than
their predecessors.
Furthermore, we must not be fooled by pretended concern for Mother Earth.
The call-to-arms for saving the planet is a gigantic ruse. There is just enough truth to
environmental pollution to make the show “credible,” as The Report from Iron
Mountain phrased it, but the end-of-earth scenarios which drive the movement
forward are bogus. The real objective in all of this is world government, the ultimate
doomsday mechanism from which there can be no escape. Destruction of the
economic strength of the industrialized nations is merely a necessary prerequisite for
ensnaring them into the global web. The thrust of the current ecology movement is
directed totally to that end.
This is taken from Chapter 24 of
The Creature from Jekyll Island:
A Second Look at the Federal Reserve,
27 “The Wizard of Baca Grande.” By Daniel Wood, West magazine, May 1990, p. 35.

1 comment:

David said...

The Report was written by Leonard Lewin, who I interviewed on WBAI, along with E.L. Doctorow, Victor Navasky, Noam Chomsky and John Kenneth Galbraith, all of whom were in on the hoax when the book was published.
Of course, the ideas and dry sense of humor Lewin displays throughout the book seem plausible because they ARE plausible.
None the less, people should stop saying it is a real think tank study, which was leaked. The Report was written by Leonard Lewin.
Lewin wrote another book called Triage, about a group of men who were killing people who they felt were only a negative for society, such as drug dealers, etc. (a la Dexter). As with Report, Triage is plausible, and written by Lewin.