(Article changed on March 15, 2014 at 14:11)
(Article changed on March 15, 2014 at 14:05)
AUTHENTICITY OF THE REPORT
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 Council on Foreign Relations member Walt Rostow. Rostow was quick to announce that the report was a spurious work. Herman Kahn, Council on Foreign Relations director of the Hudson Institute, said it was not authentic. The Washington Post-- which is owned and run by Council on Foreign Relations FR member Katharine Graham-- called it "a delightful satire." Time magazine, founded by CFR-member Henry Luce, said it was a skillful hoax. 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 Council on Foreign Relations, 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:
Scanned Image 140580000
(image by opednews)
"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." 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." 1
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 Mountain?"
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. Lewin."
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-in-cheek, 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.
1. "Galbraith Says He Was Misquoted," London Times, February 6, 1968, p. 3.