Must violence be the chosen and accepted norm for Governance?
"The Case for War: The Iron Mountain Report"(Stephen Lendman), below, identifies the rationale as to why the governing elite of nations are required to pursue continuous war.
It gives a glimpse of the recommended principles to guide policy formulation in 'democracies'.
Half a century later, even the people's investigative media (PBS), does not present or discuss the essence of the Report "that violence must be the chosen, accepted norm for governance", or its implications.
There is little discussion in society as to whether 'its pursuit as a policy' is essential for social cohesion,'social stability' or governance.
Civil society ardently participates in debates, negotiations and diplomacy. Under the controling 'principle of violence', these activities at the governance level seem to be 'pretenses' to be dealt with, to arrive at war on national issues, leading to subjugation and loss.
The Report recommends violence to the readership and the leadership whenever and whereever the opportunity presents itself; it is viewed as ordained!
That presumption needs to be examined:
Does this principle have 'ab initio' approval of the people? I believe not, but we do not know.
Today, with the technical capabilities of the Internet, we could elicit the position of all segments of global society through a carefully designed protocol.
What would be the outcome for governance, if war is not the people's choice as the guiding principle for governance?
We have some experience with an alternate approach: "Non-violence and Peace". The Buddha, Jesus on the Cross, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, articulated that approach. It is expected to make sense to "wayward sons and daughters", as rendered in song by the Heavy Metal Group, Kansas.
Maybe others too; I propose that over the next 6 months, OpEdNews may, through its readership, examine "The Case for War: The Iron MountainReport", from a spiritual, intellectual, analytic and affective viewpoint, and display the results.
That would place the relentless violence of the 65 year Middle-East War and the pact between its star performers on the strong side, in perspective: why would a nation sign a peace accord and then pursue war, aided by 'friends'? Such examination will call for clarifications avoided thus far, and open new approaches to its resolution.
Further, assigning most of the global population to unnecessary poverty through policy, is silent practice of violence within consciousness.
A transformation may enable society to Meet the Minimum Needs of All (MMNA).
Society has come a long way since 1948, and functional Human Identity is getting recognition as a Minimum Need of every child.
Meet the Minimum Needs of All,
The Case for War: The Iron Mountain Report
The Case for War: The Iron Mountain Report - by Stephen Lendman
In his 1966 book, "How the World Really Works," Alan B. Jones included a chapter on the "Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace," later published in 1967 by The Dial Press. It became a bestseller, then disappeared. Now few copies are available, but when circulating in the 1960s, it was reported that concerned Johnson administration officials ordered global US embassies to downplay it, saying it had nothing to do with policy. Later accounts doubted the material's authenticity, suggesting it was a hoax. True or false, its findings are reviewed below because they accurately reflect longstanding US policy.
Prepared by unnamed 15-man "Special Study Group, (SSG)" they were commissioned "by some governmental entity which wished to remain unknown" because of the sensitive nature of its assignment, completed after two and a half years work, from August 1963 - March 1966, at a secret Iron Mountain, New York "underground nuclear hideout."
First surfacing in 1961, the idea originated during the Kennedy administration, senior officials Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Dean Rusk, and others, knowing there was no serious plan for peace at a time the president wanted to end the Cold War. An SSG member only identified as "John Doe" revealed it.
Secrecy wasn't mandated, but all members except Doe wanted no public disclosure or discussion of its:
-- "Letter of Transmittal (saying Report conclusions and recommendations were unanimous)
-- Scope of the Study
-- Disarmament and the Economy
-- War & Peace as Social Systems
-- The Functions of War
-- Substitutes for the Functions of War
-- Summary and Conclusions (and)
Writer Leonard C. Lewin wrote a foreward, referring to a SSG midwest social science professor, identified only as "John Doe" for reasons his task would clarify:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
|The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.