You are absolutely right. With this Covid lie you realise that politicians are not in charge of anything. They follow the policies of those at the top, no matter which side they are on. They are puppets.
War is not, as is widely assumed, primarily an instrument of policy utilized by nations to extend or defend their expressed political values or their economic interests. On the contrary, it is itself the principal basis of organization on which all modern societies are constructed. The common proximate cause of war is the apparent interference of one nation with the aspirations of another. But at the root of all ostensible differences of national interest lie the dynamic requirements of the war system itself for periodic armed conflict. Readiness for war characterizes contemporary social systems more broadly than their economic and political structures,
Wars are nothing more than human sacrifices. Sacrifices for THEM. The moment that no politician in the world has denounced graphene, you realize that the world is run by others, they are puppets, clowns in this movie. And humans, like idiots and ignorants, go straight to sacrifice. Division has always been their strategy for confrontation.
I still don't understand what you mean when you talk about satire, since it can be understood in several ways. Do you mean that Iron Mountain is not a fabrication, that it is not true?
Report From Iron Mountain when originally published drew considerable speculation that it was authentic and not Satire. Time passed, then the author surfaced stating he wrote a Satire. La Quinta in the ringing denunciation of the Deep State rests on the notion this document is not Satire. So this - at least to me - is interesting. Why do they think this is not Satire? Do they think otherwise for a sound reason or only from hearsay? The idea for the report came from Victor Navasky and other editors of Monocle, an American political satire magazine, after reading a newspaper account about a stock market decline attributed to a "peace scare."[2] Leonard Lewin wrote the book with the help of the economist John Kenneth Galbraith and three Monocle editors Marvin Kitman, Richard Lingeman, and Victor Navasky.[3] E. L. Doctorow, who was then editor-in-chief at Dial Press, agreed to publish the book as non-fiction.[4] To lend credibility to the hoax, Galbraith wrote a review of the book under the pen name Herschel McLandress, "former professor of Psychiatric Measurement at the Harvard Medical School and now chief consultant to the Noonan Psychiatric Clinic in Boston," the title character of Galbraith's earlier 1964 satire, The McLandress dimension.[5][6] The Report from Iron Mountain went out of print in 1980.
The book subsequently began circulating on the Internet among militia groups.[7] Buccaneer Books, a small publisher of out-of-print books, brought out an edition in 1993.[citation needed] In the early 1990s, Liberty Lobby with the Noontide Press, a publisher notable for its many antisemitic and white supremacist texts, released an edition, claiming that it was a U.S. government document, and therefore inherently in the public domain, as is conventional for works created by the federal government. Lewin sued them for copyright infringement, which resulted in a settlement in 1994.[7] According to The New York Times, "Neither side would reveal the full terms of the settlement, but Lewin received more than a thousand copies of the bootlegged version."[4]
Here's what I've been able to find about this report that seems reliable to me:
The book was first published in 1967 by Dial Press and went out of print by 1980. E.L. Doctorow, then editor of Dial, and Dial president Richard Baron agreed with Lewin and Victor Navasky to list the book as nonfiction and to put to rest questions about its authenticity by citing the footnotes.
Liberty Lobby put out an edition c. 1990, claiming it was a U.S. government document and therefore inherently in the public domain; Lewin sued them for copyright infringement, resulting in a settlement. According to The New York Times, "neither party disclosed the full terms of the agreement, but Lewin received more than a thousand copies of the pirated version."
Likewise, Buccaneer Books, a small publisher that reprinted out-of-print political classics, put out an edition in 1993. It's unclear whether the author authorized it.
In response to the pirated editions, Simon & Schuster brought out a new hardcover edition in 1996 under their Free Press imprint, authorized by Lewin, with a new introduction by Navasky and an afterword by Lewin, both insisting that the book was fictional and satirical, and discussing the original controversy over the book and the more recent interest in it by conspiracy theorists.
A new paperback edition was published in 2008.
Contents
According to the report, a 15-member panel, called the Special Study Group, was established in 1963 to examine what problems would occur if the United States entered a state of lasting peace. They met at an underground nuclear bunker called Iron Mountain (as well as other places around the world) and worked for the next two years. One member of the panel, one "John Doe", a professor at a university in the Midwest, decided to release the report to the public.
The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the best interest of a stable society, that even if a lasting peace could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interest of society to achieve it. War was part of the economy. A state of war therefore needed to be conceived for a stable economy. Government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed to wage war. War served the vital function of deflecting collective aggression. They recommended "credible substitutes" and paying a "blood price" to emulate the economic functions of war. Possible alternatives to war devised by the government included reports of extraterrestrial life forms, the reintroduction of a "euphemized form" of slavery "compatible with modern technology and political processes," and one seen as particularly promising for attracting the attention of the malleable masses, the threat of "serious pollution of the environment."
Lyndon Johnson's Reaction
US News & World Report claimed in its November 20, 1967 issue to have confirmation of the report's reality from an unnamed government official, who added that when President Johnson read the report, he "went through the roof" and ordered it to be suppressed for all time. Furthermore, sources were said to have revealed that orders were sent to US embassies, instructing them to emphasize that the book had no bearing on US government policy.
Authenticity
When it was first published, controversy surrounded the book over the question of whether it was a hoax or real. In an article in the March 19, 1972 issue of The New York Times Book Review, Lewin said that he had written the book.
The book was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "most successful literary hoax." Some people claim that the book is genuine and has only been called a hoax as a means of damage control. Trans-Action devoted an issue to the debate over the book. Esquire magazine published a 28,000-word excerpt.
In a 2015 recollection by E.L. Doctorow in The Nation, Victor Navasky claimed involvement in the creation of Report from Iron Mountain, naming Leonard Lewin as the lead writer with “input” from economist John Kenneth Galbraith, two editors of the satirical magazine Monocle (Marvin Kitman and Richard Lingeman), and himself.
Statements purportedly made by John Kenneth Galbraith in support of authenticity
On November 26, 1967, the report was reviewed in the books section of The Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, purportedly the pseudonym of Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. McLandress wrote that he knew firsthand of the report’s authenticity because he had been invited to participate in its creation; that although he could not be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and asked to keep the project secret; and that while he doubted the wisdom of making the report public, he fully agreed with its conclusions.
He wrote: "Just as I would put my personal reputation behind the authenticity of this document, so I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservation relates only to the wisdom of making it known to an obviously unqualified public."
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. The next day, Galbraith backtracked. When asked about his 'conspiracy' claim, he replied: "For the first time since Charles II, The Times has been guilty of misquotation... Nothing removes my conviction that it was written by Dean Rusk or Mrs Clare Boothe Luce."
The original reporter reported the following six days later: "Misquotations seem to be a danger to which Professor Galbraith is prone. The latest edition of the Cambridge Varsity paper quotes the following exchange (taped): Interviewer: 'Do you know the identity of the author of Report from Iron Mountain?' Galbraith: "I was generally a member of the conspiracy, but not the author. I have always assumed it was the man who wrote the foreword - Mr Lewin."
In an article published in New York in 2013, Victor Navasky claimed that Galbraith was in fact McLandress and was "in on the hoax from the beginning."
The document analyzes the implications of permanent world peace and suggests that war is necessary for economic and social stability.
Whether fact or fiction, isn't the use of war as a human sacrifice true? Look at the Kinsinger Report as it has been put into practice all these years. Those who control the world have always used war and will continue to use it as a means of reducing ignorant populations. We assume that from the suffering of our species they get something they need.
On the other hand, hasn't this been fulfilled as reflected in the book?: "The possible alternatives to war devised by the government included reports of extraterrestrial life forms, the reintroduction of a "euphemized form" of slavery "compatible with modern technology and political processes," and one that was considered particularly promising to attract the attention of the malleable masses, the threat of "serious pollution of the environment." "
It is very clear that Agenda 2030 is an agenda of extermination to implement a new global regime. An agenda that no one has voted for. It is an imposed agenda. Don't people realize these things?
Agenda 2030 is the next 11 year solar cycle since 2019 and the next flu to be labelled a virus.
In ancient times people believed that major epidemics were caused by "Influenza", the 'influence' of the solar system upon the earth.
In the recent book 'The Invisible Rainbow' (2017) we learn that epidemics are caused by the affect of electricity on the human body, which itself is electrical.
With the advancing of electric technologies, along with the influence of the 11 year electromagnetic sunspot activity cycle, Influenza appears around the world in various locations where transportation did not exist to spread a contagion.
This gave rise to the idea of Germ Theory and the rise of the medical industry and vaccines (The diseases of the 19th century disappeared with improvements in sanitation along with refrigeration).
The Spanish Flu of 1918 began at a military base in Kansas, where wireless communications were introduced and quickly spread around the world, as the technology was installed by the various countries during WW l.
Epidemics appear routinely in the modern age with the advances in the electromagnetic technology in conjunction with the 11 year solar flare cycle.
The year 2019 began the rollout of 5G technology at the beginning of the 25th solar flare cycle welcoming Covid 19.
(Note that the data related to Flu deaths was no longer available), but media had much recent coverage of the aurora boorealis appearing below the arctic circle.
Still gonna get that Flu shot?
No one dies of the Flu, but only with "Flu like symptoms".
You are absolutely right. With this Covid lie you realise that politicians are not in charge of anything. They follow the policies of those at the top, no matter which side they are on. They are puppets.
Report from Iron Mountain is despite this author below stating we do not know, satire.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/.../is-warfare-a-human.../
War is not, as is widely assumed, primarily an instrument of policy utilized by nations to extend or defend their expressed political values or their economic interests. On the contrary, it is itself the principal basis of organization on which all modern societies are constructed. The common proximate cause of war is the apparent interference of one nation with the aspirations of another. But at the root of all ostensible differences of national interest lie the dynamic requirements of the war system itself for periodic armed conflict. Readiness for war characterizes contemporary social systems more broadly than their economic and political structures,
What do you mean when you say it's a despite?
Wars are nothing more than human sacrifices. Sacrifices for THEM. The moment that no politician in the world has denounced graphene, you realize that the world is run by others, they are puppets, clowns in this movie. And humans, like idiots and ignorants, go straight to sacrifice. Division has always been their strategy for confrontation.
I totally agree. We have been fooled so many times that we have become idiots to them. They do whatever they want with us.
Of course, we are deceived from the cradle to the grave, Spanish expression
Iron Mountain is satire. As art it captures the iCold War insanity. We need not fall back on satire to make the case.
I still don't understand what you mean when you talk about satire, since it can be understood in several ways. Do you mean that Iron Mountain is not a fabrication, that it is not true?
Report From Iron Mountain when originally published drew considerable speculation that it was authentic and not Satire. Time passed, then the author surfaced stating he wrote a Satire. La Quinta in the ringing denunciation of the Deep State rests on the notion this document is not Satire. So this - at least to me - is interesting. Why do they think this is not Satire? Do they think otherwise for a sound reason or only from hearsay? The idea for the report came from Victor Navasky and other editors of Monocle, an American political satire magazine, after reading a newspaper account about a stock market decline attributed to a "peace scare."[2] Leonard Lewin wrote the book with the help of the economist John Kenneth Galbraith and three Monocle editors Marvin Kitman, Richard Lingeman, and Victor Navasky.[3] E. L. Doctorow, who was then editor-in-chief at Dial Press, agreed to publish the book as non-fiction.[4] To lend credibility to the hoax, Galbraith wrote a review of the book under the pen name Herschel McLandress, "former professor of Psychiatric Measurement at the Harvard Medical School and now chief consultant to the Noonan Psychiatric Clinic in Boston," the title character of Galbraith's earlier 1964 satire, The McLandress dimension.[5][6] The Report from Iron Mountain went out of print in 1980.
The book subsequently began circulating on the Internet among militia groups.[7] Buccaneer Books, a small publisher of out-of-print books, brought out an edition in 1993.[citation needed] In the early 1990s, Liberty Lobby with the Noontide Press, a publisher notable for its many antisemitic and white supremacist texts, released an edition, claiming that it was a U.S. government document, and therefore inherently in the public domain, as is conventional for works created by the federal government. Lewin sued them for copyright infringement, which resulted in a settlement in 1994.[7] According to The New York Times, "Neither side would reveal the full terms of the settlement, but Lewin received more than a thousand copies of the bootlegged version."[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Report_from_Iron_Mountain#Publishing_history
Here's what I've been able to find about this report that seems reliable to me:
The book was first published in 1967 by Dial Press and went out of print by 1980. E.L. Doctorow, then editor of Dial, and Dial president Richard Baron agreed with Lewin and Victor Navasky to list the book as nonfiction and to put to rest questions about its authenticity by citing the footnotes.
Liberty Lobby put out an edition c. 1990, claiming it was a U.S. government document and therefore inherently in the public domain; Lewin sued them for copyright infringement, resulting in a settlement. According to The New York Times, "neither party disclosed the full terms of the agreement, but Lewin received more than a thousand copies of the pirated version."
Likewise, Buccaneer Books, a small publisher that reprinted out-of-print political classics, put out an edition in 1993. It's unclear whether the author authorized it.
In response to the pirated editions, Simon & Schuster brought out a new hardcover edition in 1996 under their Free Press imprint, authorized by Lewin, with a new introduction by Navasky and an afterword by Lewin, both insisting that the book was fictional and satirical, and discussing the original controversy over the book and the more recent interest in it by conspiracy theorists.
A new paperback edition was published in 2008.
Contents
According to the report, a 15-member panel, called the Special Study Group, was established in 1963 to examine what problems would occur if the United States entered a state of lasting peace. They met at an underground nuclear bunker called Iron Mountain (as well as other places around the world) and worked for the next two years. One member of the panel, one "John Doe", a professor at a university in the Midwest, decided to release the report to the public.
The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the best interest of a stable society, that even if a lasting peace could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interest of society to achieve it. War was part of the economy. A state of war therefore needed to be conceived for a stable economy. Government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed to wage war. War served the vital function of deflecting collective aggression. They recommended "credible substitutes" and paying a "blood price" to emulate the economic functions of war. Possible alternatives to war devised by the government included reports of extraterrestrial life forms, the reintroduction of a "euphemized form" of slavery "compatible with modern technology and political processes," and one seen as particularly promising for attracting the attention of the malleable masses, the threat of "serious pollution of the environment."
Lyndon Johnson's Reaction
US News & World Report claimed in its November 20, 1967 issue to have confirmation of the report's reality from an unnamed government official, who added that when President Johnson read the report, he "went through the roof" and ordered it to be suppressed for all time. Furthermore, sources were said to have revealed that orders were sent to US embassies, instructing them to emphasize that the book had no bearing on US government policy.
Authenticity
When it was first published, controversy surrounded the book over the question of whether it was a hoax or real. In an article in the March 19, 1972 issue of The New York Times Book Review, Lewin said that he had written the book.
The book was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "most successful literary hoax." Some people claim that the book is genuine and has only been called a hoax as a means of damage control. Trans-Action devoted an issue to the debate over the book. Esquire magazine published a 28,000-word excerpt.
In a 2015 recollection by E.L. Doctorow in The Nation, Victor Navasky claimed involvement in the creation of Report from Iron Mountain, naming Leonard Lewin as the lead writer with “input” from economist John Kenneth Galbraith, two editors of the satirical magazine Monocle (Marvin Kitman and Richard Lingeman), and himself.
Statements purportedly made by John Kenneth Galbraith in support of authenticity
On November 26, 1967, the report was reviewed in the books section of The Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, purportedly the pseudonym of Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. McLandress wrote that he knew firsthand of the report’s authenticity because he had been invited to participate in its creation; that although he could not be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and asked to keep the project secret; and that while he doubted the wisdom of making the report public, he fully agreed with its conclusions.
He wrote: "Just as I would put my personal reputation behind the authenticity of this document, so I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservation relates only to the wisdom of making it known to an obviously unqualified public."
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. The next day, Galbraith backtracked. When asked about his 'conspiracy' claim, he replied: "For the first time since Charles II, The Times has been guilty of misquotation... Nothing removes my conviction that it was written by Dean Rusk or Mrs Clare Boothe Luce."
The original reporter reported the following six days later: "Misquotations seem to be a danger to which Professor Galbraith is prone. The latest edition of the Cambridge Varsity paper quotes the following exchange (taped): Interviewer: 'Do you know the identity of the author of Report from Iron Mountain?' Galbraith: "I was generally a member of the conspiracy, but not the author. I have always assumed it was the man who wrote the foreword - Mr Lewin."
In an article published in New York in 2013, Victor Navasky claimed that Galbraith was in fact McLandress and was "in on the hoax from the beginning."
https://es.wikibrief.org/wiki/The_Report_from_Iron_Mountain
The document analyzes the implications of permanent world peace and suggests that war is necessary for economic and social stability.
Whether fact or fiction, isn't the use of war as a human sacrifice true? Look at the Kinsinger Report as it has been put into practice all these years. Those who control the world have always used war and will continue to use it as a means of reducing ignorant populations. We assume that from the suffering of our species they get something they need.
On the other hand, hasn't this been fulfilled as reflected in the book?: "The possible alternatives to war devised by the government included reports of extraterrestrial life forms, the reintroduction of a "euphemized form" of slavery "compatible with modern technology and political processes," and one that was considered particularly promising to attract the attention of the malleable masses, the threat of "serious pollution of the environment." "
It is very clear that Agenda 2030 is an agenda of extermination to implement a new global regime. An agenda that no one has voted for. It is an imposed agenda. Don't people realize these things?
Beautiful words.
Agenda 2030 is the next 11 year solar cycle since 2019 and the next flu to be labelled a virus.
In ancient times people believed that major epidemics were caused by "Influenza", the 'influence' of the solar system upon the earth.
In the recent book 'The Invisible Rainbow' (2017) we learn that epidemics are caused by the affect of electricity on the human body, which itself is electrical.
With the advancing of electric technologies, along with the influence of the 11 year electromagnetic sunspot activity cycle, Influenza appears around the world in various locations where transportation did not exist to spread a contagion.
This gave rise to the idea of Germ Theory and the rise of the medical industry and vaccines (The diseases of the 19th century disappeared with improvements in sanitation along with refrigeration).
The Spanish Flu of 1918 began at a military base in Kansas, where wireless communications were introduced and quickly spread around the world, as the technology was installed by the various countries during WW l.
Epidemics appear routinely in the modern age with the advances in the electromagnetic technology in conjunction with the 11 year solar flare cycle.
The year 2019 began the rollout of 5G technology at the beginning of the 25th solar flare cycle welcoming Covid 19.
(Note that the data related to Flu deaths was no longer available), but media had much recent coverage of the aurora boorealis appearing below the arctic circle.
Still gonna get that Flu shot?
No one dies of the Flu, but only with "Flu like symptoms".
It is curious that before the appearance of this epidemic (Spanish flu) soldiers were also vaccinated, who knows with what.
All indications are that Dr. Yeadon is right. All these stages are being completed. And people are still asleep.
Unfortunately, that's how it is