Many of us here are aware of the power structure and that like all tyrants, they must disarm the public in order to insure the absolute power monopoly of the state. However how many of you know about the fact that not only was this talked about for years but they had written a plan down on paper that laid out the ultimate conversion to the globalized central power?

The Report From iron Mountain was a fifteen man commission setup 1963 under the authorization of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. No one knows the names of the fifteen who were on the committee and after it was leaked to the public the press tried to report that it was a hoax and that Leonard C. Lewin claimed to the author of this elaborate so called hoax. All I know is either Leonard had a really good crystal ball or this is the real deal.

The purpose of the iron Mountain report was for the US government to have a plan for the transition to peace from the perspective of the pentagon types. I'll highlight some brief sections here to elaborate what I mean by "perspective".

"What, for instance, are the real functions of war in modern societies, beyond the ostensible ones of defending and advancing the "national interests" of nations? In the absence of war, what other institutions exist or might be devised to fulfill these functions? Granting that a "peaceful" settlement of disputes is within the range of current international relationships, is the abolition of war, in the broad sense, really possible? If so, is it necessarily desirable, in terms of social stability? If not, what can be done to improve the operation of our social system in respect to its war-readiness? The word peace, as we have used it in the following pages, describes a permanent, or quasi-permanent, condition entirely free from the national exercise, or contemplation, of any form of the organized social violence, or threat of violence, generally known as war." P20

Sounds nice and peachy so far doesn't it? Well let's see what the report sounds just a little further down.

"As Herman Kahn, the writer on strategic studies best known to the general public, put it: "Critics frequently object to the icy rationality of the Hudson Institute, the Rand Corporation, and other such organizations. I'm always tempted to ask in reply, `Would you prefer a warm, human error? Do you feel better with a nice emotional mistake.'" And, as Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara has pointed out, in reference to facing up to the possibility of nuclear war, "Some people are afraid even to look over the edge. But in a thermonuclear war we cannot afford any political acrophobia." Surely it would be self-evident that this applies equally to the opposite prospect, but so far no one has taken more than a timid glance over the brink of peace." P21-22

Hm Icy cold logic of the Rand Corp and Hudson institute yeah Rand corp is soo great. Continuing on here...

"These functions are essentially organizational. First of all, the existence of a society as a political "nation" requires as part of its definition an attitude of relationship toward other "nations." This is what we usually call a foreign policy. But a nation's foreign policy can have no substance if it lacks the means of enforcing its attitude toward other nations. It can do this in a credible manner only if it implies the threat of maximum political organization for this purpose-- which is to say that it is organized to some degree for war. War, then, as we have defined it to include all national activities that recognize the possibility of armed conflict, is itself the defining element of any nation's existence vis-a-vis any other nation. Since it is historically axiomatic that the existence of any form of weaponry insures its use, we have used the work "peace" as virtually synonymous with disarmament. By the same token, "war" is virtually synonymous with nationhood. The elimination of war implies the inevitable elimination of national sovereignty and the traditional nation-state" P36

So let me rephrase that. The primary purpose of the state is to make war, without war there can be no state and no national sovereignty. Let us go on a bit further to what the end of war means./p>

"The war system makes the stable government of societies possible. It does this essentially by providing an external necessity for a society to accept political rule. In so doing, it establishes the basis for nationhood and the authority of government to control its constituents. What other institution or combination of programs might serve these functions in its place? We have already pointed out that the end of the war means the end of national sovereignty, and thus the end of nationhood as we know it today. But this does not necessarily mean the end of nations in the administrative sense, and internal political power will remain essential to a stable society. The emerging "nations" of the peace epoch must continue to draw political authority from some source. A number of proposals have been made governing the relations between nations after total disarmament; all are basically juridical in nature. They contemplate institutions more or less like a World Court, or a United Nations, but vested with real authority.

They may or may not serve their ostensible post-military purpose of settling international disputes, but we need not discuss that here. None would offer effective external pressure on a peace-world nation to organize itself politically. It might be argued that a well-armed international police force, operating under the authority of such a supranational "court," could well serve the function of external enemy. This, however, would constitute a military operation, like the inspection schemes mentioned, and, like them, would be inconsistent with the premise of an end to the war system. It is possible that a variant of the "Unarmed Forces" idea might be developed in such a way that its "constructive" (i.e., social welfare) activities could be combined with an economic "threat" of sufficient size and credibility to warrant political organization. Would this kind of threat also be contradictory to our basic premise?--that is, would it be inevitably military? Not necessarily, in our view, but we are skeptical of its capacity to evoke credibility. Also, the obvious destabilizing effect of any global social welfare surrogate on politically necessary class relationships would create an entirely new set of transition problems at least equal in magnitude." P50 - 51

Transition to peace means a transition to world government, world wide disarmament, international police, force, and world court. We're almost here, the only thing that's missing is the open world government and total disarmament.

There is a lot more in the Iron Mountain report from using social programs like government mandated health care as a replacement for war, faking alien invasions to bring in world government, and even poisoning the food and water supply. There's also a whole lot more!

Feel Free to read the report for free at the link below.

http://www.teachpeace.com/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf

Just a little something to think about in regards to the small arms treaty and the total disarmament scenario. there's also a section in the report that talks about using pollution as a weapon to push world government, aka global warming.