logo
Inside Iron Mountain: How a group of liberal satirists pulled off America's ‘hoax of the century'

Inside Iron Mountain: How a group of liberal satirists pulled off America's ‘hoax of the century'

Yahoo06-04-2025

'Never in our history,' declared a TV anchor, 'has there been such an avalanche of information, so little believed or believable.'
This was no anguished lament over AI or social media. This was 1967, the era of the Vietnam War, racial tension, and urban blight, when a group of liberal satirists launched a prank so well-executed it would later be called 'the hoax of the century.'
That November, Dial Press, whose authors included James Baldwin and Norman Mailer, published 'Report From Iron Mountain.' Author Leonard Lewin, 51, was a melancholy Harvard graduate who until then had little to show for his escape from his family's sugar refinery business in Indianapolis to become a writer in New York.
In his introduction, Lewin recounted how an old acquaintance, a social sciences professor, had contacted him out of the blue with a copy of a classified government report, its contents so incendiary that the document had been suppressed.
The report presented the results of a classified war-games exercise staged inside Iron Mountain, an elaborate bomb shelter north of Manhattan, in the mid-1960s. Iron Mountain, said the report, was an assembly of geniuses typical of the Cold War, convening national security officials, academics, think-tank intellectuals, nuclear theorists, and others who devoted concentrated thought, during the twilight struggle with the USSR, to 'unthinkable' scenarios of nuclear holocaust, global catastrophe, and the like.
The Special Study Group at Iron Mountain considered the effects if 'permanent peace' broke out. The panel concluded that war, and the ceaseless preparation for it that defined America after 1945, served as 'the essential economic stabilizer of modern societies.' Without wars and war-footing industries, the report said, the U.S. economy would be upended. 'No program or combination of programs yet proposed for a transition to peace,' the group found, 'has remotely approached meeting the comprehensive functional requirements of a world without war.'
Should peace break out, the report projected that the citizenry would have to be managed via disinformation and other measures: inducing panic by inventing an alien threat from space, poisoning the atmosphere, practicing eugenics.
Within days, newspaper reviewers and senior Johnson administration officials concluded that 'Report From Iron Mountain' — the shadowy professor, the sinister retreat, the horrifyingly cynical report cooked up there — was a hoax.
In a 1972 New York Times essay, Lewin admitted as much. It was the brainchild of a group of liberal cut-ups from the satirical publication Monocle, among them Victor Navasky, later the editor of The Nation and a leading left-wing historian.
Lewin succeeded beyond his dreams: His mimicry of the 'crackpot realists' at the vanguard of Cold War theorizing, the nightmare-scenario weltanschauung of contemporaneous films such as 'Failsafe' and 'Dr. Strangelove,' was too good, too spot-on.
In a paranoid age already roiled by nuclear anxiety, assassinations, riots, and revelations of government deception, the fringes of the left and right converged, with the result that many Americans refused to accept that the report was a hoax. By the mid-1990s, Lewin had to sue far-right groups to stop them from republishing his satire as gospel and marketing it to anti-Semites and militiamen.
In 'Ghosts of Iron Mountain,' BBC veteran Phil Tinline revisits Lewin's dark comic masterpiece and traces its enduring impact to explore America's 'descent into a kind of omnipresent paranoia . . . a tenacious fear of what we now call the 'deep state,' which has grown even as the overall power and reach of the real postwar U.S. state has faltered and fallen back.'
Many educated readers didn't care whether the 'Report From Iron Mountain' was real. A radio host who interviewed Lewin in 1968 said: 'I don't accept the fact that this is a real report, but it doesn't really matter.' The report, the host said, was 'the one book which seems to me to sum up the age in which we live more than anything else.'
Tinline gives a guided tour of the national and international events that have stoked — and, in some cases, such as the Oklahoma City bombing, been inspired by — the feverish fringe thinking that seems, today, more entrenched than ever. The two World Wars, the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam, Watergate, the fall of the Soviet Union, the Sept. 11 attacks and the 'forever wars' that followed them, the oil shocks, sell-offs, and recessions, and the arrival of COVID-19: To large numbers of Americans at all points, these epochal turns in history were the work not of accelerating market forces or idiosyncratic decision-makers but of a hidden cabal, one whose membership mystifyingly defies normal generational attrition.
Thus the 'merchants of death' of the early 20th century managed, somehow, to pass the baton to the Cigarette Smoking Man of 'The X-Files' and his trench-coated cohorts, whispered to have orchestrated the bloodshed at Dealey Plaza, the lucrative carnage of Vietnam and the ouster of erratic, unreliable Richard Nixon; and they, in turn, bequeathed the reins of the global oligarchic conspiracy to the even more malevolent globalists and Deep State saboteurs active today.
Tinline is a brilliant researcher and writer with an unerring gift for recreating the arrogance of America's postwar elites and the corresponding fears and delusions of large segments of her citizenry. Supported by an impressive array of documentation, from previously unpublished tapes and affidavits to diaries and archival papers, 'Ghosts of Iron Mountain' is the best kind of modern history: deeply researched, entertainingly written, piercingly perceptive.
Some factual errors creep in. Jeffrey Miller, one of the students killed at Kent State, was not the 'shot-dead friend' of Mary Ann Vecchio, the girl seen kneeling and crying over Miller's bloody corpse in John Filo's Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph; Vecchio was a 14-year-old runaway who had met Miller only minutes before his death. Likewise, Tom Wolfe, in his seminal 1963 Esquire article, palled around with Cassius Clay, not Muhammad Ali.
We might also quarrel with Tinline's depiction of our 'omnipresent paranoia' as an outgrowth of the 'deep suspicion of the centralized power elite that had grown up during the Cold War.'
As Tinline acknowledges, Lewin's hoax, preying on fears of massive government power, constituted only the latest installment in 'a long, aggressively democratic tradition in America.'
Indeed, fears of centralized power have enjoyed long currency in American life. 'Liberty had never been preserved,' William Mangum declared on the Senate floor in 1836, 'in any country where the central power was not resisted.'
Finally, Tinline fails to mention — shocking for a Brit! — what many consider to be the true hoax of the century, which was sprung two years after 'Report From Iron Mountain' and went global on a scale Leonard Lewin never attained: the Paul-is-Dead rumor, which held that Paul McCartney died in a motorcycle accident and was secretly replaced by the other Beatles, a conspiracy hinted at in 'death clues' hidden on their album covers.
Nonetheless, 'Ghosts of Iron Mountain' is essential reading for students of modern history and public perception, a rich survey of how we got to the point where practically every event or phenomenon is instantly decried as a 'false flag.'
James Rosen is chief Washington correspondent at Newsmax and the author, most recently, of 'Scalia: Rise to Greatness, 1936-1986.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Harvard Judge Says Foreign Student Ban Likely to Harm School
Harvard Judge Says Foreign Student Ban Likely to Harm School

Yahoo

time43 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Harvard Judge Says Foreign Student Ban Likely to Harm School

(Bloomberg) -- A federal judge said that Harvard University is likely to show that it will suffer irreparable harm if the government is able to stop international students from attending the Ivy League school. As Part of a $45 Billion Push, ICE Prepares for a Vast Expansion of Detention Space As American Architects Gather in Boston, Retrofits Are All the Rage US District Judge Allison Burroughs said at a hearing Monday that the government has an 'uphill battle' on the issue, a key factor in whether she will extend her temporary order preventing the Trump administration from refusing to give foreign students visas to attend the university. Burroughs said she would rule on whether to issue a preliminary injunction by June 23. Harvard is the main target of President Donald Trump's efforts to force universities to crack down on antisemitism, remove perceived political bias and eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The US has already frozen more than $2.6 billion in federal research funding at Harvard, the subject of a separate lawsuit before Burroughs. Ian Gershengorn, a university lawyer, said the cumulative effect of the Trump administration's actions has been 'devastating' and caused 'irreparable harm.' 'What we have suffered over the last two months is the most improper and irregular treatment a university has probably ever suffered' at the hands of the government, Gershengorn said at the hearing in Boston. On June 4, Trump issued a proclamation blocking Harvard's foreign students and researchers from entering the country, saying the school's refusal to provide records about international student misconduct poses a national security risk. Earlier, the administration revoked the school's ability to sponsor their visas. On June 6, Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order, saying Harvard would face 'immediate and irreparable injury' if the proclamation went into effect. That order was scheduled to expire later this week, but a government lawyer agreed at Monday's hearing to allow the judge to extend it to June 23 while she prepares her ruling. The US claims that antisemitism, rising crime and Harvard's 'entanglements with foreign adversaries' like China make it a national security risk and undeserving of international students. Harvard argues that the US is retaliating because the school exercised its First Amendment rights to reject government demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the viewpoints of its faculty and students. 'You cannot take unlawful action in retaliation for protected speech,' Gershengorn said. The question, he said, is whether that protected activity was a substantial and motivating factor for the government's actions. The government argues that Harvard hasn't tackled problems of antisemitism and a lack of viewpoint diversity on campus. A Department of Justice lawyer, Tiberius Davis, echoed a June 14 court filing by the government, saying the US doesn't 'trust' the school to host foreign students. 'Unrest on Campus' 'They have a lot of unrest on campus, they have a lot of antisemitic activity on campus,' Davis told Burroughs. 'We believe that they continue to engage in discriminatory admissions.' Burroughs said to Davis: 'I can't imagine that anything you've described applies only to Harvard.' 'It's worse there,' Davis said. Harvard, he said, has not provided adequate information to review the monitoring and discipline process of students. The university, he said, has only turned over disciplinary records on three students. 'The idea that there's only three disciplinary actions, we don't frankly credit that,' Davis said. 'We don't trust them to host foreign students where we think other universities might be better.' Government lawyers said in their June 14 filing that Trump's proclamation is 'well within' the president's authority to govern the immigration system and foreign affairs of the US. 'The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that,' wrote Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin in an email after Monday's oral arguments. 'We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side.' The case is Harvard v. US Department of Homeland Security, 25-cv-11472, US District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston). (Updates with details of hearing, comments from student and Homeland Security spokeswoman) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software How a Tiny Middleman Could Access Two-Factor Login Codes From Tech Giants US Allies and Adversaries Are Dodging Trump's Tariff Threats As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.

Negotiation or Capitulation? How Columbia Got Off Trump's Hot Seat.
Negotiation or Capitulation? How Columbia Got Off Trump's Hot Seat.

New York Times

timean hour ago

  • New York Times

Negotiation or Capitulation? How Columbia Got Off Trump's Hot Seat.

It was a turning point in the Trump administration's efforts to bring elite academia to heel. The White House had made an example of Columbia University by axing $400 million in federal grants, and now it was saying that the Ivy League school would have to acquiesce to a bill of demands if it were to have any hope of recouping the money. One of the dictates handed down in March involved the university's Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department. The White House, which said Columbia had failed to protect Jewish students from antisemitic harassment, wanted the school to strip the department of its autonomy, a rare administrative step that was viewed as a serious blow to academic freedom. The university, which was the first high-profile target in the administration's war on higher education, had a different idea. Quietly, university officials were trying to navigate a narrower path, appeasing President Trump by cracking down on protests and making changes to student discipline. But the measures adopted by Columbia were not as drastic as what the White House had wanted. The university's leaders sought to shape Mr. Trump's demands through negotiation instead of fighting them through litigation, and to do that while maintaining core ideals that had defined the university for nearly 275 years. Columbia's approach stood in stark contrast to the tack taken by Harvard University, which turned to the courts to fight Mr. Trump. While many in the academic world have accused Columbia of caving to Mr. Trump's pressure, the university's strategy — so far — has limited the bleeding to $400 million, even as Harvard has absorbed cut after cut, stretching into billions of dollars. While opponents of the Trump administration's crackdown have lauded Harvard for standing its ground, it is far from clear which school will be better off in the long run. And the question remains whether Columbia's path can offer a road map for other universities attacked by the president. 'Following the law and attempting to resolve a complaint is not capitulation,' Claire Shipman, Columbia's acting president, said last week in a statement. 'We must maintain our autonomy and independent governance.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Judge extends order suspending Trump's block on Harvard's incoming foreign students
Judge extends order suspending Trump's block on Harvard's incoming foreign students

San Francisco Chronicle​

timean hour ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Judge extends order suspending Trump's block on Harvard's incoming foreign students

BOSTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's order to block incoming foreign students from attending Harvard University will remain on hold temporarily following a hearing Monday, when a lawyer for the Ivy League school said its students were being used as 'pawns.' U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston extended a temporary restraining order on Trump's proclamation until June 23 while she weighs Harvard's request for a preliminary injunction. Burroughs made the decision at a hearing over Harvard's request, which Trump's Republican administration opposed. Burroughs granted the initial restraining order June 5, and it had been set to expire Thursday. Trump moved to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard earlier this month, citing concerns over national security. It followed a previous attempt by the Department of Homeland Security to revoke Harvard's ability to host foreign students on its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Burroughs has temporarily blocked that action, too, and is weighing whether it should remain on hold until the case is decided. Ian Gershengorn, a lawyer for Harvard, told Burroughs on Monday that Trump was 'using Harvard's international students as pawns" while arguing the administration has exceeded its authority in an attempt to retaliate against the school for not agreeing to the president's demands. Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after it rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Trump officials have cut more than $2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. Foreign students were brought into the battle in April, when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short, and on May 22 she revoked Harvard's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world's top students and harmed Harvard's reputation as a global research hub, the school said in its lawsuit. 'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the suit said. The action would have upended some graduate schools that recruit heavily from abroad. Some schools overseas quickly offered invitations to Harvard's students, including two universities in Hong Kong. Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its 'core, legally-protected principles,' even after receiving federal ultimatums. ___

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store