logo
The ‘Iron Mountain' hoax: how anti-Vietnam war satire sparked today's conspiracy theories

The ‘Iron Mountain' hoax: how anti-Vietnam war satire sparked today's conspiracy theories

The Guardian16-03-2025
We live in a ­blizzard of fake news, ­disinformation and ­conspiracy theories. It's tempting to blame this on social media – which does indeed ­exacerbate the problem. And AI deepfakes promise to make the situation even worse. But at root this is not about technology: it's about how humans think, as an astonishing case that long predates the internet reveals. This is an amazing story – about the perils of amazing stories.
In November 1967, at the height of the war in Vietnam, a strange ­document was published in New York. Report from Iron Mountain was the work of a top-secret '­special study group' recruited by the Kennedy administration to scope out what would happen to the US if permanent global peace broke out. It warned the end of war, and of the fear of war, would wreck America's economy, even its whole society. To replace the effects, extreme measures would be required – eugenics, fake alien scares, pollution, blood games. Even slavery. The report was so incendiary it had been suppressed, but one of the study group leaked it, determined that the public learn the truth. It caused a furore. The worried memos, demanding someone check if this document was real, went all the way up to President Johnson.
In reality, as the White House eventually realised, Report from Iron Mountain was a hoax. It was the brainchild of leftwing satirists: Victor Navasky, editor of a magazine called Monocle, his colleagues, and a fellow satirist, Leonard Lewin, who wrote it with the help of luminaries like the famous economist and former US ambassador to India, JK Galbraith. Their goal was to expose what they saw as the insanity driving the intervention in Vietnam, and the whole of the cold war. By presenting their fake report as a real leak, they aimed to make people ask if this insane document might be real – and what that said about the people running the US government.
And it worked. To young Americans living under the shadow of conscription, Report seemed all too plausible. Officials whispered to journalists that some of their ­colleagues really did think like this. Once the hoax had its satirical impact, Lewin came clean. But his work was so convincing it began to take on a life of its own.
In the late 1980s, Report from Iron Mountain was discovered by the extreme right, which was convinced it was real. It was republished by a company called the Noontide Press, part of a network of fringe organisations that were among America's primary promoters of Holocaust denial. These ­people were convinced they had found the smoking gun, confirming their darkest suspicions about the government's secret plots to start wars and control the ­public. A ­horrified Lewin embarked on a long legal battle to take back control of his work and its true, meaning.
But meanwhile, the militia movement spreading across the US seized on Report from Iron Mountain, as fuel for its paranoid visions of imminent oppression at the hands of the ­one-world government and its black helicopters. And Lewin's creation found its way to Hollywood. In JFK, Oliver Stone's 1991 movie about the Kennedy assassination, the great revelation about why the president was assassinated hinges on a character repeating the hoax's claims in the belief that they were disturbing truths.
Report even spawned a secondary hoax: Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. This ­purported to be the operations ­manual that helped the elite control its ­sheeple-civilians. This strange text was first popularised by the pioneering conspiracist Milton William Cooper, who ­published it in Behold a Pale Horse, his influential compendium of ­conspiracy theories. Cooper also included extracts from Report from Iron Mountain itself (and, horrifyingly, another hoax: that notorious antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion). Silent Weapons has often been cited by arch ­conspiracist Alex Jones and has been invoked by 'Q', the ostensible government insider revered by the QAnon movement.
Lewin and his colleagues had contrived their hoax so expertly that they inadvertently created 'evidence' for a host of conspiracy theories. It could be used to explain everything from why wars end to the real reasons behind lockdown, from environmental regulations and terrorist attacks to the fiery end of a cult in Waco, Texas.
The reasoning at work here is revealing. If something in Report chimes with what is really happening in the world, the conspiracist's logic runs, that cannot be a coincidence. Rather, it exposes the secret motives that caused that reality. The ­principle here – a ­consistent fallacy of ­conspiracy theory – is that 'nothing is accidental'. One online ­analysis of Report from Iron Mountain in 2014 even decided the fact Lewin later wrote a novel was an attempt to ­retrospectively create a cover ­identity so he could pretend Report was fiction too.
And yet the fate of this all-too-successful hoax also suggests what we might need to do to ­counter this kind of thinking. In a political ­climate roiled by conspiracy ­theories and disinformation, the tale of Report from Iron Mountain is a warning about the ­consequences of taking your eye off the line between compelling stories and what we know to be true.
Phil Tinline is the author of Ghosts of Iron Mountain: The Hoax That Duped America and Its Sinister Legacy, which will be published by Head of Zeus on 27 March.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Chris Pratt slammed for supporting RFK Jr.
Chris Pratt slammed for supporting RFK Jr.

Daily Mail​

time7 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

Chris Pratt slammed for supporting RFK Jr.

On X (formerly Twitter ), the reaction was swift and scathing. One user fumed: 'What a tone deaf [expletive]. There's nothing funny and wonderful about cutting cancer research and funding, while firing teams of experts so rich people can get richer and sick people can die.' The criticism trended throughout the day, with more and more piling on to drag the father-of-four of legitimizing Kennedy's controversial stances. Some users connected the comments directly to real-world consequences, citing grant cuts that disrupted medical research, while others argued Pratt's statements reflect a long-running pattern of political missteps. Despite Pratt's insistence that his comments were meant to highlight shared goals, such as reducing toxins in food, many online saw his defense of RFK Jr. as reckless at best, harmful at worst. 'Policy changes rarely ever consider the actual people they hit,' one critic wrote, pointing to the way NIH funding cuts had already derailed graduate students' research. Another user summed up the mood more bluntly: 'Stop being mean to Chris Pratt you don't know his politics.' The A-list actor, who has often sought unity in divided political times, is married to actress Katherine Schwarzenegger, a cousin by marriage to Kennedy. In an appearance on Club Random, Pratt told Bill Maher - who counts Kennedy as a friend and has had him on both his talk show and his podcast - that there are parts of the 'MAHA' agenda he loves and that he wishes him well in his efforts. 'I hope there are certain things that he oversees that seem to be supported in a bipartisan way, like getting terrible, toxic stuff out of our kids' food. I think that's a great thing. And so, like, just - if you just do that, that's amazing.' He adds that when spending time with Kennedy he's willing to listen and hear him out but while he doesn't always assume everything RFK Jr. is saying is true, he refuses to hate the HHS Secretary. 'I'd hate to be so mired in hatred for the president that any success from his administration is something I'd have an allergic reaction to. To be like, 'Oh, well, if they do it, I don't want it to happen. I'll put Clorox in my children's cereal myself.' 'You know, it's like, come on, be reasonable here. There's certain things that would be a good thing to have. I want them all to be successful,' Pratt said. Maher agreed that Kennedy was a great guy, saying he loves him but has some advice for his work in Washington. 'I love him. I don't agree with everything, but I agree with, like, the overall view that what makes us sick is the toxicity,' Maher said. 'When he was here, I said my advice to you is like you need to marry your former life more with what you're doing now. Your former life, you were very admired as an environmental lawyer.' Despite the outsized caricature of Kennedy as a conspiracy theorist, Maher flatly denies he's out of the ordinary. 'And he's not crazy. I mean the people trying to – he's also got, like I said to him when he was here, 'I don't agree with everything you said, and I don't think your father would either, but your father would be so proud that you stuck to your guns like more than anybody,' he told the actor. 'I mean this guy, when this guy believes something you cannot move him off of it with your bribes. That's for better and worse,' Maher added. This isn't the first time Pratt has been accused of straddling the political divide in ways that frustrate both fans and critics. Ahead of the 2024 presidential election, which saw Donald Trump defeat Democrat Kamala Harris and reclaim the White House, Pratt penned an essay in his mother-in-law Maria Shriver's Sunday Paper. In it, he urged Americans to remain proud of their country regardless of the election's outcome. 'It's ok to take a moment to lick your wounds when you lose. Heck, go ahead and cry in the mirror,' he wrote. 'But if we become too paralyzed by defeat or too pompous in victory, allegiance to our 'team' can blind us to the fact that we are fellow countrymen.' The comments were widely slammed as vapid and noncommittal, especially as they came just days after his father-in-law Arnold Schwarzenegger had forcefully endorsed Harris, warning that another Trump term would mean 'four more years of [expletive] with no results.' Pratt's attempts to present himself as above the political fray have often backfired. In 2019, he was called out by Elliot Page for attending a church with alleged anti-LGBTQ ties. Ahead of the 2020 election, he was branded 'Hollywood's Worst Chris' online for his suspected right-leaning views, sparking a wave of backlash that forced Marvel costars like Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo to come to his defense.

Can an unprecedented meeting bring peace to Ukraine?
Can an unprecedented meeting bring peace to Ukraine?

Channel 4

time9 hours ago

  • Channel 4

Can an unprecedented meeting bring peace to Ukraine?

By Anushka Asthana I wasn't due to start my new role as US Editor of Channel 4 News for a few weeks. But in Trump World – nothing seems to go to plan. Luckily, I'd picked up my new White House security pass early, so I was able to hit the ground running for what turned out to be a pretty momentous day. As I wandered down Pebble Beach – the area where journalists line up to report on American presidents – seasoned US reporters described the events as unprecedented and historic. By then five European leaders, the president of the European Commission and secretary general of Nato had arrived to accompany the embattled Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy for a meeting with Donald Trump after he sat down with President Putin. The stakes could not have been higher, nor the pressure on Zelenskyy, as all sides sought to avoid a repeat of February's stomach-churning meeting. Officials familiar with the preparations told me that the Americans were determined to be 'business-like' this time round , with Vice President JD Vance – who clashed with Zelenskyy last time round at the White House – notably quiet. Zelenskyy, too, spoke little as Trump stole the floor, boasting to journalists about his triumphs in securing world peace and law and order in Washington DC. The Ukrainian president knew that it was imperative to maintain a positive tone. In fact, that was why the Europeans were there. As one source familiar with discussions said to me: 'We need to help Zelenskyy keep his cool, keep his calm. Remind him that he is here to listen, that he doesn't have to argue the toss in the moment.' Cue Zelenskyy's effusive gratitude, after being previously berated for failing to say thank you (despite doing just that). In what was an extraordinary series of events – many on camera – including a large part of the wider meeting with all the European leaders – all sides achieved their aim of an amicable mood. But what about the substance? After the sessions drew to a close I saw our Prime Minister Keir Starmer as he headed back to his flight home. He seemed buoyed by the meetings, but the challenges on the two big issues remain huge. Many were cheered by the prospect of US involvement in a security guarantee. But noises of a European peacekeeping force were quickly snubbed by Russia today, which said Nato boots on the ground in Ukraine would be unacceptable. So would Putin really stomach the suggested solution? And as for territory – the Russian president wants more, and Trump is now clear that Zelenskyy will have to concede land for an agreement. I asked Keir Starmer whether he thought President Zelenskyy does accept the principle that the price of peace will involve surrendering land? 'All matters of territory are a question for President Zelenskyy,' he told me. 'That's a very clear principle that I have held that everybody recognises. It's very important to read into the developments today on bilateral and trilateral meetings – that it is a recognition – that Ukraine must be at the table, and ultimately it is a decision for Ukraine.' Russia expert, Professor Mark Galleotti, argued to me that on some points Trump was articulating an uncomfortable truth: that Nato membership is not currently realistic for Ukraine, and that land already taken militarily by Russia is unlikely to be won back. But Putin wants even more – including the rest of Donetsk, something that Ukrainians would strongly oppose. So how could Zelenskky accept that? Galleotti admitted the challenge remains tough. But he also argued this was the most positive moves since the war began in 2022. 'I'm optimistic about the possibility of becoming optimistic,' he said. Suggesting a huge day at the White House represented progress, but the path to peace remains long and winding. This article was first posted on Substack. Subscribe to Channel 4 News.

Omer Bartov: Netanyahu 'bears primary responsibility' for October 7
Omer Bartov: Netanyahu 'bears primary responsibility' for October 7

The National

time9 hours ago

  • The National

Omer Bartov: Netanyahu 'bears primary responsibility' for October 7

Writing in The New World magazine, Omer Bartov – an Israeli-born academic currently working as the Dean's professor of holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University in the US – said that Netanyahu must stand trial for genocide, or international law will be made a 'mockery and irrelevance'. Bartov argued that Israel may end up 'sacrificing' Netanyahu – who is wanted for arrest by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged crimes against humanity – to be punished for crimes in which much of the state infrastructure is implicated. READ MORE: Do not enforce Palestine Action terror ban in Scotland, SNP members urge Government The Holocaust scholar noted that Netanyahu has technically been on trial for alleged crimes of severe corruption for the last five years, going on: 'This was one reason that when he could no longer form a coalition with his usual partners, who got fed up with his lies, he turned to the far right and created the most extreme government in Israel's history … 'This fear of justice by Netanyahu only intensified after the October 7 attack, a fiasco for which he bears the primary responsibility, both because he ignored the immediate warning signs and because he had spent years treating Hamas as a political asset and supplying it with Qatari money, since as long as Hamas ruled Gaza, Israel could keep up the posture that there was no one to speak with on the Palestinian side and thus that the occupation could and had to be managed rather than brought to an end through negotiations. 'What was urgently needed after October 7 was a state commission of inquiry to determine how such a tremendous blunder by the government, the security agencies and the IDF could have happened. But Netanyahu, fearing that his head would roll, has adamantly opposed this, saying that such matters should only be dealt with after the war ends. US president Donald Trump pictured with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu (Image: Leah Millis/Reuters) 'And, of course, this is one of the reasons he has no interest in ending the war – even as this has not been a war since the summer of 2024, but which needs to be called that lest it be recognized for what it is, namely a campaign of demolition and annihilation – whatever the price not only for Palestinians but also in Israeli blood and treasure.' Bartov, who in July made international headlines after writing in the New York Times that Israel was committing genocide in Palestine, further examined how Netanyahu might be put on trial for the 'crime of crimes'. He argued: 'While vast numbers of people are complicit in genocide – and in the current case, governments that not only refused to stop the killing when they could, but kept supplying Israel with arms, economic assistance, and a diplomatic iron dome, are also complicit – the head of state must be seen as the primary culprit.' READ MORE: David Pratt: Netanyahu makes more enemies by the day within Israel's military Bartov went on: 'When he is finally out of office, which will happen sooner or later, he may have to face justice in Israel for a list of crimes that will have only increased by then. Possibly, as happened in Serbia, it may be more convenient to hand him over to the ICC [International Criminal Court], where he will face charges of using famine as an instrument of war, murder, extermination, and genocide.' He added: 'Netanyahu may end up being the very first leader of a state allied with European powers and the United States, those states that always claimed to be the protectors of international law and human rights, found guilty of the crime of crimes, perpetrated with the connivance of those very same states. 'If anything can still save the regime of international law put into place after the defeat of Nazism from mockery and irrelevance, this might be the moment.' Bartov is one of an increasing number of scholars and international experts to have concluded that Israel's actions in Palestine are a genocide. Israeli soldiers pictured on tanks in Gaza (Photo: AP)In July, the leading Israeli human rights groups B'Tselem published a report entitled 'Our Genocide' in which it alleged that Netanyahu was using Hamas as a pretext to destroy the Palestinian way of life. 'Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. It sounds inconceivable. But it's the truth,' the group said. 'Israel is taking deliberate, coordinated action to destroy the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. 'Explicit statements by Israeli officials, combined with a consistent policy of destructive attacks and other practices of annihilation, prove beyond a doubt that Israel's target is the entire population of Gaza.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store