How a Fake Report Became the Blueprint for the Real World
Strange Truths
A good conspiracy theory doesn’t persuade; it resonates. It doesn’t matter if it’s true in any verifiable sense. What matters is that it feels like it could be. That somewhere in the static, behind the false smiles and blurred headlines, lies something closer to the real story. For decades now, that real story has been slipping from view.
Phil Tinline’s Ghosts of Iron Mountain: The Hoax that Duped America and its Sinister Legacy is about a hoax. But not just any hoax: one that came to explain the United States to itself more effectively than any official history. First published in 1967, The Report from Iron Mountain posed as a leaked government study. The premise was horrifying in its calm: that peace, while not impossible, would be economically ruinous and politically catastrophic. Without war, people would lose their sense of purpose. Governments would struggle to maintain control. The economy, so dependent on military spending, would collapse. Better to fabricate enemies or invent crises than risk peace.
It was a joke. A deadpan satire written by intellectuals affiliated with Monocle magazine, including Victor Navasky and Leonard Lewin. The style mimicked Cold War think tank jargon so closely that readers couldn’t tell the difference. And some still can’t. The report was a fake. But as Tinline shows, it soon became more than a hoax. It became a prophecy.
The Fake That Worked
I should say I enjoyed Tinline’s previous book, The Death of Consensus, which traced the decline of postwar political stability with intelligence and stylistic poise. This new work is smaller in scale but no less ambitious in what it sets out to explain: not just a forgotten hoax, but the shape of belief in an age of disbelief.
Why did Tinline choose this particular hoax, long dismissed or misremembered, to anchor a full-length study? Why not one of the more obvious conspiracy touchstones: JFK, 9/11, QAnon? Perhaps because Iron Mountain reveals something more subtle. Not the manic fever of conspiracism at full tilt, but the moment it slips in sideways, piggybacking on credibility, tone, and institutional language. A hoax that doesn’t announce itself. One that moves from satire to doctrine by exploiting the very same forms of authority it seeks to parody.
The answer, as Tinline hints throughout, lies in the texture of the 1960s itself. This was the era of Vietnam, McNamara’s systems analysis, Herman Kahn’s thermonuclear game theory. The Cold War was already being administered through spreadsheets and scenario planning. In that context, the Report’s plausibility rested on the fact that it didn’t stray far from what was already happening. It wasn’t just that the hoax imitated these forms—it was that these forms were already unbelievable.
Tinline weaves together archival material, interviews, and cultural commentary with the pacing of a thriller. But the real thrill comes from watching meaning slide, slowly and inexorably, from parody into belief. What emerges isn’t just a story of one fake document, but a cultural archaeology of the moment satire loses its edge and becomes indistinguishable from the system it mocks.
The tone is everything. The Report doesn’t rant. It doesn’t invoke divine punishment or lizard people. It reads like RAND. It reads like the CIA. That’s why it worked. The horror lies not in what it says, but in how calmly it says it. War is good for society. We will need new rituals of sacrifice. Perhaps public executions. Perhaps ecological catastrophe. The proposals are outrageous, but the delivery is serene. It is a document without moral language. That, more than any specific claim, is what makes it believable.
By the time the authors revealed the joke, the damage was done. Many refused to believe them. A forged study about the impossibility of peace had become a touchstone for both the left and right. It confirmed what people already suspected: that war was permanent, and that somewhere above or beneath the surface, decisions were being made beyond their reach.
Tinline is especially sharp on this slippage. He writes, “The feels-as-if story, with fact removed, is itself transformed into fact. Report from Iron Mountain so compellingly confirmed some people’s deep stories that they painlessly slid over this line.” The fake becomes a code. A narrative. A tool for making sense of what official explanations refuse to address.
In this sense, Iron Mountain belongs to a long and sordid tradition of documents that shape political belief regardless of their factual basis. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Hitler Diaries, even the WMD dossier that paved the way for the Iraq War, each circulated not because they were true, but because they spoke to existing fears, resentments, and ideological needs. The hoax, like the forgery, fills a void where trust in institutions has collapsed and the appetite for narrative overwhelms the appetite for fact.
When Meaning Fails
It’s easy to sneer. To dismiss conspiracy theorists as paranoid, deluded, gullible. But that’s not the whole story. There’s a reason conspiracism appeals. In the absence of accountability, in the face of permanent crisis and political theatre, it feels like the only honest response. When the truth no longer matters, affect becomes everything.
Conspiracy theory works because it operates on the same terrain as ideology. It explains the world not as it is, but as it feels. It offers a kind of coherence. The appeal isn’t epistemological; it’s emotional. It says: you are right to be angry. You are right to be afraid. You are not crazy.
The Report from Iron Mountain was designed to mock this kind of thinking, but it also channelled it. The authors wanted to parody the impassive calculus of Cold War strategy, where generals discussed megadeaths like accountants balancing a ledger. But in parodying it, they revealed just how fragile the boundary was between satire and belief. A good fake doesn’t just resemble the real; it becomes real by revealing what the real refuses to admit.
What sets Iron Mountain apart from other hoaxes is this inversion of origins. It wasn’t born from paranoia but parody. It didn’t emerge from the margins, it came from the heart of the liberal establishment, fluent in the language of statecraft and satire alike. And yet, over time, it was absorbed into the paranoid right. In this reversal lies something essential about the way satire, in a degraded information environment, can lose its edge and become indistinguishable from the thing it set out to mock.
It’s also not clear whether the hoaxers fully grasped how fragile the boundary was between critique and complicity. Satire depends on shared assumptions about truth and power, once those assumptions collapse, parody risks becoming fuel for the very politics it tries to skewer. Irony doesn’t always survive the trip.
What surprises now is how easily this kind of logic was absorbed into the political bloodstream. It wasn’t just the militia right that clung to Iron Mountain. Parts of the left saw in it a confirmation that capitalism needs war, that peace is structurally impossible. And they weren’t wrong, exactly. But the logic shifted. Structural critique slid into fatalism. Imperialism became omnipotence. Every protest was a psyop. Every revolution a CIA front.
This isn’t confined to the US. British anti-imperialism has shown the same slide. The urge to see every geopolitical conflict as a false flag or colour revolution reflects the same hollowing-out of political agency. When we no longer believe in the capacity of mass movements or class conflict to drive history, we begin to believe only in sabotage and manipulation. The problem isn’t just that conspiracy replaces analysis. It’s that it replaces possibility.
In my own work on conspiracy, I’ve argued that conspiracism doesn’t begin in ignorance, but in exclusion. It’s not irrational to believe in shadowy elites when the actual operations of power are opaque by design. But there’s a difference between saying the state lies and assuming every event is a lie. One is analysis. The other is surrender.
I used to draw that line more sharply. I used to think it could be held. But lately, I’m less sure.
Maybe the problem isn’t that conspiracy theories are wrong, but that they’re too neat. They offer causality where there is only correlation. Intent where there is only inertia. But they also offer something else: meaning. And meaning is in short supply.
What Tinline captures, perhaps unintentionally, is how hollow the political centre has become. The conspiracist doesn’t need facts. They need a narrative that accounts for their own disorientation. So much of modern life feels like it is happening without our consent, without our knowledge, without even our notice. It’s not hard to imagine a secret group planning it all. What’s hard is imagining that no one is.
By the time protestors in horned helmets stormed the Capitol believing themselves to be fighting a global cabal, the logic of Iron Mountain had not only gone mainstream—it had become a governing myth. Even today, parts of the left fall into similar traps—collapsing complex geopolitical conflicts into narratives of omnipotent manipulation, where every event is a provocation and every crisis a false flag. As if the only explanation left is sabotage.
Beneath the Joke
This is where the Report becomes uncanny. It pretends to reveal a secret plan to maintain order through fear. But what if there is no plan? What if the state no longer needs one? What if the system is so automated, so distributed, that war just continues because nothing can stop it?
The deeper I go, the more I think this might be the real legacy of Iron Mountain. Not the idea that the elite are conspiring to enslave us. But that they don’t need to. That the system itself is capable of producing the same effects, automatically, without a guiding hand. The hoax is believable because it mirrors how bureaucracy actually works: anonymous, inhuman, and absurdly rational.
And so I return to a question I thought I’d resolved. I began writing about conspiracy to defend critical thought from its distortions. I still think that matters. But now I wonder whether the line between structure and plot is quite as clear as I wanted it to be.
There are no puppet-masters. But there are patterns. There is capital. There is inertia. There is profit. The Report from Iron Mountain may be fake, but it still explains a lot.
Tinline’s book is sharp, detailed, and surprisingly funny. It refuses to sneer, even when its subjects do. He sees the believers not as dupes but as people trying, however clumsily, to make sense of a world that has stopped making sense. His tone is sceptical, but not cynical. It’s the right one.
The lesson here isn’t that hoaxes are dangerous, or that satire always backfires. It’s that under the right conditions, a hoax can become truer than the truth. That’s what happened with Iron Mountain. It didn’t predict the future. It made it legible. And for that reason, it won’t go away.
The conspiracist says: look deeper. Don’t believe what they tell you. It’s all connected. The task now isn’t to silence that voice, but to redirect it. Because it is all connected, just not the way they think.
And if we can’t offer something better, more truthful, more collective, more human, then we shouldn’t be surprised when they keep listening to the hoax.
Book Review (32) Books (36) Britain (11) Capitalism (9) Conservative Government (35) Conspiracy Theories (6) Creeping Fascism (12) Crime and Punishment (6) diary (11) Donald J Trump (29) Economics (7) Elon Musk (8) Europe (6) Film (10) France (11) History (6) Imperialism (12) Israel (7) Keir Starmer (7) Labour Government (14) Labour Party (8) Marxist Theory (10) Messing Around (6) Migrants (11) Palestine (6) Protest (13) Russia (9) Suella Braverman (8) Television (7) Trade Unionism (6) Ukraine (7) United States of America (52) War (12) Welfare (6) Working Class (7)
