I have been researching North for only a few days now and I cannot beleive what I am reading! Did most of you know his views on this?

"...Furthermore, there is that other great, intolerable evil of the New England Puritans: the Puritans took land away from the "native Americans." You know, the Indians. (Liberals have adopted the phrase "native Americans" in recent years. They never, ever say "American natives," since this is only one step away from "American savages," which is precisely what most of those demon-worshipping, Negro slave-holding, frequently land-polluting people were.... This was one of the great sins in American life, they say: "the stealing of Indian lands".... That a million savages had a legitimate legal claim on the whole of North America north of Mexico is the unstated assumption of such critics. They never ask the question: From whom did the Indians of early colonial America get the land? They also never ask the even more pertinent question: Was the advent of the European in North America a righteous historical judgment of God against the Indians? On the contrary, our three authors [Noll, Hatch, Marsden] ridicule the Puritans for having suggested that the Indians were the moral and covenantal equivalent of the Canaanites (p. 33). In fact, if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution, the "native Americans" did.

Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), pp. 257-258.

-- DAVID (tdavidc@arn.net), January 01, 2000

Answers

Yeah, I did know. And? How does this equate to Y2K? Look, you don't like him it's clear. You can post dozens of his political views. I'm only really interested in the Y2K ones.

-- Mello1 (Mello1@ix.netcom.com), January 01, 2000.

Pretty amazing aint it? See what a little technology can do insofar as providing a forum for the spread of ideas?

-- nyc (nycnyc@hotmail.com), January 01, 2000.

Gary North is not important.

If you can't remember that, write it down somewhere.

Go on, get a pencil.

-- he really doesn't (matter@at.all), January 01, 2000.

Who is Gary North?

-- Truk (truk@loa.moc), January 01, 2000.

Oh but it DOES relate to y2K. In fact, his political and religous views which are intermixed is his whole motivation for sounding the alarm on y2K. He wants Christian Reconstructionism to rule the government. He clearly states that he is hoping for a break down of Western Civilization so that his Reconstrctionist Movement can impose God's (Norths?) will. If he helps bring about wide spread panic, has he not attempted to further his goal?

-- DAVID (tdavidc@arn.net), January 01, 2000.

Is he related to Peter?

-- Truk (truk@loa.moc), January 01, 2000.

Well, Mello, apropos of that quoted comment, wouldn't you agree that if somebody has incredibly screwy views regarding the universe that it might make other pronouncements suspect, at the very least? This is why North is a terrible person to pay attention to -- folks like Yardeni et al have considered the whole problem without coming from North's horrifically bigoted position. North is not trying to save humanity, he's trying to advance a blatantly racist and exclusionary agenda under cover of a larger problem -- and that to me is worthy of contempt. Why even follow him when all the info he has provided is available from other sources?

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), January 02, 2000.

Besides that, if someone is telling me the sky is falling and to quit my job, sell my stocks, arm myself and move to a bunker and that duct tape is the currency of the future, I want to know who is telling me this and why!!!!!!

-- DAVID (tdavidc@arn.net), January 02, 2000.

I'm sorry David, but I have my own political and religious viewpoints. Even if what you say is true about GN (nothing in reading his postings for 1+ years has led me to that conclusion), his postings regarding Y2K have been useful to me, and gee, I'm not a cultist or anything. BTW, GN's site is not the only one that I read, I tend to research many sites on Y2K.

However, I am somewhat amused at this obsession with GN. Gee, you would think that he is a reincarnation of Jim Jones or something... (maybe he is to you, I don't know...) I'm only interested in the Y2K postings...

-- Mello1 (mello1@ix. netcom.com), January 02, 2000.

Also David, just because someone wants to shout that the sky is falling, it doesn't mean that I run for cover -- I look up first, then make my own decision about it. Yeah North, and many others headed for the hills -- I don't agree with that, but I don't negate the postings that he has provided regarding the subject matter. If he wants to be Chicken Little, that's fine by me -- I just don't choose to go that far. However, I do think that the information he provided on Y2K was worth getting past that to me.

-- Mello1 (Mello1@ix.netcom.com), January 02, 2000.

Well Mello, I wouldn't call it an obsession, I have a life other than this! I am mainly curious as to how many people who are followers of his truly understand where he is coming from. The man does resemble Jim Jones in some ways. I never said his preparedness warnings were wrong or that his whole view on y2K was wrong. There are people on here who take all he says at face value and think he is just a public servant. I hardly think so. For those that do not know of his radical views and are taking his advice, they should be FULLY informed as to his motives.

-- DAVID (tdavidc@arn.net), January 02, 2000.

And Ned, believe it or not, I listen to all kinds of viewpoints. Even those that I violently oppose, if they speak to one thing that I can agree on, I will acknowledge that. That is how I grow in thinking. If I took the viewpoint that I cannot acknowledge the things that a person says that I think are right, because everything else that person says I think is wrong, then I become closed-minded. But that is me. Right or wrong, that's how I try to think.

-- Mello1 (mello1@ix.netcom.com), January 02, 2000.

David, Since I don't know Dr. North's feelings in this regard, I am unable to figure them out from what you have here. The use of quote marks is confusing. Which are YOUR comments and which his?

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), January 02, 2000.

David, I thank you. I consider myself informed.

-- mello1 (Mello1@ix.netcom.com), January 02, 2000.

One thing, Gary North is an extremely intelligent expert on history. Until any one can do EXTENSIVE research to dispute any comment GN makes re. any historical postulation, I'll take his word first, especially since he also invokes a Christian outlook.

Liberal historians have mutated facts for centuries and hence, had them them down the pitiful public school systems' throats.
More power to the TRUTH, whatever it may be.

-- Not worthy (ofcrit@cism.org), January 02, 2000.

Peter North has a doctorate? Just another thing to be amazed about!

-- Truk (truk@loa.moc), January 02, 2000.

Mara: Everything between the quote marks are his. The two lines at the top are all that are mine.

My only contribution to this quote are:

Subject: Gary North's wisdom? WOW, scary!

I have been researching North for only a few days now and I cannot beleive what I am reading! Did most of you know his views on this?

The rest is all his.

-- DAVID (tdavidc@arn.net), January 02, 2000.

Hey David. Two last points. First let me clarify that I wasn't necessarily referring to your obsession over GN. However, there are some others that are overboard with the things that he has said. Second, I try to follow only myself. The truth is what I ultimately decide the truth to be, no matter who I agree with or no. I'm a strong promoter of free-will and individualism. I may agree with someone, but to follow? No way for me.

-- Mello1 (Mello1@ix.netcom.com), January 02, 2000.

Yes, Gary North has a Ph. D. in history. No doubt he is a learned man. The above quote is not historical fact but an opinion based on historical fact. He speculates that white Europeans were sent here by God to punish the Indians. SURELY you are not suggesting that this would be a historical fact that the "evil educational establishment" has hidden from our children!

-- DAVID (tdavidc@arn.net), January 02, 2000.

No, does Peter North have a Ph.D.? Since he and Gary are such prolific contributors in their own fields (and respected by many), surely, they must be related...

-- Truk (truk@loa.moc), January 02, 2000.

Mello, sounds like your have your head on straight! Wasn't saying that everyone who reads this guys stuff is a nut case. I found some of his stuff informative and even pudent. I do think he is alittle out there though and I don't beleive in "killing the messenger just because I don't like the message". I do however want to know who the messenger is and why he is giving me this message. That helps me assess the validity of it.

-- DAVID (tdavidc@arn.net), January 02, 2000.

DAVID, I'm suggesting that GN is much more qualified to comment than most of us, especially since we have been molded (read, 'blinded') by this unGodly, liberal society for so many generations.
Sometimes we cannot see the forest for the trees, that's all.

I've learned that most of our views are liberal historian and media shaped. It's not easy to escape that bent. Caution.

-- Not worthy (ofcrit@cism.org), January 02, 2000.

Fair enough, Mello, I'll accept that. This said, I have to restate my earlier point -- what has North talked about not otherwise said elsewhere? It seems his two chief values were either as overall analyst or as preparation expert, and in either case, rather more calm alternates existed for such information. He may have value as a rhetorician, but if this whole thing has been meant to get people to look behind statements for a larger truth, then swapping one talking head for another does little to help, and the only difference between him and, say, Koskinen is the nature of the agenda.

This said, I have to add: some are arguing (I'm sure not) that yesterday was nothing but one big sell to the world public to convince them nothing was wrong. North, I feel, has been doing one big sell to convince the world that he's right about a *lot* of things, and having seen what that involves, frankly on that level I'm not buying. If it's all simply down to a question of who would I trust to want to have the best interests of everyone in mind, then I'm *not* going to trust or consider someone who has active hate or bigotry as part of the program.

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), January 02, 2000.

SO WHAT?

Gary North is Gary North, he has just as much right to further his goals as any of us, and no one said you had to agree with him. Do you have a mind of your own? If you do, what makes your goals so much better than his, and why don't you constructively pursue them instead of trying to slander his?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.

David, I went back to read the statements that you posted on GN. I agree with your assertion regarding his politics. However, and perhaps unfortunately, I have been finding myself on the same side as those that have these kinds of viewpoints when it comes to issues regarding the government, the constitution, and Y2K. Strange, isn't it? Now that is scary.... lol. Anyway, I will say that beyond Y2K, GN and would probably have nothing in common...

-- Mello1 (Mello1@ix.netcom.com), January 02, 2000.

oops, I left out the word 'I' in the last sentence...sorry.

-- Mello1 (Mello1@ix.netcom.com), January 02, 2000.

Sorry, Not Worthy, I can't accept your explanation. Ultimately there's a key reason, namely that North does not speak for Christians as a whole. If you share his vision, fine, but the God I was raised to worship would never have condoned the actions North all too gleefully describes in the quoted text, and I'm hardly alone. I do not question your faith, but I *do* question your assumption that a Christian vs. liberal dichotomy exists and is absolute. It is not, and never has been.

This is not the forum for an in-depth discussion on the matter, but I am not going to let North go unchallenged as somehow being the voice of God in this whole tangled mess, and I refuse to kowtow to him just because he has a PhD, in the same way that I do not feel my own MA degree makes me particularly special. His is the point of view that finds kindred, in the end, in the horrors of something like American slavery or apartheid, or the Holocaust -- all justifications of the destruction or oppression of other human beings and peoples, all crimes that make instakneejerk complaints about 'Klinton' seem childish.

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), January 02, 2000.

Thanks Ned! Great to find another voice of reason out here.

As for North, I am not willing to sit here and say that North is much smarter because he has more college than I and therefore, his opinions regarding God's motivations must be truth. (Actually, he has about the same amount of college as I)

If North as a Historian wants to make an argument that Pilgrims actually landed in San Diego and back it up with evidence and say that liberal historians switched the landing spot in the books to Plymouth Rock, then I will hear his argument. That is an historical point. God's motivations is not a historical point. It is speculative philosophy usually espoused to further the philosophers agenda.

It is NOT even common sense to sit here and say that because someone has a Ph.D. in history they know what God's motivations were regarding that historical event better than you and I. Anyone who tells you they know what God's motivations were is lying! ONLY GOD know's GOD'S motivations!

-- DAVID (tdavidc@arn.net), January 02, 2000.

Ned, well said. I agree, on the whole. I have to also concede that I have had thoughts of GN and others being used in some sort of disinformation ploy. I have to concede that, for it is a possibility, if not likely.

-- Mello1 (Mello1@ix.netcom.com), January 02, 2000.

Ned, your comments are wholey unsubstantiated, IMO. Had they a basis, I would likely concur as they are legitimately morally founded, in an ephemeral,sense. Again the liberal-shaped perspective.

Here however, it appears (we are both arguing from incomplete information), your position is merely based on conjecture, that sprouting from a poorly understood interpretation of Dr. North's grounded postulations & references.

I firmly stand by my earlier comments.
Today's liberal "PC" (political correctness) has made folks afraid of confronting the truth.

Best always,

-- Not worthy (ofcrit@cism.org), January 02, 2000.

Assuming you speak to me, Hawk (and perhaps not) -- call me willfully idealistic, but while North is North and I am I and certainly never the twain shall meet (at least, I sure hope we don't! ;-)), how exactly can I 'slander' someone who openly talks about a socioreligious point of view which includes talking about things like justified race war? Come, I may be wrong here, but last I heard that wasn't exactly 'love thy neighbor,' and I'd want to hope *you* don't agree with him on that. I have said this before and will repeat -- I'd want to put my trust in somebody who I believe is acting in the interests of *everyone* in this affair, whoever and whereever we are on the planet. North hardly inspires my faith that he is doing that, anything but.

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), January 02, 2000.

*puzzled* "Grounded postulations and references"? Not Worthy, please, I ask you, read the quote which started this whole thing. Any number of tribes, cultures, men, women and children, old and young, are described simply as 'a million savages.' This is demeaning, dehumanizing, horrifying. This is hate, and that is but three simple words from him -- from a Christian writer, and from a writer who has made his name supposedly trying to help the world as a whole, I should expect love. Do you not agree? If not, I fear yours is a point of view I gladly avoid.

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), January 02, 2000.

Not Worthy: Let me give you a little background on me. I am an EXPERT in PC. I left my job as student affairs administrator at a major university largely becasue of it. It was creeping in to the philosphies of everything. Universities and public schools have forgotten that there are such things are right and wrong. I handled student discpline to give you an idea of where Iam coming from.

This is an issue I lived with first hand, studied about, grieved over, went to the mat with higher level administrators and faculty over and I beleive I gained the respect of some of my colleagues over. I am hardly PC. I beleive people shoud be held accountable for their actions and that INCLUDES Gary North. I resigned my job for many other reasons, the main being that I wanted to make some money someday!

When someone tells me about a PC conspiracy, I know what they look like. And Brother, the history books NOT saying that Genocide of a native peoples in their homeland was a punishment brought on by God aint a PC conspiracy!

-- DAVID (tdavidc@arn.net), January 02, 2000.

To Mello and David, thanks. A disinformation ploy? I don't know -- I mean, I certainly agree that the knowledge that North comes from the point of view that he does means that many people, once they have learned of his views, were inclined to dismiss Y2K in toto as crank city. But I think North is acting of his own volition, and that there's no strings being pulled to manipulate the public in his case (or in most cases, but that's another subject). *shrug* Who can say? Really, I just consider him to be a Hal Lindsay of the modern day. I know old Hal is still around, but given how he's had to keep revising his predictions every three years, I think he's the last one to get the joke. ;-)

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), January 02, 2000.

One does not and should not love evil.
I don't know enough of the references here, but a blanketed 'love' cannot be had for satan in any and all his forms. I am by no means saying this generally of any native people of course, but any persons whose actions are evil, are working for satan. Satan knows no bounds in his infiltration.

Generations of long lost souls, so far from the Word that they haven't even heard of it, exist around the world. Anthropologists call this "Native" religion and study it in all its fascination. The truth is that they are so far from the truth that they have become fully lost. Sadly, this exists in all societies, some more. The same can be said for our very own NA Hollywood-driven culture.

I merely am trying to open your eyes from outside our own blinders.
God bless.

-- not worthy (ofcrit@cism.org), January 02, 2000.

Not Worthy: It is clear that you have some serious blinders yourself. Maybe we both do but WOW.

I'm really speechless at the fact you could think North's assertions are correct and that we were sent here to punish the Indians. Who turned into the "negroe slave owners and polluters of the land" here later on? I man his thesis hardly makes sense much less has credibility.

-- DAVID (tdavidc@arn.net), January 02, 2000.

Okay, this is really the last post for me *yawn* -- I got to go to bed. To David and Ned, this has been the most enjoyable discussion of this forum today (at least for me). I think we all have benefited tonight. Worthy, creator bless you--you are a bit too puritanical for me, but that is your truth and you are entitled to it! Goodnight all!

-- Mello1 (mello1@ix.netcom.com), January 02, 2000.

g'night mello

-- DAVID (tdavidc@arn.net), January 02, 2000.

DAVID, my first, and main, point is, I bow to GN's proven empirical Christian and historical knowledge.

Granted, I think we both need more information. There's always more to the story, and I'm assuming GN knows it, first and foremost.
Talk all you want, but I am (no offence) assuming you are less than qualified. It would take years, multitudes of cogent writings from yourself to prove otherwise.

G'night,

-- not worthy (ofcrit@cism.org), January 02, 2000.

It seems, Not Worthy, that your own blinders are all too fearfully in place. If you do not mean to lump all native -- or should we just drop the code word and say 'non-white'? -- persons together, then why so eagerly defend someone who practices such an approach, who embraces division and not inclusion? Please, enough evasion -- answer or have done with it.

To Mello, again, my thanks. And bed does sound like a fine idea.

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), January 02, 2000.

G'night Johnboy.

-- Mary Ellen (sleepin@with.theboys), January 02, 2000.

Gary North is at least right on this one. He may have his timing off on Y2K but he is right on here. Our Christian forefathers also knew what they were doing and did the right thing. I am sure they could have done something better and they werent perfect but they were right.

-- danny (dan_evans@bc.sypatico.ca), January 02, 2000.

"...Our Christian forefathers also knew what they were doing and did the right thing. I am sure they could have done something better and they werent perfect but they were right."

Um, about what? Taking land? History written by the victors is all that North quote is, with all its creepy ramifications, and you're being awfully cavalier about it. You'll find that many Native Americans will have rather a different approach to the question, and I suspect you haven't taken the time to at least read or hear what they have to say. Heavens, if you want the full religious approach -- "Thou shalt not steal." It seems above that North happily ignores this in favor of suggesting that the Native Americans deserved to lose the land. Come, think about what you're saying, and ask yourself what *is* right here.

-- Ned Raggett (ned@kuci.org), January 02, 2000.

Actully I have asked myself the question many times....Im part Native American. No one stole anything from anyone, There was many mistakes made but I have been able to get over them, unlike many of my relatives. Its time to get over it and realize shift happens.

You are some self rightous B*#%$(&. You dont think the Natives raped and pillaged each other for thousands of years befor the British finally cam and ended it? read some Native history (not American History, read the stories of my forefathers..

-- danny (dan@sympatico.ca), January 02, 2000.

WOW, when I posted this quote from North I never dreamed that there would be people who would actually come out and agree with the stance that "the advent of the European in North America was the historical judgement of God" on the "savages" as North calls them.

I agree Danny, it happened, we should get over it and that is all history. What offends me is that North seems to gloat that we came here on a mandate from God to take the land and treat the natives as inferiors and he apparantly still sees them as inferiors. In fact, he appears to see anyone with a philosophy other than Christian Recontructionism as inferior.

Here is an additional quote of his:

"....I am trying to deal with the attitude of superiority--a superiority based on our possession of the law of God. That attitude is something Christians must have when dealing with all pagans. God has given us the tools of dominion."

Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986), p. 214n.

-- DAVID (tdavidc@arn.net), January 02, 2000.

The existence of people like Gary North is the reason the lack of terrorism during the rollover blew my mind.

-- nevermind (not@for.you.to.know), January 02, 2000.

It's amazing that so many people prefer to discuss personalities rather than the Y2K issues. I don't really care about the political or religious views of Gary North .

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 02, 2000.

The this thread isn't the place for you to post, read etc. Dave. Gary North and his ultimate motivations for being such an extremist ON Y2K ARE Y2K related.

-- DAVID (tdavidc@arn.net), January 02, 2000.

David,

Thanks for clarifying that. There is no end quote and the quotes in between should have been single quotes, but now I understand. No wonder they call him Scary Gary. That is frightening. The white Americans were savages in many cases that I have looked into. They lied and cheated the Seminoles in Florida, something I read about most recently. They arrested Osceola under a white truce flag. This was after cheating the Seminoles of land ceded to them when the US took possesion of Florida from the Spanish. The Seminole Wars and what ignited them is a very disturbing phase of US history and one that does this country NO credit. I can't believe that represents Christianity either. I also know a great deal about the treatment of the Navajo, another distasteful story.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), January 02, 2000.