Thanks To Ron Wortham for sending this on... ====================================== Dear Ron:

I have sent to you an essay I wrote about Y2K. As one who studied the subject fairly intensely, I was surprised and suspicious of the unexpected near-perfect rollover the world experienced. The essay sums up the conclusions I have come to about Y2K. It was all about getting great quantities of restrictive legislation passed...done so on a deadline so frightfully tight that Congress didn't have time to consider what they were doing carefully enough.

I know this is a rather long essay; but I'd love to hear some feedback from people as to whether they also "see this link". Your' re welcome to include it in your news letter if you think it's worthy.

Thanks, Meg THE WHY IN Y2K By Meg Davis

There is no doubt that many of the people who dedicated untold hours to studying Y2K, were shocked and confused by the uneventful turnover and the subsequent lack of major breakdowns. I suggest that perhaps the answer to this conundrum, lies less in what did not happen during Y2K and more in what did happen.

Let's start by dispensing with the currently popular claim that .... "every single one of the potentially devastating Y2k problems were eliminated by the hard work of people in the field". Granted, through the dedicated labor of thousands of programmers, managers, consultants and engineers, Y2K's negative impact was severely curtailed. But, there is no logical explanation to account for the dozens of countries that essentially did no Y2K remediation work, yet still made it through the rollover virtually unscathed. The bottom line is, deep down we all know, that if the dozens of reports that predicted major problems in emerging nations' infrastructure were true, then the current "we fixed it" theory is absurd. In fact, it is the very absurdity behind this theory that has left many of the Y2K investigators, shell-shocked and wandering, still in search of the "why" in Y2K. The way I see it, there are only two plausible possibilities to explain what really happened: 1) All of the reports written by the world's most informed agencies were dead wrong or

2) All of the reports written by the world's most informed agencies were part of a massive "disinformation" campaign.

Let's set that thought aside for just a moment and refocus on the theme of this essay, what DID change from Y2K.

Government and big business (really one in the same) has often been likened to a magician, not because of their ability to perform magic, but because of their employment of the same tactics a magician uses when he needs to fool the crowd.... "slight of hand". The best magicians are masters of focusing the attention of their audience exactly where they want it. Their movements are designed to steer the crowds' senses in one direction, then, as all eyes are averted, they... swiftly, quietly, accomplish their goal... the trick.

This analogy can quite accurately be applied to the experience we have all encountered with regard to Y2K. Using the "magician" and his expert ability to divert attention, illustrates, through a connective concept, that a critical piece of the Y2K puzzle sits hidden, in plain site. The importance of this much overlooked evidence cannot be overemphasized, for it leads us directly to the "why" in Y2K. For purpose of illustration, the symbolic "magician" of Y2K is represented by a powerful policy group that includes a conglomerate of controlling members from the government, the media, and the international corporate world.

In order to achieve the magic, of accomplishing clandestine goals, the Y2K magician needed to deal effectively with two, very distinct factions in his audience. As we all know, the psychology of the masses is a well-studied subject. Corporations and governments pay experts in this field to track the masses reaction to events and to formulate models for creating desired reactions in the masses. Certainly, advertising campaigns utilize similar techniques on each and every one of us, every day. In this case, the magician's onlookers were made up of one group, which we will call the "Skeptical Intellectuals" or, ("S.I.'s" for short) and a distinctly different group, known as "The Rest". I am not implying that, "The Rest" did not include intellectuals, or, that as a group they didn't show some skepticism within their ranks; however, the members of this group were (basically) not so suspicious that they were willing to study for hours in order to find out whether the magician's magic was "real". "The Rest" went about their business hearing, absorbing and believing the overt message they were being sent. The "S.I.'s" on the other hand, were constantly searching for proof.

To successfully execute "the illusion of a lifetime", the magician needed to divert the attention of both the "S.I.'s" and "The Rest" away from his ulterior motives. The first group "the intellectual skeptics" were much too proactive and suspicious to accept the magician's explanations at face value. The second group, "The Rest" needed to be reassured that "all was well" so they could spend their time comfortably absorbed in the illusion. Now, the magician knew that he had to come up with something big, something believable and even dangerous to capture the "S.I.'s" attention. In fact, that "something" needed to be so threatening that the "Skeptical Intellectuals" would spend all of their free time studying it, discussing it and trying to understand the inconsistencies that surrounded it.

The magician gave them a glimpse of Y2K's destructive potential. He knew their quest for information would eventually lead them to the dozens of Y2K documents available on the Internet, documents, which revealed a sense of deep government and corporate concern regarding the unprecedented threat that Y2K posed to technology-based systems. But the scenario described in the documents was not the one the magician publicly proclaimed; and quietly, (in inner circles) he admitted that this was because he didn't want "The Rest" to panic. After all, he surmised, wasn't it better if they sat back and enjoyed the show without the agitation of unnecessary and fearful concerns?

This information was purposefully leaked out to the "S.I's" who wondered why the public statements on Y2K differed so radically from the information found in reports. The explanation did make some sense to them, yet ... still, there were many incongruities they were busy trying to grapple with. The magician did not deny the existence of Y2K to "The Rest". In fact, it was necessary that they believed that there was a big, scary problem; but, at the same time, it was also equally necessary that they believed that the problem was fully under control. "The Rest" were lead to believe that Y2K could be fixed and would be fixed... simply by spending enormous amounts of money and by passing new legislation, which implemented protection based plans to fight terrorism, money-laundering, computer-hacking, and drug-dealing. It was also necessary, they said, to relax immigration laws so that hundreds of thousands of new technologically savvy programmers could come to the rescue. "The Rest" were greatly reassured and they happily went back to mindlessly watching the magicians hands. Some of the less trusting in their group did keep an eye out for news of danger, but none ever arrived. In one fell swoop, the magician had aroused fear and dependence from "The Rest" and he had acquired for himself an enormous increase in powers. In the final stages of his trick, he would actually arouse appreciation and relief from them, for "The (oblivious) Rest" were totally unaware that they had been robbed. He was a VERY good magician.

There are those that will balk at the very idea of suggesting an orchestrated collusion to exaggerate Y2K potential problems for the purpose of obtaining, otherwise unattainable, highly-restrictive legislation. I am not suggesting that Y2K was an imaginary problem, which never posed potential, technological problems for the computer dependent spheres of government and industry. Many minor (and some, not so minor) glitches have been attributed to Y2K code related errors. The question is, were the problems ever as potentially disastrous as many governments and organizations quietly indicated?

Hoodwinking the American population is no small feat. It required that every major industry participate in "secret corporate and government sponsored planning meetings". It required that laws be enacted to prevent committee members from divulging meeting information to the public. It required more legislation be added to make it a crime against "national security" for employees working in infrastructure related industries to disclose information about Y2K status (whether positive or negative). Furthermore, the legal departments in most, if not all large businesses, convinced management that the prudent way to handle Y2K was to put a "no talk" policy in effect. This they counseled, was the best way to avoid becoming a victim of litigation. Furthermore, the very existence of these "secretive industry and government infrastructure committees" (which were necessary to promote the underlying motive of Y2K) contributed to reinforcing the belief held by the "Intellectual Skeptics" that Y2K was (secretly) going to be a much bigger disaster than the public was being told.

Billions of dollars were spent (at least, that's what we're told, although companies do not seem to have felt the impact on their bottom line, as one might expect). Every major organization wrote reports, some of them quite alarming. The CIA, FBI, UN, IMF, FED, Navy, National Guard .... all mentioned that major infrastructure problems were expected in emerging nations, and that infrastructure problems were possible even in the U.S. . The reports were available on the Internet where the "Skeptical Intellectuals" would spend their days scanning for any shred of news that would make sense of this incongruity. One report that the Navy issued, disclosed a long list of U.S. utility companies that were expected to experience disruptions in service. The fact that this report appeared to be "leaked" to the public gave it an added air of credibility in the eyes of many "S.I.'s". The report, although confirmed authentic, was publicly dismissed as being outdated. The mainstream news media never questioned the inconsistencies that Y2K presented. Instead, they helped to portray to "The Rest" that all was well, while discrediting even the most respectable, fact-driven "Skeptical Intellectual". The "S.I.'s" encountered conflicting information from every direction; they were kept constantly busy trying to sift out the facts from the fiction. "The Rest" were successfully convinced to buy the standard, government-issued line ... "Y2K was a real threat and it could have caused serious ... even catastrophic, problems. But, that threat is behind us now. Major disruptions are no longer likely. The government and big business saved the day; and they did it by spending billions of dollars and by passing new laws that set into motion ... many interesting and alarming changes.

Was Y2K some big mistake? Did the governments and corporations of the world really spend 600 billion dollars on a lark? Were the CIA, FBI, UN, Navy, National Guard, IMF, World Bank and a host of others really "dead wrong" when then warned of major infrastructure breakdowns and possible rioting?

OR..................

Was Y2K a scare tactic that induced our Congress to spend billions of dollars on militarizing our civilian infrastructure? Did the Y2K scare bamboozle Congress into passing laws, based on the false assumption that a concrete deadline required immediate action? Who convinced Congress that a threat to the United States was imminent?

WHAT WERE THE EFFECTS OF Y2K?

HASTILY APPROVED LEGISLATION!

Why?

1. So the police forces would be heavily armed and trained to prevent major riots during power outages.

IMPACT: A much more militant Police Force which, now uses black, riot uniforms, more potent tear gas, rubber bullets, and in some locations, armored vehicles

2. So the military could come to the aid of the police forces (bypasses Posse Comitatus Act)

IMPACT: Military can be called in for use against the civilian population when major rioting occurs, or terrorism or drug dealing is suspected.

3. So money could be allocated to refurbish nuclear bunkers in case riots or terrorist attacks required government leaders need someplace to hide. And, to allocate over 50 million dollars for "the main" communications bunker in Washington, DC. (Note: Although it was reported that every major city built or refurbished a bunker, not one cent was spent on protective structures for the public)

IMPACT: Members of government will be protected, in case of major rioting, terrorist attack or war

4. So money could be allocated at the State and local level to train emergency personnel from the police departments, fire departments, hospitals, National Guard, Red Cross and other agencies in how to respond to chemical and biological attack. These multi-agency mock attacks were practiced in secret all over the country. Participants were told they could not reveal information about the practices for "national security reasons". (Note: no information was disseminated to the general public informing them of what to do in these emergencies)

IMPACT: Federal and local agencies are trained for chemical and/or biological attack

5. To form a "Secret Infrastructure Protection Committee", which includes top officials from the government and major US corporations.

IMPACT: A secret liaison between government and industry exists which controls the lifeblood industries in our country: banking, media, telecommunications, electricity, gas, water, raw materials, and chemicals

6. To protect banks, power, gas and water companies, telecommunications companies and chemical companies from having to disclose the truth. Terrorists or hackers might take advantage of the vulnerable situation Y2K (was supposed to) put us in.

IMPACT: Many industries are now shrouded in secrecy and protected from disclosing the truth about dangers they may pose to our economy, health and environment.

7. To legally discourage an employee in an Infrastructure related Industry and/or the chemical industry to disclose damaging information about that industry. And, to do the same with the media. Everyone was expected to remain silent for "national security" reasons since Y2K would make us so very vulnerable.

IMPACT: Employees in infrastructure related industries and the media are legally discouraged from telling the truth.

8. To allocate huge amounts of money for military expenditures such as a state-of-the-art, military telecommunications system that would bypass current systems should they be taken off line by outages, or terrorists, or war. To provide for a plan where the military, via this system, is directly linked to industries that uphold our infrastructure.

IMPACT: The US military could communicate with all units of the National Guard and keep control of infrastructure related industries if the US was under siege either from riots, terrorists attacks or war.

9. To create International teams of specialists that would be ready to descend upon an infrastructure-compromised country...."to help them out".

IMPACT: Teams of "international" specialist are ready for deployment to countries under siege either from riots, terrorist attack or war. If the problems arise in the U.S.; foreign teams could come here.

10. To allow hundreds of thousands of immigrants into the United States to help solve the computer code problems. (Note that this initiative was rushed through so fast that it was later disclosed that many immigrants allowed into the US did NOT have background checks)

IMPACT: Possible terrorist-connected entries into US. The US becomes more "internationalized". More voters for Democrats?

11. To empower FEMA with legislative backing, money and materials enough to oversee the control of the United States in case of black out induced catastrophe. (Note: many people are critical of the secrecy that is prevalent in the FEMA organization)

IMPACT: FEMA now has the power to take total control of the United States public infrastructure under "emergency conditions" including: massive riots, terrorists attack, war or natural disaster)

12. To justify the issuance of an extra $50 billion dollars into the United States monetary system.

IMPACT: The stock market was bolstered making the economy appear farmore stable then economic fundamentals portray. This added liquidity has, in turn, increased the instability of the markets to a point where a severe crash and recession are more likely than ever.

13. To Justify many more potentially restrictive Executive Orders that would put all of the above in motion.

IMPACT: The person holding the position of "United States President" now has the power to suspend the Constitution, nationalize all industry, confiscate all property, and direct the military WITHOUT input from Congress, simply by declaring a "national emergency".

During the Y2K preparation scare, Congress was lobbied by concerned citizen groups, to "top off" the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and to make sure that fuel companies were prepared for the uncertain outcome of the rollover. It is interesting to note that four weeks after the rollover, the United States has the lowest level of petroleum and natural gas reserves in 10 years. Furthermore, petroleum imports were reduced by 26% between 1/01/2000 and 1/31/2000. This reduction is far greater than any cutbacks that may have affected us through OPEC's reduced production policy. Some States are calling for President Clinton to declare a "State of Emergency." If government and big business REALLY believed Y2K was a threat, why did they "reduce" rather than "incr ease" our oil and gas supplies?

Perhaps it's time the American people asked, "What is going on?"

This essay may be printed freely, in it's entirety MD

------------------- If you would like to be added to the Y2K_Homework mailing list, simply send an "Add me" statement to: RonWortham@aol.com< /A> To be removed, send a "remove" statement.

NO COPYRIGHTS are claimed. Links to most stories are included.

"Y2K_Homework" is a FREE e-mail project containing news, opinion and survival tips, mailed in BLIND copies, now to over 400 subscribers. Your e-mail address is not seen by others on the list.

Contributions to maintain this project:

Ron Wortham PO Box 1 Sadler, TX 76264



-- Sheri (wncy2k@nccn.net), February 07, 2000

Answers

Paranoid drivel like this is what gave the seriousness of the very real software problem a bad name.

-- David Eddy (deddy@davideddy.com), February 07, 2000.

Whether you like the implications in this essay or not, major changes potentially detrimental to our freedom, have been put in place. place.

In a Dictatorship, the President of that country can create restrictive laws simply by writing them. If you don't like it, you risk your life saying so. In a Democracy, restrictive laws are made by the use of fear. This is not my OPINION, this is historical fact.

Take Gun Control as a perfect example. In the countries where it has been enacted,(i.e. Australia, UK,). Invariably there is a terribly shocking event, a mass murder. The people are appalled, horrified, frightened at the randomness of it all. The Pro Gun control folks in government and society jump on that fear; they immediately call for more laws and they try to rush the legislation through Congress. They know, the best time to ram this legislation through is before things quiet down, before there is time to think. Because, given the time to think, the public might just find out that in countries where gun control has been legislated...crime goes UP by a considerable degree. And, the public might have time to rationalize that criminals do not follow the law, that's why they're call criminals. So the historical effects of gun control have always been negative. The criminal gains power the victim becomes helpless and unarmed. A man that was considering robbing a little store, now KNOWS he can't be shot; the risk he takes for physical harm is eliminated. The crime becomes more worthwhile. Statistics conclusively prove that to take away the victims mode of protection only helps the criminal.

Taking advantage of "fear" is the most effective way of accomlishing a policy of tight restriction on a democratic population. When frightened enough, the populous will clamour to have laws passed to protect them, not thinking twice about the ever-escalating degree of power over their lives that they have freely (albeit under duress) given the government.

As I mentioned in the above essay, our current govenment has imposed an inordinate amount of restrictive laws based on fear. Internet control: fear of porn or fear of hackers, Banking legislation which allows intrusive information to be gathered about customers : fear of money laundering, Permission for our policing organizations to spy; tap phones, & records, search and sieze without proper proof of "reasonably cause": fear of drugs (they've used this one a lot!)

If President Clinton has his way, he will get Gun Control passed in this country;God knows he's trying. When Columbine took place he JUMPED at the opportunity to RUSH new gun laws through a stunned and mourning public and Congress. Then there was the LA shooter, the Fort Worth Shooter and the Atlanta shooter; each time the public was horrified and fearful, the Anti-Gun lobby (which includes the main media), tried to convince the public we need tighter and tighter gun laws. My God, there are 22,000 gun laws now in this country. Do you think this is really about another law? It's not even about "why kids kill". If it were about that, they might mention that EVERY SINGLE MURDER (kid & adult) WAS ON A PSYCHOTROPIC DRUG: Ritalin, Luvox, Prozac. But, to mention THAT would jepordize the huge profits the drug companies make on feeding those "very popular" drugs to our population. There are between 35,000-50,000 kids in Massachusetts schools alone, on Ritalin! Legally prescribed drugs like these cause over 200,000 deaths in 1998. So...it's not about saving kids (or they'd be screaming about the dangers of these drugs) and it's not about making schools safe (or they'd be arming teachers, like Israel does (quite successfully). So what is it about?

It's about the UN agenda for One World Order. It is about dissolving the nation-state. The UN directive specifically calls for nations to disarm their public; and it's being done. Many of the other directives have already been accomplished. Clinton is a pro-UN man.

Take a look at this Bill that has passed committee and is currently going before the Arizona legislator. I am not the only one concerned about what I see happening here in the US; clearly, the representatives of Arizona see some frightening things on the horizon too. (Frankly, if you are not just a little paranoid right now, you need to do some reading)

--------------------------------------------------------------- & REFERENCE TITLE: abolish federal government; state sovereignty & ---------------------------------------------------------------- & & & & & & & State of Arizona & & House of Representatives & & Forty-fourth Legislature & & Second Regular Session & & 2000 & & & & & ---------------------------------------------------------------- & HCR 2034 & ---------------------------------------------------------------- & Introduced by & & Representatives Johnson, Cooley & ----------------------------------------------------------------

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

PROPOSING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS OCCUR.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

Whereas, on July 4, 1776, our founding fathers proclaimed that the people had the right to alter or abolish their government and declared thirteen British colonies to be free and independent, or sovereign, states; and

Whereas, on March 1, 1781, the thirteen states formed a central government they called the United States of America under a charter known as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which stated that "each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence"; and

Whereas, on September 17, 1787, the leaders of the Continental Congress signed the present Constitution of the United States, which was then transmitted to the thirteen states for ratification and the formation of a new central government; and

Whereas, several of the states delayed ratification of the Constitution and three states made clear their position regarding sovereignty by stating that "the powers of government may be resumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness"; and

Whereas, eventually all thirteen of the independent states ratified the Constitution of the United States and joined the new Union, while retaining their sovereignty as states. The states made the new central government sovereign only to the extent that the states delegated to it limited and specific powers; and

Whereas, the Constitution of the United States is merely a treaty among sovereigns, and under treaty law when one party violates the treaty the other parties are automatically released from further adherence to it unless they wish to continue; and

Whereas, the fifty current principals, or signatories, to the treaty have done well in honoring and obeying it, yet the federal agent has, for decades, violated it in both word and spirit. The many violations of the Constitution of the United States by the federal government include disposing of federal property without the approval of Congress, usurping jurisdiction from the states in such matters as abortion and firearms rights and seeking control of public lands within state borders; and

Whereas, under Article V, Constitution of the United States, three- fourths of the states may abolish the federal government. In the alternative, if the states choose to exercise their inherent right as sovereigns, fewer than thirty-eight states may lawfully choose to ignore Article V, Constitution of the United States, and establish a new federal government for themselves by following the precedent established by Article VII, Constitution of the United States, in which nine of the existing thirteen states dissolved the existing Union under the Articles of Confederation and automatically superceded the Articles.

Therefore

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring:

1. That when or if the President of the United States, the Congress of the United States or any other federal agent or agency declares the Constitution of the United States to be suspended or abolished, if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state or if any federal order attempts to make it unlawful for individual Americans to own firearms or to confiscate firearms, the State of Arizona, when joined by thirty-four of the other fifty states, declares as follows: that the states resume all state powers delegated by the Constitution of the United States and assume total sovereignty; that the states re- ratify and re-establish the present Constitution of the United States as the charter for the formation of a new federal government, to be followed by the election of a new Congress and President and the reorganization of a new judiciary, similarly following the precedent and procedures of the founding fathers; that individual members of the military return to their respective states and report to the Governor until a new President is elected; that each state assume a negotiated, prorated share of the national debt; that all land within the borders of a state belongs to the state until sold or ceded to the central government by the state's Legislature and Governor; and that once thirty-five states have agreed to form a new government, each of the remaining fifteen be permitted to join the new confederation on application.

2. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this Resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

-- meg davis (meg9999@aol.com), February 08, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Thanks, Meg, for having the guts to write such thoughts, for allowing them to be shared freely, and for coming here to explain further. If nothing else, it certainly makes for interesting reading! I, myself, have long been concerned with the "martial law" and police brutality aspects of Y2K discussions on TB2000, to the point of participating on at least ten threads on these topics, here. If what you say is true, this is truly mind boggling.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), February 13, 2000.

If government and big business REALLY believed Y2K was a threat, why did they "reduce" rather than "incr ease" our oil and gas supplies?

Any answers on why they reduced the oil and gas supplies?

-- Jeanette Thomas (ou_2000@berkshire.net), February 14, 2000.

I've lived long enough (going on 73 years) to learn that what we call 'reality' very largely arises from what we BELIEVE about what we see going on around us. And, very pertinently, Y2K has made that point better than anything that has come along! Our beliefs have all been proven out...regardless of the great diversity in our beliefs.

So what I can assume from Meg's very long and unnecessarily detailed accounting of what Y2K was all about, for the Federal Gov't, is what it was all about for Meg. She lived in a very fear-driven world, because that is her take on things. I happen not to share it, and believe (for one thing) that a gun control law could be the most effective force for an era of peacefulness in this country, that could possibly come along!

I chose to put my energy into Y2K preparedness because I wanted to expand community in my world, and was reasonably successful in my efforts. So I see blessings in the outcome, not dangers. We live in the world that we daily create. At a very personal level. And thank God there are many who share my view, because it takes many to establish the desired reality on a wider basis.

-- Irv Thomas (irvthom@u.washington.edu), February 16, 2000.

So what are people making of the above theory? Partly it sounds preposterous,but then if so why weren't there more failures esp among those countries that did so little to prepare? Given how inefficient and bumbling the government is,and even the large corporations at times,it's rather hard to believe they could have pulled something like this off. I'd like to feel that there's a logical explanation but alot of this seems straight out of the Twilight Zone. I know that the media is largely controlled,and that most failures since rollover have been sucessfully ignored,but I'm skeptical they could orchestrate a mass coverup. So back to square 1,was the danger exaggerated or what?

-- H (dryfarmer@hotmail.com), February 24, 2000.

Our lives can be paradise or hell. Some of us have paradise and some of us have hell depending on our personal situations. What do you say to a five year old South American homeless child sniffing glue on a garbage pile to escape his/her daily reality? Are they to be blamed for their fearful miserable view of life? I can see paradise, but I also know something is terribly wrong with this picture, if an innocent child can not. I do believe there is enough for everyone to live happy healthy lives in an earthly paradise, but that does not exist for everyone right now. Until this changes and becomes a reality for everyone, someone somewhere is doing something very wrong.

-- Jeanette Thomas (ou_2000@berkshire.net), February 27, 2000.