New. "THE MISLEADERS" 1. a series to supplement Andy Ray's Work : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

I've decided that Andy Ray's efforts are not "quite" getting through to the people who seem to be in most need of it and have the attention span of a guppy and/or the memory systems that nicely "forget" some of the verbiage they thought passed for "wisdom" on TB I, Roleigh Martin, LoserWire and North/Hyatt.

We shall begin with His Dreadfulness, Brer Duct Tape who seems to have lost his lust for earning his title of so many years: Scary Gary.


Issue 51
June 26, 2000

                        THE PATRIOT

     At a recent pre-release showing of "The Patriot" for
the press, the audience gasped at a scene where Mel
Gibson's character takes his teenage sons into the woods to
shoot a few redcoats.  Was this scene politically
incorrect?  I guess it was.  Gibson replied that the
American Revolution was fought on American soil, and
families were defending their land.  He said that he has
taken his sons to shooting ranges to learn how to handle

     My father took me to a police range when I was 9 years
old.  He gave me a .22 rifle.  He was in law enforcement,
and he wanted me to learn how to shoot.  After an hour's
practice, I became a pretty good shot.  I had always known
about gun safety.  When I was a young child, I was not
allowed to point a cap pistol at anyone, which kind of
ruined the use of cap pistols as far as I could see.  This
rule did not apply to ray guns, as I recall, which may
explain my early fondness for science fiction, back in
radio's "Dimension X" and "X Minus One" era.

     I think "The Patriot" will be a big money-maker for
Gibson.  The previews look good.  I hope it raises the
basic themes of the American Revolution: national
sovereignty, the defense of one's home from aggression, the
right of political representation in tax issues, the right
of rebellion against tyranny.

                        TAX TYRANNY

     Do you know what tax tyranny of 1776 was in the
colonies?  A rate of taxation in the 1% range -- possibly
as high as 2.5% in the South's plantation colonies.  In
other words, to get back to the level of British tyranny,
our present tax rate would require a reduction of about

     What was all the fuss about?  Freedom.  That's what
the fuss ought to be about today, but it isn't.

     The prophet Samuel warned the Israelites against
setting up kingship.  Why?  Among other things, taxes.

     And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of
     your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to
     his servants (I Samuel 8:15).

     He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye
     shall be his servants (I Samuel 8:17).

To get back to that level of tyranny, it would take a 75%
tax cut.

     Then there was Egypt under Joseph.  Egypt was the
greatest bureaucratic tyranny in history until the 20th
century.  That was German sociologist Max Weber's opinion
in 1909, and it's mine.

          Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I
     have bought you this day and your land for
     Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall
     sow the land. And it shall come to pass in the
     increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto
     Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for
     seed of the field, and for your food, and for
     them of your households, and for food for your
     little ones. And they said, Thou hast saved our
     lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord,
     and we will be Pharaoh's servants. And Joseph
     made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this
     day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part;
     except the land of the priests only, which became
     not Pharaoh's (Genesis 47:23-26).

To get back to that level of tyranny, it would take a 50%
tax cut.

     Are you beginning to get the picture?  I wish voters
around the world would.  They don't.


     There were other issues besides taxation that led to
the revolution.  Jefferson wrote this about the king in the
Declaration of Independence:

     He has erected a multitude of new offices, and
     sent hither swarms of officers to harass our
     people, and eat out their substance.

     "Swarms of officers" is a nice rhetorical phrase.  So
is "eat out of our substance."  This sounds like swarms of
locusts.  But what did Jefferson know about bureaucracy?
He never lived this century.

     Back in 1971-72, I worked for Leonard E. Read at the
Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in Irvington-on-
Hudson, New York.  Leonard used to say that the voters
could not tell the difference between freedom and tyranny.
That could as easily have been said of Israel in Samuel's
day.  If they did know, they did not care.

     But colonists knew in 1776.  Why?  And why not now?
Modern historians rarely ask these questions.  Why not?
Because they are the spiritual products of the welfare
state.  They have adopted the worldview of the swarms of
officials.  They are mostly paid officials in tax-funded
universities.  They are part of the swarm.

     You and I live in fear of violating some law.  We face
700,000 lawyers.  It was 100,000 a generation ago.  We
wonder what will happen when it's a million American
lawyers, as it soon will be.  The tax-funded law schools
keep cranking them out.

     The better the economy gets, the less that people seem
to worry about the erosion of security for their property.
They think, "I can always get more money."  But can they
always get more liberty?  Does money buy liberty?  Does our
disposable wealth provide us with greater liberty than what
most Americans enjoyed in 1776, 1783, or 1789?  Except for
Southern slaves, the answer is no.


     Do we really need more wealth to keep us comfortable?
If we could get a tax cut of 75%, could we get by?  I think
so.  Would the economy flourish?  Yes.  Would the swarms of
bureaucrats have to seek other employment?  Yes.  If not,
then we could lobby for additional tax cuts.

     Will this generation do this?  No.  What about the next
generation of voters?  Maybe, but it will take an economic
breakdown to do this -- a cessation of the Federal
government's ability to collect revenues.

     Men get used to familiar problems.  They usually
prefer to stick with the demons they know.  This was not
true in 1776, but it is true today.

     We don't want to have to learn new ways to make a
living.  This is what keeps us trapped.  For example, the
government's Social Security revenues keep rising, and the
recipients and soon-to-be recipients lobby to keep the
system alive.  Such pressures will never end.  They can be
thwarted only by national bankruptcy or a tax revolt by the
workers.  Both events are likely, but I think the former is
more likely.

     For as long as the swarms of officials can draw their
paychecks, nothing fundamental will change.  Joel Skousen
has written for two decades that once the welfare benefits
get handed out, no nation ever abandons them voluntarily.
The public's addiction to government welfare programs
continues.  But what if the money runs out?  That may kill
an unpopular program, but it will be replaced by others.

     I wish I could think of solid exceptions.  A possible
example began in Germany on June 20, 1948, the day the
German economic advisor Ludwig Erhard (who became
Chancellor of Germany in 1963) announced the end of the
Allies' post-war price controls system.


The American government was behind this reform.  It even
provided the new currency.

Within one day, the West German economy began to revive.
Goods reappeared on the shelves, the black market began to
disappear, and employment jumped.  (The decision also led
to the Soviet Union's sealing off of Berlin and the West's
response: the Berlin airlift.)  The currency reform
produced the "German economic miracle."  But the
bureaucracy never was removed; it just became more German.
Germany today remains a bureaucratized economy.

     Skousen's statement prevails in this century.  The
addiction to government money is politically irreversible.
This means that the tax reform never gets to the heart of
the matter: the reversal of the welfare state.  Voters
don't want this reversal.  They just want somebody else to
pay the taxes.

     Voters are comfortable.  They do not want
revolutionary change.  They are content with today's
system.  For as long as the tax revenues roll in, the
benefit payments will roll out (minus about 50% for postage
and handling).

     Where will pressure for tax reform come from?
Churches?  We have been waiting for over 80 years.
Universities?  Most of them are supported by taxes.  The
professors are unlikely to call for radical reform of the
system that employs them.  From the major media?  They are
controlled by college graduates who were taught to respect
the welfare system.  From retired people?  Not likely.
>From their children, who fear having to pick up the tab for
their parents?  Unlikely.  From workers?  Someday, maybe.
But that's going to take a while.  Maybe decades.

                   POSTPONING RETIREMENT

     At some point, the revenues will fall below outflow in
Social Security.  This will come sometime in the next
decade, no later than 2010.  An extended recession would
accelerate this deadline.  The obvious political answer is
to delay the beginning of retirement payments.  The
government will have to extend the age at which recipients
become eligible for full payment.

     The wise worker will recognize this early and begin to
prepare for it.  What a working person will need is some
job to retire into.  The goal is to beat the slow learners.
If you can find a way to grease the skids into alternative
employment, you're ahead of the crowd.

     For those who are already in retirement, it's time to
begin looking for a way back into income-generating
service.  Keep your pension, but start looking for
supplemental income.  Start putting earned income away,
preferably by rolling it back into a debt-free home

     If you can postpone retirement on your terms, you have
gained a tremendous advantage over those who will find the
decision forced on them.  Staying in the labor force will
involve your personal discomfort.  But present discomfort
is what is required.  People who want to guarantee comfort
for themselves when they are too old to work must work
longer than the government has promised to voters.

     The Web is going to create income opportunities.  You
have an advantage.  You're on the Web.  You have
familiarity with the basics.  If you can begin to gain
information on using this technology for small businesses,
you're ahead of the curve.

     You have information between your ears that you assume
everyone knows.  Everyone doesn't know.  Begin to think of
ways how you can sell this information.  You may have to
give it away for a time, but you should plan eventually to
sell it.

     I'm trying to be realistic.  I don't plan to retire.
I don't think the political system will be able to pay off
to my generation.  The bills will come due.  They will
overwhelm the present Social Security system.  Besides, who
wants to live off the government?  We all need ways to keep
productive.  The first step is mental: accept the fact that
you will not be able to retire if your under age 60.  Then
accept it emotionally.  Finally, begin to make serious
plans about how to stay in the labor force without having
to work as a greeter at Wal-Mart.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
My economic commentary on Luke is due to be posted

-- cpr (, June 27, 2000


>> I've decided that Andy Ray's efforts are not "quite" getting through to the people who seem to be in most need of it and have the attention span of a guppy and/or the memory systems that nicely "forget" some of the verbiage they thought passed for "wisdom" ... <<

Thank you, cpr. This was absolutely marvelous. That Scary Gary sure was wrong about Y2K (unlike you, who was right about Y2K).

Incidentally, I apologize for making you go to all this trouble to retiterate your message yet another time!

And I humbly apologize for having the attention span of a guppy. I know now that this can only displease you and I will try to do better in the future. The sooner we "get it", the sooner your work here is done.

And, in case you didn't know, I was wrong about Y2K. You were right about Y2K. Talk about being stupid! I didn't even know you were right about Y2K until about January 3rd, 2000! You knew you were right lots before that.

-- Brian McLaughlin (, June 27, 2000.

I hate small fonts.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 27, 2000.

I hate small men.

Brian, may I suggest something other than a backhanded apology to cpr is in order?

-- (S@d to.say), June 27, 2000.

Unless cpr over-prepped for Y2K because of Brian, no apology to cpr is necessary.

-- That's (my@2_1/2.cents), June 27, 2000.


Welcome, and great quote!

I see you have contracted a parasitic doomer infection - beware the meme! (Laughing while typing, again...)

It's nice to remind them of their folly, isn't it? It's even better to watch them try tactic after tactic in a vain attempt to somehow, SOMEHOW revise history. Enjoy it - I do, and will for months to come! :)

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (, June 27, 2000.

>To: >From: "SFord" >X-HN-Forum: Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum >Subject: Disagree: You are fools > >First, I have no idea who any of the other people you spout >of about are besides Gary North. The only reason I know >about Gary North is because it is impossible to research Y2K >without coming upon his name. > >Second,it is obvious that you nor any of your associates know >the first thing about Y2K. I suppose it is very easy for you >to call yourself experts on a forum where it is impossible >to verify you background. Well, I'm the IT manager for all >of IBM, yeah thats it. > >Third, how is it that when trying to debate anything on Y2K >your only course of action is to sputter Gary North's name >and a few others over and over again. You look like idiots. >Your understanding of embedded chips is pitiful. There are >millions of independent embedded systemsor chips that keep >time and date functions. I could go into a deeper discussion >with you morons, but you'd end up thrashing on the ground in >convulsions sputtering names like North and the rest for >hours. > >Fourth, I am begining to hope that it all goes to hell. >Seeing people like your starving to death might almost >be worth it. Please tell me you are not making any >preperations for Y2K. > >Where is all your evidence that everything is going to be >rosey. Everyone on this board says they have reams of >unquestionable proof that things are going to be great, but >instead of delivering it all you do is insult and sputter >a string of names. This isn't the X-Files, there is no >great conspiracy. Except, I do smoke...Hmm >

-- cpr (, June 27, 2000.

Too bad that "duct tape gary" doesn't read his Bible. From Romans chapter 13, verses one and two:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

hmmm.... revolution, indeed.

-- Not of This World (, June 27, 2000.

Date: Dec 16, 19:50 From: Balance-This

Want to Thank You for finally making me realize this whole Y2k thing is a waste of my time. To any who tried my webboard from another post, sorry, I decided this morning to delete the thing. I will continue with building the website concerning leading edge technologies, but the board is over. And so ends my Y2k involvement and webboard posting. Some know me under the handle, srb, some here under Balance-This.

Within 16 days we will see all the evidence anybody will ever need that Y2k is an overblown exercise. Couple of little things as my final parting shot. And these must be considered seriously if one believes Y2k will be widespread. These are not definitive, but point to a reality many here simply refuse to acknowledge. Webdocuments are NOT reality. Just because Bob Bennett maybe "worried" or even "not worried", is mere speculation, Reality is one's best guide.

You say you read the NERC report. Like most you probably missed the most important paragraph in the thing. Reality confirms the basis of this fact over and over. We have two published events which all but confirm this truth. I think it page 30 of the NERC report. The author mentions, almost like "everybody knows this", that because of the diversity of embedded systems(many different chip manufacturers), a common-mode-failure like Y2k, is virtually impossible. Y2k is dependent on the interconnectiveness of a great deal of computers, systems, and on and on. The reason Y2k will never become the meltdown predicted, is because of the Diversity inherent through-out. This does not deny many things are not as diverse as one would like, but this represents a very small percentage, i.e. why Y2k will never become widespread, or lead to a North version.

Now 2 events which may appear to break this law of diversity, but in doing so, also point to the fact Y2k is most likely overblown and the potential as well has been hyped to the point of being simply impossible. And even these point to the fact much of this technology, as much as we would like to think otherwise, is still controlled by humans.

Recently the NYSE "crashed". One of the member firms forgot to set an old O/S2 computer's clock-back(DST). Bogus dates built-up to a point where they were beginning to infect the NYSE as a whole. Not to mention the members system, it crashed, and the NYSE(parts of) also crashed. To protect the integrity of the trading system, the entire floor was shutdown. Key things here are, the problem was contained. Not a perfect situation, but an important tid-bit. Now the gem. If many involved in the NYSE, member brokers and the exchange themselves, are busy implementing Y2k upgrades, fixes and the like, how come we do not see any other glitches like a simple daylight- savings mistake? Logic would tell you we would be seeing an ever growing number of "fix-it" crashes, why not? If you cannot answer this, you have a big problem, idiot or moron aside. Clearly there must be many. I would submit the main reasons they never become major problems is because of the diversity of systems and built-in redundancy. Even the NYSE has a back-up system. In this case it was a "human" who decided the data was contaiminated and decided to shut the thing down. And it should also be clear, the amount of stuff at risk to Y2k is a mere fraction of systems. Even "testing" of existing systems(forced rollovers) should be producing "publishable" screw- ups, why not? Why not every-place? or anyplace of merit? Even North doomers will conceed some are doing SOME work, will you not? So where is the unexpected problems? Ya they happen, but why do they almost never produce anything close to a full-scale meltdown? "Forced- Rollover", as in setting computers to 2000. Or like the TVA who are running power-plants in 2000 now, or Washington Power who has done similar. Where are the "life-threatening" crashes, and snow-balling, cascading failures? I thought it was "systemic" and "too late" because everything is connected and the Y2k problem was so prevasive it is simply too big a job to fix it all? Reality is saying those 2 statements have major flaws.

The ATT link is critical for many reasons. The biggest one involves the fact LOC, lines of code revised, have been reintroduced back into systems and apps as it has been fixed, looked-at, redone, left-alone, windowed, whatever. ATT claims there has not been a SINGLE snag as a result. I will conceed this is most likely smoke and spin. But surely we would have heard of a problem, don't you think? so ATT is pretty accurate in their statement. Maybe exaggerated, but REALITY confirms it by a lack of a news-story(s). Are their computer geeks that fast at averting cascading problems? or just maybe, the systems are not as "at-risk" as believed? maybe diversity and the very real fact the interconnected nature of computers and networks has been overblown?

As a second example, we have the recent black-out in the Bay Area. We have learned, like most screw-ups, it was "human-error". Take the info about NYSE/ATT and the fixing, messing, reintroducing, forced- rollovers, and ask yourself how come we have not seen black-outs anyplace? Oh sure some, but anything to worry oneself over? seriously? Is NOBODY doing anything? even screwing-up? Do you seriously believe that? Then where, for lack of a better term, where is the BEEF?. And do you seriously believe we have to wait till 2000 for confirmation? Do they? or should I say, is it even possible to "test" anything without creating a 2000 environment? You expect me to "buy" that nobody is doing this? I guess you would have-to, cause virtually nothing BAD is happening as a result of all the messing around going on, is it? seriously? Ya alot is in testbeds and parallel systems, but is it all, see ATT. When a chip-maker like Motorola says their chips are nay or say, is this based on stand- alone testing? does it matter? do they just say "we think the thingees work"?

The Bay Area black-out, while a huge mess, also points to many other truths. Where is Silicon Valley? Where are most Major websites hosted? With that answered, why isn't there a mass exodus from that area. Where on this planet is there a higher concentration of folks who should have some clue to Y2k? Are they worried? beyond having some extra cash on hand come 2000? If these folks don't know, who in the hell does?

I will repeat, webdocuments, studies, opinions, articles, speculation is NOT reality, could be, but is NOT. For one to buy anything close to a North version, STUFF would already be happening, and happening in a predictable, ever-increasing trend, IS IT? NO, so what does that tell you? and it is NOT because everybody is behind or looking the other way. Forward-looking calculations would be causing problems alone, where are they? How many more real-life TESTS will it take before one conceeds one has been seriously mislead? by a fella who's life dream is to see the end of America?

While I share many views with CPR, we differ on the potential impact of Y2k. I say the problem for most of us, will be minor if not even recognized. For some, it will mean the end-of-their-business. Some may die if a machine freaks. Some other countries maybe hard hit. But for the average person in the Western World, Y2k will be nothing. What we are in total agreement on, is the FACT Gary North is nothing more than a scam-artist and Treasonist. If it makes you feel better, I am an idiot and moron. 16 days should provide the best TEST ever. I am predicting the trend will continue and nothing of merit will happen. Sorry, the degenerate world will continue on. We can only really change one thing, if even that, ourselves. So good-luck all!

-- cpr (, June 27, 2000.

hint THE LAST POST WAS FROM DEC. ***1998 **** NOT 1999. 98.

-- cpr (, June 27, 2000.

>> It's nice to remind them of their folly, isn't it? <<

Andy Ray, you have earned the right remind us of our folly. After all, you were right about Y2K and I was wrong about Y2K, so clearly, you cannot overdo the reminiscence in this case. After all, if I were ever to forget that I was wrong about Y2K, I might forget who I am. I might forget that I was the man who was wrong about Y2K, and if I ever forget that, there will be hell to pay.

So, thanks for the ever-present reminder. It's better than tying string around my finger.

>> It's even better to watch them try tactic after tactic in a vain attempt to somehow, SOMEHOW revise history. Enjoy it - I do, and will for months to come! <<

I wouldn't dream of trying to rewrite history. That would be wrong (and, like you, I am trying mightily never to be wrong again.)

History states clearly that Steve Heller was wrong about Y2K. Gary North was wrong about Y2K. Ed Yourdon was wrong about Y2K. And, most emphatically, history stomps around yelling at the top of its voice that I, Brian McLaughlin, was wrong about Y2K. This is utterly humiliating to have not only history's verdict delivered against me, but at such a loud, continuous volume that some of my neighbors cannot sleep. But, you are right (almost as much as cpr is right) and I deserve it for trying to rewrite history.

History hates that.

I know you'd never sink so low, Andy Ray, and I can only apologize sincerly for my repeated, pernicious attempts to rewrite history. Now, if I only had an attention span longer than a guppy's, I might be able to remember those attempts to rewrite history. I'm just taking your word for it. After all, I was wrong about Y2K, so I could be wrong about almost anything.

-- Brian McLaughlin (, June 27, 2000.

The idea of re-writing History is interesting. It leads directly to the question of "alternative history"; to the question of "what if"?

What if, for example, Hitler had been run over by an errant beer truck in Munich in 1922? The entire 20th century would have been different, wouldn't it? Many possibilities emerge--maybe the Soviet Union would have gone onto dominate the world. Maybe a genius German-Jewish physicist would have discovered something as profound as Einstein discovered; something that has not even been discovered yet. (we don't know what what remains undiscovered). Or maybe there is no such thing as alternate history--after all, only one history actually occurs and some say that it was predestined to happen exactly the way it did. (which means that none of us have free-will).

I am just thinking out loud. No point to make.

-- Lars (, June 27, 2000.

"to supplement Andy Ray's work"? LOL, Andy Ray doesn't do "work".

-- (, June 27, 2000.

CPR, why don't you and Andy Ray team up and jerk each other off about Y2K so the rest of us can move on and forget it and you two?

-- Lunkhead (-@cpr.isa.jerk), June 27, 2000.

Wow! All the new Gary North stuff that I didn't know about; and I'm sure others would have missed it, also. Thanks!

Do you think discussion of Dr. North's latest insights should be held on a new thread?

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 27, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ