For Eve: At the cusp: the Turning Point of Y2k (Aug.1998) Duct Tape vs. De Jager : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

LEAD COMMENTS OFF A LIST SERVE with "Friends of the Garee":

...........see North's website. He is clearly saying it WILL DEFINITELY happen. I don't relish criticizing North, but I believe he has acted foolishly on this issue. Here is one example: As far back as the May/June 1997 issue of "Christian Reconstruction" he tells us "What we are going to see between now and the year 2000 will be the most abnormal period in the history of the West since the bubonic plague of 1348-50. And, unlike the plague, this one is easily predictable."

A North defender on this list posted a page from North's website where he responds to Peter de Jager. I'm copying that page below. It's rather long, but look specifically for the line "Judgment is coming. We can date it." Look also for the statement "The public will pay a fearful price for this ignortance. But the public in 2001 will no longer be beholden to those who run the status quo." Also, how would you interpret his comments about the "digital Titanic" that "programmers have rammed into the two-digit iceberg?" These examples can be easily multiplied. There seem to be a number of people who hold North in such high esteem, that they refuse acknowledge facts that are clearly evident.

Gary North's Y2K Links and Forums

Summary and Comments

(feel free to mail this page)


Category: Programmers'_Views

Date: 1998-08-07 15:15:06

Subject: De Jager Gets Testy



When I realized in late 1996 that y2k is a systemic problem, and therefore beyond repair, I also realized that Peter de Jager would face a moment of truth, probably in early 1999. He defines himself in terms of awareness/motivation. At some point, I realized, awareness/motivation would be worth zip. Worse; it would become a negative factor, luring people into the deadly illusion that y2k can be fixed, that we will not have to revert to production systems based on a much, much lower division of labor.

I realized that he would suffer from that classic marketing problem, re-positioning. Beginning in 1993, he had staked out a territory: awareness/motivation. He could not surrender it without abondoning his original positioining. You risk losing most of your original audience if you do this.

I recognized that he could not do this if anyone else leapfrogged over him to the next stage: "It's real, and it can't be fixed." I recognized that sometime in 1999, he would have these choices: (1) keep singing the same old song, as if 1999 were 1993 -- pure foolishness; (2) retreat from the field; or (3) join the ranks of the leapfrogger. He would have to become, "Me, too." Almost nobody who is in front ever does this. Surely, he is not ready to do this today.

I decided to take the position that nobody wanted, the unpopular position of "it can't be fixed; plan accordingly." I believed it; I decided to go public with it. I now occupy the position, for better or worse.

Mr. de Jager is now enraged. His vitriolic rhetoric reveals just how enraged he is. He calls those who abandon ship "cowards." He makes up fantasies about people fleeing to South Sea Islands, when they are merely repairing code in safer North American regions with a lower concentration of potential rioters. Mr. de Jager can dismiss them as cowards. This is easy to do if you're a Canadian who lives in a homogeous society of 20 million low-key, unarmed people. I don't have that luxury.

Surely we passengers on the digital Titanic ought to take advantage of the lifeboats, few though there be. It is not our moral responsibility to stay on board the ship that Mr. de Jager and all the other programmers have rammed into the two-digit iceberg.

He also assumes that society's ship must remain computerized, that apart from the computerized status quo, there is no ship, no future, and (his rhetoric indicates) no life worth living. Like a modern day Patrick Henry, he stands in front of us and says, "Give me mainframes, or give me death." But the mainframes are as good as dead. This leaves death. I prefer life. Or, as Jerry Pournelle wrote me in 1996 regarding mainframes, "Got along without you before I met you; gonna get along without you now." (He dated himself with those lyrics; and, sadly, I remember them.)

Mr. de Jager assumes, as all defenders of a dying status quo assume, that today's system is THE system. Everything holy and just and efficient -- above all, efficient -- is an extension of what we have today. If we lose this, we lose everything worth preserving.

And, as every critic of the status quo assumes, I say that there is something much better ahead, and if it takes the collapse of our computer-driven consumer society to get it, it's a price we must pay. But it's a price that the programmers have imposed on us without ever consulting us. The public didn't know. The public will pay a fearful price for this ignortance. But the public in 2001 will no longer be beholden to those who run the status quo.

I keep challenging the "we can fix it" crowd with the same old statements. I have done this for 18 months. And I keep getting the same responses.

1. Name one Fortune 1,000 company that is compliant.

"Push 'em back, push 'em back . . . way back!"

2. Name one money center bank -- or ANY bank -- that is compliant.

"Boola, boola!"

3. Name one compliant power generation plant anywhere on earth.

"V - I - C - T - O - R - Y !!!"

4. The U.S. has a shortage of y2k programmers by 500,000 to 700,000 people (Howard Rubin's estimate). Where will we get them?

"Two bits, four bits, six bits, a dollar. All for Western Civ, stand up and holler!"

5. There are 25 billion embedded chips, maybe 40 billion. How will we locate the engineers and skilled technicians to test them all and replace those that need replacing?

"Yea, team!"

6. Name one tax collecting unit (sometimes called "government") above the county level that is compliant.

"Let's all stand for the national anthem."

Mr. de Jager tells us that he's an S.O.B. who thinks that we can solve any problem. It is this illusion that lies at the heart of our society. Trust not in chariots, the race does not go to the swift, pride goeth before the fall. Etc.

You can click through to read Mr. de Jager's tirade against all of us who think that society can be saved only by facing reality now and moving, as fast as possible, back to lower division of labor living and producing. Either this newer, less efficient world is imposed on us by the computers, or else we choose it now and plan accordingly.

Let me give you my thoughts on the matter. We live in a morally evil, physically comfortable society. The Bible tells us that systemic evil cannot enjoy the fruits of righteousness forever. Judgment comes (Deuteronomy 28:15-66).

Judgment is coming. We can date it.

I shall let Mr. de Jager defend the status quo. I concur with the following words, a prayer prayed by a minister in front of the Kansas House of Representatives in 1996. Paul Harvey read it over the air, and the favorable mail was so great that he broadcast the segment again.

This is my answer to Peter de Jager. It was delivered by Rev. Joe Wright.

* * * * * * * * * *

Heavenly Father, We come before you today to ask your forgiveness and seek your direction and guidance. We know your Word says, "Woe to those who call evil good," but that's exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and have inverted our values. We confess that...

We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your Word and called it moral pluralism.

We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism.

We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle.

We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.

We have rejected the needy and called it preservation.

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.

We have killed our unborn and called it a choice.

We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building esteem.

We have abused power and called it political savvy.

We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography called it freedom of expression.

We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, O God, and know our hearts; try us and see if there be any wicked way within us, cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Father, guide and bless all men and women who have been elected by the people of this great nation and who have been ordained by you to govern our beloved country. Grant them your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the center of your will. I ask in the name of your Son, the Living Savior, Jesus Christ.



---------- Return to Category: Programmers'_Views

Return to Main Categories

Return to Home Page

-- cpr (, August 27, 2000



For every Isiah or Jeremiah or John the Baptist, there were 1,000s of other False Prophets leading the people astray.

All in "His Name" of course.

-- cpr (, August 27, 2000.

Did Y2k the Computer Problem really matter anyway to the Nit Wits? LINK-TO-Nit-Wits topicID=9583.topic

-- cpr (, August 27, 2000.

Who is the plump gentleman on that thread telling people what they can and cannot post?

-- ceemooster (ceemooster@big.boy), August 27, 2000.

Why is this addressed to Eve?

-- Lars (, August 27, 2000.

Because I dream of her apples

-- cpr (, August 27, 2000.

From what I see above, Aug. 1998 was a turning point in the sense that Peter de Jager was becoming concerned about Gary North's tactics. Peter de Jager however had not changed his mind at that point about the potential for Y2K to cause significant problems.

See de Jager's Open Letter to President Clinton from Nov. 1998.

-- (history@of.Y2K), August 27, 2000.

Open Letter to President Clinton

by Peter de Jager

On Sept. 9, 1998, U.S. Rep. Stephen Horn released his latest summary of your government's Y2K activity. The summary, if accurate, should raise an outcry of concern.

It hasn't. This document, and its implications, has received little if any serious coverage by the media. And, to the best of my knowledge, little attention by your office.

The report focuses on the progress made towards fixing the mission- critical computer applications at risk due to the well-documented Y2K problem.

"Mission-critical" is a term used to describe those systems which, if allowed to fail, would cause an organization to lose the ability to deliver services 'critical' to their stated 'mission.'

It is important to note that Rep. Horn did not receive the raw data from consultants or other third parties who we could accuse of having a bias towards delivering bad news. There are no vested interests being served here. His summary is based upon information provided to him directly by the administrations themselves.

Here are some of the items extracted from the report, which cause others and myself some serious concern:

The Department of Defense, by its own count, has some 2,965 mission-critical systems. All of these will not be fixed until sometime in 2001. This means that during the entire year of 2000, they will be incapable of performing all the functions described in their mission statement. I am sure there are many individuals who are eagerly anticipating the failure of the DOD to perform its duties.

Department of Labor, 61 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2001.

Department of Interior, 91 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2001.

Department of Health and Human Services, 298 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2002.

Department of Energy, 411 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2002.

Department of State, 59 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2027 (this is not a typographical error, The Department of State estimates they will not be able to provide you their full services for the next 27 years.)

Department of Justice, 207 systems, not 100% ready until 2030+ (the 'plus' sign indicates they have no idea when they will be ready.)

Department of Education, 14 systems, not 100% ready until 2030+.

Agency for International Development, 7 systems, not 100% ready until 2023.

If an agency's response to you is that the above summary is not an accurate statement, then its officials should remove from their list of mission-critical those applications which are not mission- critical, and/or they should provide more accurate delivery dates.

Agencies' predicted objections aside, these are the precise estimates they provided to Rep. Horn.

What exactly does this report mean? Nobody knows, because the mission- critical systems counted have not been identified. I think it would be useful to have some idea of which of the many services will not be available to the American people.

If this report is accurate, then action must be taken by you to correct it. It is not acceptable to anyone that the Department of Defense, who's mission is to defend the interests of the United States at home and abroad, knowingly, and apparently willingly, fails in that endeavor.

If they are short of resources, make those resources available, or announce publicly that the DOD is not really a critical service to the United States and shut it down.

The same goes for every other department listed above. Either they are fully operational on Jan. 1, 2000, or declare their contribution to the American people non-critical and shut them down and save your taxpayers the unnecessary expense.

If this report is not accurate, then action must be taken by you to correct it. It describes a totally unacceptable situation. As it is reported, it raises unnecessary concern, uncertainty and even fear. Three emotions no political party should be fostering as it heads into an election year.

Either way, action, real action, not soothing words and platitudes, is required at the highest levels either to correct an unacceptable situation or to correct the notion that your administrators are incapable of executing their mandated mission statements.

You might respond that you have taken action. That the Year 2000 office headed up by John Koskinen is charged with the responsibility of fixing this problem.

With respect, I suggest that more is called for, I suggest that the administrators who appear, by their own account, incapable of handling this problem be either replaced or supported by those who can get the job done.

We have about 13 months left; congressional hearings in year 2000 to figure out who dropped the ball will be too late.

We have 13 months left; the ball is in your court today, do something with it.

With respect,
Peter de Jager
Nov. 17, 1998

©1998, Peter de Jager - Waived

-- (Copy@nd.paste), August 27, 2000.




-- cpr (, August 27, 2000.

I did NOT post that

-- (, August 27, 2000.

Eve, did you know that cpr dreams of your nippxxx, uh "apples"?

-- (, August 28, 2000.

Hey SLIMEBALL anon: Eve is a rather religious person. Take your SLIME ELSEWHERE.

-- cpr (, August 28, 2000.

Sir, who are YOU to call anyone slimey? Eve, I apologize if I have offended you. (I doubt it)

-- (, August 28, 2000.

Happy 3:17 pm, cpr, (or whatever it is where you're at -- I can get pretty liberal with my celebratory side -- especially after mid-day and lots and lots of coffee)

You know, just a short while ago I posted a long reply to you on the "eve to Ken: "So let's party!" thread. Afterwards -- just a bit ago -- I noticed this thread (addressed to me), although I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

I really do appreciate your posts to me, cpr, but, with all due respect, I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with the other thread (I'm probably averaging one post every couple of days right now -- my personal life has gotten ferociously busy lately), let alone getting into a new one (well, a new, serious one, anyway -- I always leave room for a little insanity now and then -- insanity's like Jello to me) at this time.

I mean, if you have a lot of patience, once I catch up with the posts on the other thread (God knows how long that'll be...I hope sometime before Y3K, anyway...although while we're on the subject, Y10K is the BIG one that I'll be watching for -- in any case, I really think some of my wheat berries will still be here for that one -- but I digress...) I'll come over here.

Hey -- after rereading this with the interminable comment in the parentheses, it took less than a minute for me to eliminate my frozen expression, with glazed-over eyes and semi-open mouth and go back and piece together what I was even trying to say in the first place! Ok, I'm better now.

Anyway, I really believe my latest post to you will give you enough insight into why I did what I did that it may actually be within the realm of possibility that we may have little else to discuss on this issue.

"Talk" to ya soon...


It's ok; I took no offense from it, mainly because I kinda "know" you from other posts -- and that you seem to be pretty cool in general. Even if I had, you'll find I'm a very forgiving type. Thanks for your sensitivity, though. And yours too, cpr.

-- eve (, August 28, 2000.


North may have been a career doomer, a religious zealot and even someone involved in profiting in doomerism.

But what does that have to do with the merit of his arguments? I just separated these factors when I read him, and really don't recall accepting anything he presented as fact without attempting to verify it through one or more credible independent sources.

-- eve (, August 30, 2000.

Jeez, I just can't stay out of these stupid discussions :-)

eve, if I may: What North "offered" was his own SPIN. Very few people actually "clicked through for the full story", which was the main problem with Sanger's Review, Y2KNewswire, Lord's site and others. Most people will claim that they did, but the reality of the situation has to be that they didn't; else why would they have NOT seen the spin?

Then you had people like Diane Squire who were actually almost "worshipped" for their "research skills". Well, why is it that Ms. Squire never once posted anything even remotely resembling "good news" without putting her VERY OWN SPIN on it? (And the funniest part was that in doing so, she was claiming whoever released the "good news" put a spin on it. You can't make this up.)

Of course, in many cases, people just didn't WANT to hear "good news". And frankly, that boggles the mind.

But that's a thread unto its own [g].

Hope you are well, eve!

-- Patricia (, August 30, 2000.

Hi Patricia,

Somehow, I just knew ya wouldn't be able to resist one more! It was just a matter of time, dear.

I'm doing great -- thanks, Patricia -- I hope you are too.

Yes, I'm open to the possibility that I was a victim of some of North's spin -- but I honestly can't recall an example of this. Also, I spent a great deal of time on DeJager's site, which I assume was much more objective.

Patricia, do you have an example of some of his spin that was particularly persuasive? Or was it just the overall negativity? I mean, I'm anxious to know more about how I might have been sucked into this and could have done things differently at the time. As you might be aware, I'm in the midst of trying to do this simulatneously on another thread and I'm not having a lot of success - - yet. If you get the chance, please read my posts on that thread ("eve to Ken: So let's party!"). It will give you more insight into where I was coming from, and maybe I could profit from your input. I'd especially like you to see the list (Ken calls it my "laundry list") from my post to cpr on that thread -- of things that alarmed me -- to the point where I thought it prudent to at least get some "insurance" in the form of wheat, a well, etc.

You see, I'd come into this late in the game and had very little time to understand everything. At some point, and quickly, I felt I HAD to decide on insurance coverage.

You know -- for starters, though, I probably should have hung out more with you folks!

-- eve (, August 30, 2000.

Oh yes, Patricia -- my "I'm doing great" response means "at the moment." My life HAS been pretty crazy lately, but I've had a few unanticipated minor breakthroughs where all of a sudden I find myself back in the "eye" of the hurricane, things become calmer, and I can post more.

In fact, sometimes I think I should go out of the "I'm busy-I'll be busy-I might not be able to reply for awhile-Guess what, I'm back again, etc. etc." prediction business (which you might be aware I've kinda gotten hooked on doing -- see the latest edition of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for details :)) -- unless I knew for sure I'd be gone for an extended period. I mean, go figure! Mostly, things seem to turn out in unexpected ways, anyway...

You know, I remember having gotten to the point of putting these blurbs in practically EVERY POST in an old thread I was heavily involved in and almost succeeded in driving one of the posters completely nuts!

But, again, thanks for asking, take care for now, Patricia, and give my best to Doc. Oh yes, and if you're aware of any support groups for the above, please let me know. ("Hello, my name is Eve, and I can't do a forum post without telling everybody when I'll be back." "Hello, Eve..." (from the group))

(thanx to Cherri for the support group visual)

-- eve (, August 30, 2000.

eve, you kill me. I don't know whether to laugh or cry (I wind up doing both usually) when I read your posts. Another gem!

As to North, one thing you may not understand is that I have kind of a "history" with him. He started posting to de Jager's mail list back in 1996, shortly after I started there. I went a couple of rounds with him, especially after I looked into "who he was". Yes, a Perennial Doomer (as it were). Always finding (usually manufacturing) a crisis and trying to turn it to his advantage.

(Look at it this way; if the man really believed it was "all going away" at the rollover, why was he selling two-year subscriptions to the Remnant Rag in 1999? Disconnect? Or Dishonest? Considering his 25-30 year track record, I'm going to have to go with "dishonest". And all in the name of religion? The man's a hypocrite.)

My personal opinion was that in his case, it was his negativity, and I saw alot of the Diane-like "or not" kind of stuff in him as well.

As to why you were "taken", I can't say. I know I suggested a few hypotheses on Debunker and on de Jager's list and elsewhere, but because I don't really "know" you, and I'm not a psychologist (and I don't even play one on the Internet), I can't say for sure. Perhaps a part of you is/was on the "predisposed to doom" side, though I doubt it :-)

FWIW, I don't know a person (with the exception of Nick Z. and SuperPolly) who wasn't a "doomer" at first glance. When I began working on Y2K in early 1996 (or was it late 1995? jeez, it's like a lifetime ago!), I was probably around an 8. And living in NYC just made that worse (knowing how stuff takes SO LONG to get done there).

But then one day, I think it might have been one night I was flying back into NYC from points elsewhere, I took a look at the skyline (this was maybe late 1996/early 1997, I think) and realized that there was NO WAY this was "all going away". Was it my "faith"? Quite possibly. But following that "epiphany" (if you will) I dove even more earnestly into my research (which was my job at the time). I started finding all kinds of tidbits of "good news" (yes, even at that early date) and wondered why they weren't getting out into the public eye.

Later on, (say 1999) I realized the "doomers" encompassed a rather small percentage of the population as a whole, but because almost my entire "Y2K life" was on the Internet, it seemed that the "debunkers" were outnumbered hundreds, if not thousands, to one.

Funny thing there; guess it's all in one's perspective.

Bottom line: I have to agree with Ken to the extent that I don't care what anyone "spent" on "preps" for the most part; what worried me (and yes, I was genuinely worried) were the people who had little or nothing to begin with and spent a fortune of money they didn't have on something that never had the capability to be what was being proclaimed in some circles. Those people are now paying dearly for their "mistake" and I feel for them. I felt for those whose families broke up, whose friendships evaporated, who are never again able to trust anyone. And for that I blame the "FUDsters" or "Fearmongers", whatever you want to call them. North led that pack.

That's what bothers me about the Norths and Hyatts and Lords and Yourdons of the world. But those types will always be with us; nothing anyone can do to change that except IGNORE THEM. Then, and only then, will they go away.

I doubt this answers your question, and I'm sorry about that. But it felt kind of good getting all that out again ;-)

-- Patricia (, August 30, 2000.

Thanks for your help, Patricia. As I mentioned to Flint on the other thread, I'm going to take some time to introspect some more on this, and on your (and his, and Ken's) thoughts.

You know, maybe I really DID have a sort of temporary predisposition for this. Or it was (and still is?) there all the while -- just latent. there a psychologist in the house?

-- eve (, September 01, 2000.

Whoops...I almost forgot -- I appreciate your help too, cpr.

-- eve (, September 01, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ