Is Gary North the ANTICHRIST? : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Let's discuss Gary North. I understand that he has some odd religious/political beliefs. Two questions: A) are these beliefs, however odd, inherently DANGEROUS? and B) Does the fact that he holds these beliefs (dangerous or not) in itself, cast doubt on his credibility, or the value of the service he provides?

If "yes" to B), then shouldn't we require some kind of "statement of disclosure of personal political and religious beliefs" from every news reporter and anchorperson? What about politicians? Schoolteachers? (think of the children!) Well, hell, why not everyone? Get 'em to sign a loyalty oath to the United States while they're at it...

This may seem marginal to Y2k, but not only are people making personal attacks on Gary North's religion to discredit him, the mainstream media has used the "religious fanatic" angle to discredit Y2k awareness and preparation groups across the country. Is it valid?


-- E. Coli (, October 29, 1998


Regarding GN, you asked:

A) are these beliefs, however odd, inherently DANGEROUS?

**If he influences people to act in dangerous ways, then the answer is yes. If he does dangerous things as a result of his beliefs, then the answer is yes.

B) Does the fact that he holds these beliefs (dangerous or not) in itself, cast doubt on his credibility, or the value of the service he provides?

**Clearly, if the beliefs are faulty, they will alter his perception of reality and his assumptions. I guess if he goes off the deep end, we could accuse him of religious malpractice.:->

Thus, the things we should concern ourselves with are his actions and the actions of those that follow him. As long as these actions are rational, his credibility holds, IMHO.


-- Bertin Opus (, October 29, 1998.

gary north is a conservative Presbyterian. as far as i can tell, he's about as square as they make 'em. "odd" is in the eye of the beholder.

-- Jocelyne Slough (, October 29, 1998.

"Discrediting" of individuals seems to be the popular current method for implementing dangerous hidden political agendas.

There was some speculation (in an earlier thread) that perhaps Art Bell was a plant of the New World the risk of sounding like I'm trying to discredit Mr. Bell...and considering how most of his programs are really way out there (even though very entertaining), perhaps anyone of validity that participates on Mr. Bell's program can be discredited by association.

Many people just learning about y2k, and unfamiliar with Art Bell would probably dismiss y2k as "just another crazy show topic".

Texas Terri

P.S. I'm not suggesting that Mr. Bell is not creditable...just incase you missed my point.

-- Terri Symington (, October 29, 1998.

>"gary north is a conservative Presbyterian."

Jocelyne, surely you jest?

-- Buddy Y. (DC) (, October 29, 1998.


you wrote - "**Clearly, if the beliefs are faulty, they will alter his perception of reality and his assumptions."

Sorry, but I've got a problem with that statement. How can beliefs be faulty? They are what one BELIEVES. Who decides what's faulty? I don't really know what Gary North's religious beliefs are, and I don't really care.I know that I don't agree with them. And, how can beliefs ALTER one's perception of reality? Perception is perception. Are you saying that there should be one SUBJECTIVE perception of reality? Whatever... I don't really mean to pick nits with you. I read North's site everyday when doing my rounds, often but not always agree with his commentary, sometimes get a chuckle from his inflammations, and I'm smart enough to not get all riled up by his mistakes.

Hey, E.

If you find yourself in New York City, I wanna buy you a beer...

-- pshannon (, October 29, 1998.

Nope. Prince Charles is the Antichrist. Haven't you been paying attention?


-- nemo (, October 29, 1998.

Gary North has always been a gloom and doomer. $800 gold and $42 a barrel of oil were other areas he predicted dire results. He has never been shy about his opinions. However, on this issue, If you follow-up on the facts he presents and separate them from his hyperbole they stand on their own merit. While his approach is harsh and direct, it is no different then the twist, albeit more subtle, that is put on the pabulum we are spoon fed everyday on TV, in newspapers and magazines


-- CP (, October 29, 1998.

I don't know that much about Gary North's religion, but I do know that some of his writings that I have read make me believe he is dangerous. Many of his ideas are a threat to freedom, or at least would be if he had any power.

I don't know how much of a following he has, nor whether that following is based on religious beliefs. I have my suspicions, but I would like to know.

To answer your main question here though: Yes, a person's beliefs, agenda, and actions do affect one's credibility in the eyes of others. To some they may increase that person's credibility, to others decrease it. I've found that to be true of anyone.

-- Buddy Y. (DC) (, October 29, 1998.

Hello pshannon! Try this on. If I believe that the next asteriod will take me to heaven if I committ suicide, and I base this on some mis-interpretation of markings in the great pyramid, then it might be considered a faulty belief. Any belief that is shown false is faulty if one persists in indulging themselves in it.

Who decides what's faulty?

FACTS decide whether it is false or not.

By the way, I feel about the same as you regarding North. I do read his comments, because he presents another view that should be considered.


-- Bertin Opus (, October 29, 1998.

First question: Is Gary North the ANTICHRIST?

I hardly think so.

Second question: Are these beliefs (Gary North's beliefs), however odd, inherently DANGEROUS?

Here are his own words:

"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel."

Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p.87.

And that's only one of his beliefs.

Yes, in my opinion, they are inherently dangerous if you are a Jew, a Moslem, an agnostic, or anything except a Christian Reconstructionist. Is the loss of your citizenship inherently dangerous to you?

Third question: Does the fact that he holds these beliefs (dangerous or not) in itself, cast doubt on his credibility, or the value of the service he provides?

In my opinion, absolutely not. What casts doubt on his credibility is his posting of incorrect information and representing it as fact and then attempting to evade responsibility for that presentation, as he did on this forum.

As far as I know, credible means trustworthy, believable, or any of several other things. Every reader of his website is a juror who must decide whether or not Gary North's opinion is credible. That which he presents as fact must be above reproach for his opinion to be credible, not simply in the instant case, but forever thereafter.

After all, how many times must someone lie to you (or unintentionally mislead you) before you no longer trust their information? (not their opinion, their information) The subject matter here is social and individual survival. That's not what I'd call trivial subject matter.

The question regarding the recent posting is: was it a deliberate lie or a careless mistake? I don't think we'll ever know for sure. We'll just have to make up our own minds. My consideration takes the character, beliefs and motives of the person in question into account.

-- Hardliner (, October 29, 1998.

what did he lie about specifically???

-- deborah cunningham (, October 29, 1998.


No one but Gary North knows if he lied or not.

He accessed an Australian government archive on the web and called up a research paper. The first panel of that paper was a bogus story about how hackers had caused the Auckland power failure from Amsterdam with a laptop computer.

The very next paragraph revealed that the story was not true and was only to get your attention.

If Gary North read enough of the paper to know that the story was bogus, then he lied by presenting it as fact, maybe thinking he could weasel out of it, if caught, by admitting to carelessness.

If he didn't read that far, then he was just careless.

Follow the link to Australia and decide for yourself. (Australian Archive)

-- Hardliner (, October 29, 1998.

No matter what Gary North is, lion or lamb, sinner or saint, I owe the fact of my Y2K awareness to the man. Perhaps if this all turns out ugly, I may owe my life to the preparation Gary scared me into.

It seems rather odd to be taking the time debating how dangerous North is or isn't, given that he has no real power beyond creating a lot of web based hot air. Has everybody really got all their outhouses dug and wheat and beans packed already and now have lots of time on their hands? I guess I am way behind.

Mr. North, I hope to meet you one day, shake your hand and say thanks.

Oh, if you think "conservative presbyterian" is an oxymoron, try me on for size...a conservative evangelical presbyterian.

-- Timothy Rebman (, October 29, 1998.

I feel we're jumping on Gary North with undue zeal. We're in the process of killing the messenger for his y2k message.

I've been reading Gary North's Y2K page for about 2 months, and I haven't come across one of his post yet where he preaches his religion. I don't agree with his religious belief from a background check I did on him. I don't agree with Jewish belief either since I'm a Christian. But I listen to my lawyer who's a jew when he acts and speaks as a lawyer. Gary North is speaking Y2K awareness on his y2k page. His comments on the news thread he posts are his own y2K views, the same as Ed Yourdon has his own views and Yardeni and DeJager have their own.

I'm not about to change my religion and be a Gary North cult fan because he's a well known Internet Y2k personality. I'm not about to convert to Ed Yourdon's religion either (no offense Ed ;) ) even though I prefer his forum to any other and I respect his knowledge on y2k.

Lets all practice what we preach with freedom of thought and religion and let the man be. You always have the option of ignoring him completely. He's no more dangerous to me than any other extremist. The masses decide what's faulty and what's not, and so far for several hundred years, the masses decided the constitution rules. It will survive y2k simply because the constitution has been preached to the American masses since birth on a larger scale than religion. I'm a transplanted Canadian for the past 20 years, and I've absorbed it by osmosis, it's stronger than me ;)

-- Chris (, October 30, 1998.

First things first...

If Gary North was the AntiChrist wouldn't he simply do away with Hardliner and put an end to this debate? ***poof***


"How can beliefs be faulty? They are what one can beliefs ALTER one's perception of reality? Perception is perception."

uh, yep, sir... I agree.

Don't we all live within our own realities? Isn't everyone's perception different including their own "take" on the "facts"? I can try as hard as I can to look at the world through the eyes of my neighbor but I could never completely comprehend how HE truly views the world.

ps, E... come to California, I wanna buy you both some beer and treat you to dinner at my favorite Mexican cafe. ---------------------------------------------------------------

-- Michael Taylor (, October 30, 1998.

Knock it off, please! (The personal attacks)

Gary makes his personal views known. I disagree with them (both his religious ones and his Y2K ones). That he's free to hold his views and that I'm free to disagree with them is a good thing.

In the meantime, he does anyone with eyes and a brain a service, by collecting links to Y2K-related articles and making them available to all. For this he has my thanks. And if he's enough of an irritant in the body politic to make "them" take Y2K seriously, he deserves more.

-- Nigel Arnot (, October 30, 1998.

It retrospect it doesn't suprise me that far-out christians feature in y2k awareness raising. Not because they're kooky and y2k is kooky, but because Christians of most stripes have some ideas or others about the "end times", armageddon, revelations etc. Now, I think their reason for paying any attention to such notions, namely because they're in the bible, is a pretty poor reason for believing much of anything. But it turns out to be a happy historical accident that there were a few people with an expectation of apocalypse some day or other, who happened to have their antennai (?sp.) tuned for such occurances. And lo and behold a big one came down the turnpike: y2k. Christians, (namely North for the most part), had kooky bible-based expectations that something bad was gonna happen, so they were more on the lookout for such a thing. The upcoming heavy event - y2k - has about as much to do with the bible as does the dalai llama. (maaaa!) But it wouldn't be the first time in the history of ideas and science that a genuine discovery or realisation has been partly precipitated by an erroneous or kooky notion. thanks Gazza.

-- humpty dumpty (notwheni', October 30, 1998.

Is Gary the AntiChrist? I dunno, can you see his reflection in a mirror?

Seriously, you do have to take a look at the man behind the message. The personal views of any writer will certainly color his writings. Norths religious views certainly will leak into his message in subtle ways.

-- Paul Davis (, October 30, 1998.

To those who say "let the man be."

Everyone has a right to their opinion. And everyone has a right to challenge other's opinions and question their motives.

North counsels personal preparation without counseling cooperation. North claims that we are headed for total meltdown. He claims that there is nothing that can be done to head off the coming disaster. We have a right to challenge those ideas and I, for one, do challenge them.

-- Buddy Y. (DC) (, October 30, 1998.

Questions and answers in a thread like this influences me to suggest they are great for preparing me for the jostling for power and position in POST Y2K situations. Are we exercising for post-Y2K?

Otherwise such a question is as irrelevant as can be for helping me to prepare myself and family during the pre-Y2K preparation time.

-- JoeB (, October 30, 1998.

Coupla more nits to pick:

Bertin - (assuming you're refering to heaven's gate) How do YOU know that those people misinterperted those markings, and how do KNOW that that asteroid DIDN'T take them to "heaven" after they committed suicide?

I seem to remember an old fable about a Jewish guy named Jeshua ben Joseph who committed "Suicide by Cop" and, they say, he went to heaven. "To conquer death, you only have to die. You only have to die..." (they also say lotsa other things about him, but I don't believe them)

I personally believe that there is one and only one objective reality in the universe, and currently there are about 5 1/2 billion subjective views of that reality...

Gary North, are you listening? I just would like to thank you for all the energy you are putting into disseminating information about Y2K. I really and truly appreciate it. I enjoy your commentaries, even if I don't agree with some of them. Please, keep up the good work. I think all the noise and bluster is a good thing, because it gets people uppity, it gets the discussion going, and that will only server to increase awareness. As other posters to this forum have said, you and your energy may play a role in saving my life, and the lives of my loved ones. If you find yourself in New York City, I would like to buy you a beer, sir.

If, however, Dr. North, you are involved in some nefarious plot to deprive me of my liberties, then I must tell you to go FUCK YOURSELF! The United States is NOT a "christian nation", and anyone who would deprive another of their life and liberty is NOT a "christian." I don't really know what your religious beliefs are, although I do respect your right to hold them. If they are diametrically opposed to my own beliefs about life, the universe and everything, that's very cool, and would probably make for some lively debate. If your beliefs, taken to their logical conclusions were to deprive anyone of anything, that's very uncool...

Hey, Michael and E. Coli - Maybe we should all just meet in the middle somewhere for that beer, like say rural Arkansas?

-- pshannon (, October 30, 1998.

Wow!!! This is what this forum is?

Okay, IF GN is why are WE still here?

Lastly, I came to this forum to check out what is going on, I have choices, I understand that. The use of FOUL language is VERY offensive to me. Why is that tolerated here? Guess I cant let my children in this area. Pshannon, shame on you. If you are a female, double shame. You have a very foul mouth.

-- new one (, October 30, 1998.


-- lice controller (, October 30, 1998.

Thank you, "New One" from !! In my opinion, your response was the PERFECT illustration of the issue that is being discussed in this thread! (I have a feeling that person won't be back. Sorry.)

Let's take a single word from a series of thoughts AND FREAK OUT ABOUT IT! Did that person understand what was REALLY being said? "We gotta protect the young 'uns from that foul odiferous slime!" Did that person understand that there are life and death issues involved here? Also, did you catch that bit of sexism? Ha! what a galoot!

Gary North: again, if you are lurking, there's one other thing I forgot to mention earlier. You posted here yesterday in response to someone criticizing your reporting, and your post felt very defensive. I personally don't think have ANY reason to be that defensive. Really. You've got it tough, and you stick with it. And please, don't take the F word personally...

-- pshannon (, October 30, 1998.

pshannon... freedom of speach is dying... pretty soon the NEA will be dead too... without a thought of the greater good our nation is becoming fractionalized much as it was because of slavery. Poetic license and artistic interpretation are simply not understood any more. The wealth of an empire, especially in the area of it's knowledge base, is tied directly to their appreciation of the arts and the freedom of expression.

I'm pretty sure we're screwed any way you slice it. ---------------------------------------------------------------

-- Michael Taylor (, October 30, 1998.

I'm willing to bet New One is a woman. The F word is perticularly offensive to most of us women because of it's underlying meaning. It's a pervasive word that has lost some of its punch it's so overused now. But it comes from the man's sexual control over a woman. You F a woman when you want to subdue her, you make love to her when you feel like "giving in" to her. (Simplistic but you get the gist.)

Bisides, "Curses are for the unimaginative and illiterate mother f*****s" (Unknown)

-- Chris (, October 30, 1998.

If people would spend 10% as much time and energy worrying about North's Y2K data and conclusions as they do about his religious views, they would be doing themselves (and others) a big favor. And, Buddy, you continue to claim that you have a body of evidence that refutes North's data. I wish you would present it, noone else have ever been able to.

-- Jack (, October 30, 1998.

Heartfelt thanks for the food-offerings, M&P. But I must decline as the electrogravitic lenticular craft I'm building in my garage (to translate me to the n-dimension known to you earth-beings as "heaven" on 1/1/00) requires my constant vigilance at this stage of it's manufacture, in order to prevent untimely combustion.

"Foul" language, especially that which references the scatalogical or sexual, represents a demonization and repression of the human body/mind, which is inculcated in the masses to facilitate control. We have not understood or come to terms with our sexuality, our pee-pee and poo-poo, or, more to the point, the mental/emotional complexes that are constellated around these functions (specifically territorial complexes around the eliminative functions, and social dominance/submission complexes around the sexual functions - though having opened this can of worms, I must add that these complexes are not entirely discrete, exist on a systemic continuum, and are highly programmable, on a Lorenzian model. I would also add that the relationship between these complexes and the nervous/glandular plexi with which they are associated is as the relationship between "software" and "hardware" - that is more than a metaphor. It's an enormous clue). As long as this schizoid ignorance persists, we will continue to erupt explosively -and more to the point, unconsciously- with "profanity," and, paradoxically, perpetuate such explosions by repressing them in self and others. The process is circular - someone has us, quite literally, chasing our own tails! Politically and religiously, we can see how the repression (or shaming) of sexuality and pooping is a "tool of power." The explosive rebellion against this power only feeds and reinforces the circularity, and inhibits the key, which is experiential self-knowledge. Get people ashamed of their own bodies and they will never be able to know and master themselves - they will always be rebelling explosively or seeking fullfillment outside themselves, in Hero-figures (sexuality) or territorial expansion (poo-poo/pee-pee). This ignorance leads to all kinds of mischief. This michief can be directed skillfully, and to great profit, by those hidden few who have passed on generationally their knowledge of programming the mass of human body/minds (through subsidiary agencies which often appear to be in conflict with one another in their stated social and political objectives, even to the point of violence, but ultimately serve the same objective: to keep the humans stupid, fighting, dying, working, spending, barefoot, pregnant and not only ignorant of, but in terror of, their vast potential. These agencies include, but certainly are not limited to, religions. But they aren't dangerous in themselves. They are dangerous only if you let them control your relationship to your own body/mind.

See, PShannon? Your f*cking foul-mouth (for shame!)is right on topic. Oops. My mercury vortex is destabilizing. Gotta go...


-- E. Coli (, October 30, 1998.

Jack, I have the same evidence that the rest of you have, with the exception of North's comments. I am only interpreting it differently.

-- Buddy Y. (DC) (, October 30, 1998.


You either have read way too much Robert Anton Wilson, or you ARE Robert Anton Wilson. Whoever you are, that was a beautiful riff... My friends this evening are going to be awfully perplexed when I raise my pint of Guiness and propose a toast "To E. Coli!"

-- pshannon (, October 30, 1998.


humm... raising his pint and saying "E. Coli" in a tavern... hummm.... panic... I see panic and danger... maybe it would be a good if it were a silent tribute : )

Mike =====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (, October 30, 1998.


-- pshannon (, October 30, 1998.

Whew. A round of beers for everyone!!

I owe my Y2K awareness to GN also. His site is the most comprehensive Y2K site on the web. Do I agree with his conclusions? Some, but certainly not all.

I appreciate GN's humor, which took some time getting used to, but is hilarious when he's "on"...

Religious views are, IMHO, irrelevant to Y2K. Your own personal beliefs may help or hinder you.

What will happen will happen, and cannot be predicted by anyone with any certainty.

Prepare or possibly die. It's pretty damn simple.

Aw, hell, I said damn.

-- Steve Hartsman (, October 30, 1998.

Not bad E. Ted Sturgeon said it better, though.

-- Paul Davis (, October 31, 1998.

i've been reading GN's posts on a daily basis, along with deJager and others, for almost 2 years now. a couple months ago, he mentioned that it was ironic that he, a Presbyterian, had influenced some Mormons to stockpile some food.

GN calls them as he sees them, and i know for a fact that he is willing to change or correct any of his information if you present him with new evidence. that is pretty rational behavior. unfortunately, there is some paranoia amongst BOTH his critics and his supporters. how about some middle ground here?

-- Jocelyne Slough (, October 31, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ