Gary North and Peter De Jager trade barbs : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Seems Peter De Jager is having a problem with some of Scary Gary's 'fair use' of Peter's words. Here's Gary side:

I haven't seen anything specific on this from Peter De Jager but it seems to me it's a wasted effort. While, technically, a court might one day decide in Peter's favor (though that's far from certain), I think Peter's time would be much better spent ignoring his critics and pursuing the "let's continue to fix what we can angle". To spend what little time remains fighting over copyright infringements when Gary is selling little more than his own agenda seems pretty silly to me. But hey, that's just me...

I am a bit concerned that as actual events heat up, legal battles will suck up precious resources of companies that could be much better spent.

On the subject of Scary Gary, there were two pretty good critiques of his approach that I've run across today. One was written by Scott Olmsted (of the website and recent Nightline fame):


The other was written by Jim Lord and posted at the WesterGaard site:


Both of these articles acknowledge North's contributions while taking issue with some of North's positions.


-- Arnie Rimmer (, November 10, 1998


Oh dear, it keeps getting (sadly) funnier. This morning, Gary appears to be hard at work on a 'solution'...


I hope both can find a way to stop their bickering and get back to what they do best. This doesn't do any of us any good.

-- Arnie Rimmer (, November 10, 1998.

those are 2 excellent articles. thanks, arnie!

-- Jocelyne Slough (, November 10, 1998.

Arnie, as usual you always provide the "right stuff". Great info!

Personally, I tend to think of North as "The Y2K Prosecutor", who you can always count on to bring up the most pessimistic aspects of the Y2K problem. But that is exactly what is needed, someone who diligently stays on top of the dynamics of Y2K and always asks, "Why isn't the 'worst case' probable?" And, indeed, causes us to then ask ourselves: "Why shouldn't we prepare for the 'worst case'?"

-- Jack (, November 10, 1998.

devil's advocate, is the phrase i use regarding GN. and we need one. actually, olmsted was wrong in thinking GN is the ultimate pessimist. GN's not, if you read his statement on the Russ Kelly Associates site at on a scale of 1-10, GN rates himself as a 10 but his August 1998 statement reads, "I will remain a 10 until someone displaces me by asserting that the power grid must go down. If he convinces me, we'll be tied. I think it will go down, but I'm not sure."

-- Jocelyne Slough (, November 10, 1998.

i just read GN's "solution" article. his use of ethnic slurs does not enhance his credibility, regardless of his level of frustration.

it's too bad he and deJager are getting personal. deJager's snide comments about GN seem to be mostly verbal, like in his 700 Club interview.

i believe that both of them are people of conscience who each are doing what they must do so they can sleep at night and then face themselves in the mirror in the morning. i think everyone has to pass those 2 tests. i do what i must do to pass the sleep at night/face myself in the morning tests, but it's an individual thing. it's ridiculous to condemn someone else for following the dictates of his or her conscience. hopefully these 2 will knock it off sometime soon.

-- Jocelyne Slough (, November 10, 1998.

Joycelyne, I do think that there is one important difference between Gary North and the others -- he has a history of predicting that the banking system is going to collapse for one reason or another. For instance, he did this in 1984, claiming it would be due to computer viruses.

I guess what I am trying to say is that, even if there were no Y2K problem, there would probably still be a, and at that site you would find all kinds of documentation as to why the banking system was on the brink of collapsing.

Note that this in no way takes away from anything that North has done with Y2K. In fact, I think that Y2K will pretty much do exactly what North is currently claiming -- the banking system plus virtually everything else. But when comparing North versus de Jager et al, this is something to be aware of.

-- Jack (, November 10, 1998.

I just finished reading the de Jager article that North is kvetching about. North's criticisms of it demonstrate that he is well and truly blinkered and misled by his own categorical imperatives. Here's a clip from de Jager:

"Merrill Lynch immediately follows this rather shameful admission of Y2K inactivity with the following: 'Nonetheless, approximately 80% of our companies expect to be fully compliant by Dec. 31, 1999.' "This statement requires no commentary; it collapses silently, without even a whimper, under the compelling weight of naive optimism. Of the 15 biotech companies Merrill Lynch reported on, they categorized 10 as 'Will be Compliant.' three will be 'Likely' compliant and only two received a 'Don't know' classification. "I'd like to suggest to Merrill Lynch that if you don't know how big their problem is, you cannot state with any certainty that they can even fix it, never mind meet a fixed deadline. Your evaluation is less than accurate."

Yet North calls de Jager, in effect, a wimped-out Pollyanna.

North's personal agenda has been referenced in other threads, but it may help to recall it here for newcomers to this BBS.

For starters, from this site:

"The picture he [North] paints is nothing short of a nuclear holocaust. Of course, as Dr. North knows and is counting on, it is precisely just such a widespread belief coupled with the every-man-for-himself survivalist reaction that Dr. North advocates, that would cause his y2k worldwide calamity in the first place. Remove either the hysterical fear, or the self-preservationist ethic, and the facts simply can't support his y2k claims... "He has made false pronouncements of the end of the world in the past, and has prayed/worked for the destruction of civilization all his adult life. Dr. North is a leading proponent of a movement called Christian Reconstruction. Its goal is to restore God's rule by taking dominion and reinstituting 'God's law' in every area of life. "Reconstructionism has gained wide notoriety for its extreme bigotry, misleading and abusive rhetoric, and questionable ethics. It has had a radical influence on the American religious right, infiltrating movements as diverse as the new militia and the Christian Coalition."

And from this email to Steve Davis 8/30/97:

"So, of course I want to see y2k bring down the system, all over the world. I have hoped for this all of my adult life. The y2k crisis is systemic. It cannot possibly be fixed. I think it will wipe out every national government in the West. Not just modify them-- destroy them. "I honestly think the Federal government will go under. I think the U.S.A. will break up the way the U.S.S.R. did. Call me a dreamer. Call me an optimist. That's what I think. This will decentralize the social order. That is what I have wanted all of my adult life. In my view, y2k is our deliverance. Just don't be in a city when deliverance comes."

Here's North on "Citizenship" (from an anthology collected here :

"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.)

That said, North's function as a social gadfly has been very useful.

It should also be noted that Paul Thibodeau, on whose web site these quotations are found, seems primarily interested in refuting the ideas held by the Christian Reconstruction movement (which North supports) as compared to his own beliefs.

-- Tom Carey (, November 10, 1998.

I have it on good authority that Gary North and Ken Starr are half-brothers. Same mother different father. Explains a lot......

-- R. D..Herring (, November 10, 1998.


Would that make them the North Starr? hahahaha I crack myself up sometimes.

-- Anti-chainsaw (, November 10, 1998.

Someone sent me this in a list of "laws." I thought it was appropriate for Gary North...

The Roman Rule

The one who says it cannot be done should never interrupt the one who is doing it.

-- Buddy (DC) (, November 11, 1998.

Mr. North seems to have way to damn much time on his hands. His attitude toward de Jager also seems to reek of a pissy little boy. I have no comment on de Jager's attitude, it could well be the same. Either way, they seem to be in a (excuse the semi-vulgar reference, as I generally reside in the gutter) squatting match as opposed to a pissing contest.

-- Slick (, November 11, 1998.

i've gone back and re-read GN's nov. 9 and 10 posts about the dispute with deJager. it appears they have made up, which is wonderful. also, the ethnic comments have been removed, which is good.

-- Jocelyne Slough (, November 13, 1998.

The last time church and state mixed, human souls were savagely burned at the stake. BOYCOTT GARY NORTH!


M.C. Davey

-- M.C. Davey (, November 16, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ