We draw a distinction between TEOTWAWKI and TEOTW. If it is true that each ending of something is the beginning of something else, then we also have The Beginning Of The World As We Build It. Perhaps you can think of a better name, but you get my drift.

As we consider a very severe impact from Y2K, TBOTWAWBI becomes increasingly relevant. Depending on what is "taken out", we will need to build again. This raises a number of interesting questions, many related to determining what kind of world we will need or want afterwards. There will most likely be as many different answers to this as there are people with opinions, and who knows where (if anywhere) the forum will go with it. There are also reportedly those who are considering TBOTWAWBI with relish, to forward whatever agenda they may have for the rest of us. Regardless, perhaps we can use this thread to discuss TBOTWAWBI itself. I hope it will result in some good discussion.

A couple of examples: If the present government is a casualty, then what kind of government will make sense to build. If we have the opportunity to do something from "scratch", say build a dependence on solar and wind power instead of fossil fuels, wouldn't TBOTWAWBI be the time to do it? You will think of other examples. However, I would like to start, if at all possible, with just the concept of TBOTWAWBI. What, if anything, does it mean to you?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 22, 1999

Answers

TEOTWASGTH :

The End Of The World & Say Goodbye To Hollywood

-- (billyjoel@thepiano.com), January 22, 1999.

I don't know about anybody else, but personally, I believe HONESTY and the TEN COMMANDMENTS might be a very good starting point of reference.

Sandy

-- Paul & Sandy Stambaugh (patches96@worldnet.att.net), January 22, 1999.

I have always felt a major reason for people to 'desire' TEOTW is the wish to clear out a lot of the old nonsense we have built into place over the centuries and can't get rid of. There is so much that seems obvious in hindsight - underground housing for safety from storms and nearly zero energy usage for heating or cooling - small generation facilities hooked to oil well waste gas (if you haven't seen how much natural gas is wasted by oil field flares there is no point in me telling you - you would NEVER believe it) - roof gardens or greenhouses on top of city buildings - ocean thermal system generation of electricity (first demonstrated in 1927 - killed by the depression - has only one 'pollution byproduct' - fish love it and grow like crazy nearby) the list just goes on and on. And sometimes you get the feeling there is nothing you can do because the entrenched intrests are making money and hate the idea of spending capitol on actually improving things. But there has to be an easier way to change things than TEOTW.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 22, 1999.

Hello Rob

I have also thought about this.

Actually, it frightens me. It seems to me that if our system as it stands now disappears because of Y2K, most survivors will be preoccupied with daily survival as well as being "incommunicado" since communications will be limited without telephones, newspapers, mail, travel etc.

Who then will be in a position to form a new government, a new system? The current occupants of the highest positions seem to be a logical answer to that question. They have major survival bunkers in place now, and I'm sure provisions have been made to insure that they are safely tucked away before TSHTF. I'm also sure that they are not preoccupied with their own personal preparations now as we are. What then are they preparing for??

I assume they are preparing and planning for TBOTWAWBI. I doubt very much that I would agree with their view of what that should be.

The important question then becomes, WHAT can we do to insure WE have a voice at least, if not major input, in the forming of our new system?

The Founding Fathers started with a clean slate, so to speak. The populace had come to this new land looking for a new way of life, seeking freedom above all. Post Y2K will be entirely different. Not only in SIZE.....the entire continent, compared to the origional Colonies, but also in character. By that I mean, we have lived life in luxury and that has softened us. We have not fled from oppression and poverty, willing to risk our lives to build a future for our children. Most of us do not know what we are facing let alone how we will endure it or survive it. Many will willingly give up "freedom" (which has little actual meaning to them, having never gone without it) in order to be taken care of.

I can't help but fear that by the time we find ourselves "back on our feet" and ready to build our new system, we will discover that it is already in place, and we could easily find ourselves in a worse situation than we are now. I imagine that this will lead to a vicious civil war, as we will be reduced to two sides: Those willing to be taken care of, and those who have been toughened by the problems and are willing to fight for their new-found independance.

God help us all......

Sheila

-- Sheila (sross@bconnex.net), January 22, 1999.

Paul and Sandy: With my e-mail of "SonofDust" I think you already know where I stand!

Paul: "the entrenched interests" may no longer be entrenched in either a TEOTWAWKI or TBOTWAWBI scenario. One point: This post is about TEOTWAWKI. If we end up with TEOTW, this whole discussion (and everything else) is moot. As far as an easier (or other) way to change things, there are - we as humans have brought about continual change over the ages, and as long as we are here, so to will change for us be here. One key to change is necessity. Human nature says that folks do not like change - that they resist it - but when it comes down to being absolutely necessary, the change happens, even with people dragging, kicking, and screaming all along the way. Who was it that said the only constant is change?

Sheila: I very much enjoyed reading your thoughtful post. When thinking about the 'who is in control', I had forgotten about "the current occupants of the highest positions" with their bunkers and all. I was picturing more of a local control that eventually grows outward (becomes regional) - but you also have a point. Regarding your last remark, I would say that there already exists between the rich and poor, at least to some extent, the two sides that you refer to. One of my favorite 'sayings', which I have posted once or twice is: People will not be free until they fear slavery more than they do the responsibility that comes with true freedom.

When I was posting the question on this thread, I hoped that we would get to "WHAT can we do to insure WE have a voice at least, if not major input, in the forming of our new system?" The wheels are still turning on this for me, and I hope that other posters will contribute their thoughts to this aspect - for I believe you are right - it is a question of importance.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 22, 1999.

Rob,

Not sure what each of us will DO, or where we will be then.

My preferred vision, is most of the planet muddling through to the other side of Y2K, with a profound new respect for how fragile and interdependent our world is. Also with a newly solidified desire to not go through that one again. In my dream they would also be sensitized to pending ecological disasters and be far more willing to tackle those upcoming problems as well.

Whatever happens, I suspect, like myself, a fair percentage of the population will choose to live differently after Y2K. Incorporating renewable energy sources, sustainable living, ecologically smart houses and businesses into their newer vision seems probable. And downright sensible.

This could be fun, if only it werent so darned tragic.

My personal goal is to be grid-independent. (One way or another).

See also the Real Goods Solar Living Center (SLC), north of San Francisco, where they demonstrate all the goods, grounds and solar powered toys:

http:// www.realgoods.com/SLC/index.htm

Take the SLC Walking Tour and the Virtual Tour.

Looking forward rather than backwards.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 22, 1999.

After at least twenty months of "lurking" here I can resist posting no longer. Great topic.

Since I've spent all my money on preparations and am "ready" for the event, I figure that I can now participate with thoughtfulness. To give you a quick background I'll say only this. I'm in my mid-20's married, two young children, started and run my own home-based business (currently for sale). We've been actively preparing for y2k for nearly two years, and spent an awful lot of money.

TBOTWAWBI is the only option we have left if y2k is a 7+. What I don't understand is why a lot people who post here have this concrete idea that we will have to "rebuild" the country or work to get things back to "normal." What if there never is normal again?

Building on that proposition, maybe there is a solution. If Y2k destroys the Empire Thinking in virtually everyone's mind, then the only viable option is total local control and local autonomy. I don't mean through the crisis time period (which may be hard to define), but rather a new concept of civil government and culture. In modern day America laws are designed to create total uniformity. There are easy examples. "Everyone" has Social Security numbers, driver's liscenses, pays taxes (well, most people), uses paper money printed by the Federal Reserve, etc. What this has accomplished, especially in the last 100 years in America, is a monstrous machine capable of doing virtually everything.

But on the way to accomplishing everything the empire concept been very destructive of the diversity of religious belief as applied to the world around, ethnic values, political theory, economic principles, and individual property rights. In war the empire machine consumes individual lives like an industrial machine consumes raw materials. Value of the individual is counted only in relation to the whole. As a result, countless thousands are today disillusioned with Washington and every federal connection they see. The empire is rotting.

Some would argue localism is unavoidable in the long-term future (Davidson and Rees-Mogg in THE SOVERIEGN INDIVIDUAL). I agree. But now we have Y2k. I hope Y2k hastens the rise of local control. It is the only solution to give true Pluralism and Freedom to the modern world. If a city or county or even a state decides they want to make certain laws or live according to a certain patern they see as good, then fine. I hope the Feds won't be around to interfere. If there are citizens there who don't agree, let them move on to somewhere where they fit in. Does this sound crazy or is it actually workable? Has this ever happened before: a transition from monolithic empire to local law and order?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Jim the window washer

-- The Window Washer (Micaiah@2kgs.bbl), January 22, 1999.

Jim, welcome.

TBOTWAWBI could be as simple (ha!) as recovering the wisdom of the founders: limited, representative government with the states (ie, localities) in the driver's seat.

You know, those forgotten utopian documents: the Declaration, Constitution, Federalist papers and more.

This doesn't foreclose being modern at all (renewables, efficient humane technology, etc): quite the contrary. If the sheeple don't become "citizens" in the old-fashioned American sense, how will we get to a livable future anyway?

My point is we don't have to work from scratch. We have treasures from our own country's recent past (two hundred years is recent enough in the span of centuries) that can be reclaimed as a common heritage.

Will reclaim them? I'm not optimistic, but it has to start with consensus on their value to us right here on this NG and go from there.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 22, 1999.

Hi Diane - Glad you are back. Maybe we can talk later tonight at the FRL?

I too look at my actions to prepare for Y2K as a way to begin a very different way of living from what I and my family have grown up with - and regardless of the actual severity, I can see many benefits to it. To be grid-independent is a worthy goal, and one which I plan on working towards as well - initially because of Y2K, and now regardless of it. It is only one of several reasons that I feel preparation never ends. And thanks for that SLC link - I will check it out later.

Jim: Glad you found this motivating! If the rest of your posts are anything like your first, well, all I can say is welcome aboard. Looking forward to hearing more from you. I don't see us going "back to normal", or even wanting to. My hope is that we will go forwards, to TBOTWAWBI, and why not borrow from the past those things that we either need or want, as BigDog gives an example of. Regarding your remark about how other posters view this subject, let me ask how much you have seen about TEOTWAWKI, and how much, by comparison, about this concept of TBOTWAWBI? Maybe I have been reading all of the wrong threads, but I haven't seen anywhere near as much about this stuff, and don't really know what other posters think, which is one of the reasons for this thread - to find out. There is so much talk about endings, I just want to talk about beginnings for a while. Not only to clarify my own thoughts, but to see where others are too.

Two final things: I do not know the answer to your last question, but it is an interesting one, perhaps another poster knows of a precedent and will give us an answer. A related question would be: Is it inevitable that local would become monolithic again, in time? Perhaps history also can give us a clue to that one as well. Last, I have not read THE SOVERIEGN INDIVIDUAL yet, but you have given me motivation to go and get it. One good motivate deserves another, eh? LOL.

BigDog: Well said.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 22, 1999.

Rob --- I agree, of course, that it is ESSENTIAL that we envision the future in three dimensions (sure, bad, if that's what we see but good as well).

I think one reason this isn't done too often is because some of us doombrood want to make sure that PREPARATION, PREPARATION NOW remains the note in 1999 and that the touchy-feeling woolgathering stays dormant. But I know you already agree with that.

Just like with humor, which is vital, envisioning a future we will want to live in is itself vital to keeping the will to make it through intact.

BTW, I have developed the same persistent desire to move towards grid independence as you :-), Y2K bummer or not. In fact, my wife "loves" Y2K because she now feels she has won the entire war on a whole range of things: self-sufficiency, farming, midwifery and a host of others.

So, push the thread one step further:

I propose locally-centered independence (tribes, if we can stay away from the new agey connotations) and region-aware interdependence (recovering the founders) with a modest federal system. I know, LOL, right?

Key to this is a sea-change in citizen expectations about government as the paternal-maternal daddy-mommy. That means accepting that some localities will do better than others but we don't force redistribution of rights, wealth, etc. "Redistribution" as practiced since the New Deal has led us right into the disaster we're facing BEFORE we get to TBOTAWAWBI.

Come on, people, keep thinking: do you agree, disagree? Why? Why not?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 22, 1999.

BigDog: Certainly we need, as members of the unofficial DoomBrood Asylum, to concentrate on preparation, and we do. Most of my Y2K time off forum is still spent preparing or getting others to. If we fail in this, the first phase, we don't pass Go and collect $200 in TBOTWAWBI phase now do we? Someone once said that I ask vexing questions. I admit that I do sometimes. Maybe this will be considered one of them. But I like this kind of discussion, and some others do too, just as much as the humor sometimes. You must have been reading some of my posts for a while because you were dead right on about me LOL! (Just wanted you to know.) Hmmm, now you are LOL.

I'm up for pushing the thread as far as we can - heck, that's why I started it. Here are two cents to run with:

Regarding your "key" of "citizen expectations about government as the paternal-maternal daddy-mommy", it looks to me as if this key is being forged as we speak, by Y2K. Even if Big Government makes it, it may be different from what we have today, in the context of people living off of redistribution. I say this because I just don't see the government being anywhere near ready - they are not going to write 50 million checks by hand. Even if they did, will the power be on, the phones work, the mail go through, etc. So, for a while, beginning with the actual period of TEOTWAWKI, people will need to rely more on themselves and their families and friends. Folks won't want a change, it will be forced on them. Even if this lasts only a short time, the effects, both financially and psychologically, may be quite devastating to some. An important variable, which is unknown, is how long the interval will be between TEOTWAWKI and a subsequent TBOTWAWBI. This comes into play because the longer the interval, the more likely that government will be perceived as having blown it. People will be more inclined to consider other (local/tribal) forms perhaps. At least the leaders that emerge will. Folks are not going to be happy if the checks do not come. They are going to want to blame someone or something - anyone but themselves. They may even blame the machines, and we will have a period of distrust for anything with a computer in it. Who knows?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 22, 1999.

Rob,

Sometimes it's all pretty simple. For years we've been building co- dependant housing and encouraging co-dependent lifestyles. Y2K may change that and get people thinking again. Every time we have a Y2K- pretest, like the S.F. Blackout, a few more people "get" that their lives are pretty grid-locked.

I suspect we'll see the development of like-minded communities that "work" which will become the role models for the surrounding communities, etc. Eventually the ripple effect of a recovering world will find it compelling to look carefully at what does work and what does not.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 22, 1999.

Diane: Y2K encourages us to become as self-sufficient as we can - quite a reversal from the co-dependent life-style. And I think we are already seeing more small groups of Get its working together on the community level - perhaps if they get through the first two phases (up until the rollover, and then through the aftermath) they can evolve into these role model communities for TBOTWAWBI. Each community may have some different needs, which may also change during time, depending on what phase we are in.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 22, 1999.

Y2K... "will not be the beginning of the end, but it will be the end of the beginning"...

(author in closed quotes unknown)

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), January 22, 1999.

The king asked his philosopher for a motto to serve in every circumstance, whether wonderful or devastating - after some thought, the philosopher replied "This too shall pass".

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 23, 1999.

I'm back. You folks amaze me. There is an awful lot of brain activity going on in here, and I'll be happy if I can just keep up.

OK, BigDog, I will preface my comments about your post with this. I agree that we would be worlds better today if the Constitution were followed today and the vision the Founding Fathers saw was dominant in our culture. That being said I think we really do need to start from "scratch" with TBOTWAWBI.

Here is why. The imperialism that ultimately destroys the concept of limited government and freedom is not a recent development. Only the logical consequences appear recently. The empire mentality didn't start with the godlike president known as FDR. It didn't even start with Lincoln (though he was an "empire" man). I'd make the proposition that the empire concept started with our founders (as defined as the authors of the Constitution, 1789)

If you hear me out on this I think history will back me up. The Constitution was not the first form of law in this country, and for that matter won't be the last. When the individual state/colonial legislatures sent delegates to what we know now as the Constitutional Convention they were sent there to do one thing. Those delegates were sent to amend the first form of law in our country, the Articles of Confederation. When they assembled they immediately decided to take an oath of secrecy concerning the proceedings. Then they threw out the Articles and began writing "from scratch." My first point is simply this. If a new "Constitutional Congress" convened and swore themselves to secrecy, would anyone believe they were there to increase liberty, and freedom? I think the answer is an obvious no. Secrecy and deceipt in government today belie fundamental dangers to the well-being and freedom of the people. Now, why don't we apply the same standard to the founders as we apply today. Could it be that what is deceitful today (Fema, IRS, ATF, FBI, etc) was also deceitful in 1789 (Delegates disregard the local legislatures mission). Remember, I am not arguing the founders committed the same crimes of murder, lawlessness, stealing, and pillaging the modern agencies and gov't agents commit. I'm only arguing that the same empire concept existed in seed form in 1789.

History goes on to teach us that the founders also enacted the Constitution on ratification of 11 of the 13 colonies. My question is this. By what authority? This may be theoretical since only R.I. didn't ratify initially, but what right did the founders have in saying upon 11 ratifications that the Constitution becomes law in all 13 colonies. Can you say "Tyranny". This is empire thinking.

I say this not to demean the founders. They accomplished some great things. I say this so that when we think about TBOTWAWBI, we won't make the same mistakes. I purposely defined the founders as "those who wrote the Constitution" because not all the Patriots were in favor of the Constitution. Remember Patrick Henry? Not only was he a vitriolic anti-federalist, but he also predicted that the Constitution if adopted would lead to tyranny. He is famous for his "liberty or death" speech during the war with the Brits, but he was also famous for "I smell a rat in Philadelphia." Unfortunately, he was not a founder of this country. He was wise beyond his time. We would be wise to fight any and all centralization in TBOTWAWBI.

So BigDog, local tribes/states I would agree with, but "modest federal system" I would not. It's sort of like a movie. Let's say you and your wife ar watching a two hour movie. As you get 100 minutes into it there are some really bad parts. (Just think of something that disgusts you). What do you do? Does it help to rewind the movie to it's better parts, and push play again? If we go back to the founder's ideas without eliminating the empire thinking that is exactly what we do with TBOTWAWBI.

Now, as to Rob's question about local governement's becoming always monolithic. That is truly the question. The founders believed the 2nd Ammendment would safeguard the citizens' God-given rights. I have a feeling it would have too, except the citizens along the way forgot that God gives the rights. This is much wider than just law. Remember Darwinian thought decimated the concepts of natural law-natural rights toward the end of the 19th century. We haven't recovered yet. My guess is the patriots of 1776 were right; freedom is bought with eternal vigilance and sacrifice. Without that and God's providence no civilization stands a chance.

I'm sure I'll be flamed for some of my comments. This is still a great thread for those tired of talking about the "end" re. Y2K. My only conclusions are: 1. We need total decentralization in TBOTWAWBI 2. History can teach us volumes

3. We need God's blessing for our immediate areas/tribes after y2k. Without this we are nothing, and so will accomplish nothing.

-- Jim the window washer

-- The Window Washer (Micaiah@2kgs.bbl), January 23, 1999.

Jim --- tremendous post and makes me think about things I never have before. If I get your agument, it boils down to something simple but fundamental: *some* (by no means, all, duh) of the poison in our system was injected by the founders themselves, taken, at least, as the first form of federal "government." Very worth studying. And, specifically: the same dynamic of secrecy, imposition of consensus through raw power, etc.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 23, 1999.

You've got it BigDog. I don't even mean understanding my logic. I mean you've got the real, live, one word answer. Consensus. Government should be accomplished locally on consensus.

Let's say there is this little county that unplugs from the US as a result of y2k "10". Now all the residents get together (ala Postman) and create a basis for the law of the realm, that is the county (or other small, local organization), and sooner or later all the households agree. Any change in the law or application of a new law requires everyone who is governed by tha law to agree to it. This is consensus. Otherwise if it is by majority vote, then the "Have's" can vote what they wish at the expense of the "Have nots." Making a Constitutional provision for a super-majority really doesn't solve the ultimate problem of empire thinking in any form of government. It justs makes sure that a larger majority benefits from any change. In other words, it takes a bigger mob to do the dirty work.

But, ultimately, BigDog, the formulation of any government in and of itself does not protect it from moral decadence and corruption. When we think of TBOTWAWBI, one of the assumptions we have to have is that Y2K will make people more godly. I mean this in the long run. Whether or not this will in fact happen is beyond me. But maybe it doesn't have to be universally true. If it makes a local community morally upright through repentence, then the leaders and citizens should go right ahead and forge their own form of government. That is the beauty of total decentralization. Those who believe the same no matter what those beliefs are, will be free. So, the humanists build their world, the Eastern mystics can build theirs, the Christians, in all their forms, can build their own. Even the Patriots could follow Hume and Locke as far as they wish.(I would think this Patriot land would be fun to visit, being Patriots are so colorful a lot. HA) Down with Tyranny, unless it is tyranny you wish for yourself!

People being people, I'm sure each one of these governments will be connected economically as trade, etc redevelop, but they have liberty in their own realm. They may even covenant together for certain purposes of defense, etc. But if a realm of government does not agree with your personal taste, belief, personality, etc, then by all means move on. Ultimately, you can find more people like yourself.

My question is this. Is what I have presented a pipe dream? Could it happen if Y2K is a "4"? Could it happen if Y2k is a "10+"?

Jim the window washer

-- Window Washer (Micaiah@2kgs.bbl), January 23, 1999.

Glad to see the neurons still active.

Jim: Regarding your three conclusions - I agree - Also I believe that Y2K will, to a large extent, force decentralization. But we still come down to the 'for how long' a transition to a monolithic form. Here is where I think human nature comes in. Power and control are intrinsic parts of human nature, and they will assert influence as they have done all throughout recorded history - regardless of the ultimate form of government that is created. People are people. This influence is always present too, in every phase we are discussing. So just as it is there now as a primary factor, so to will it not wait for anything, it will be ever-present. This argues in favor of the tendency back towards centralization and the 'ultimate power', though the timing is nothing but guess work.

BigDog: If you haven't already, you may find the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers a very interesting source of information regarding what was going on, and the power struggles that ensued, during the days of the founding fathers. Another source you may find is a great reference, is the book "The Coming Battle" by M. W. Walbert - written in 1899 - yes that's 1899 - it was out of print for almost 100 years but you can get it now - it describes in great detail the battles that raged over control of money (power) from the colonial period to the date written, and what effects this had on our nation all along the way. It is a great book. This may still be being advertised on the worldnetdaily.com site.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 23, 1999.

TBOTWAWBI. A wonderful start to a large topic.

Economics not mentioned so far. ("It's the 10 hours a day -- and your spouse's 7 hours -- you spend at making money in the economy, stupid.")

WORKER OWNERSHIP. Follow my thinking.

Y2k has brought up silly talk about "drafting programmers", death marches as programmers "save" our electricity and IRAs, and public- spirited communities pulling together.

Yet where is the basis for such loyalty and sacrifice? Y2k is not Pearl Harbor. Most of the code is in capitalist corporations and bureaucratic government agencies, and they always want us to PAY for each and every one of their "services". STRICTLY BUSINESS. They lay us off to fatten their bottom line, then expect us to come back to work now to save THEIR SYSTEMs for free as volunteers or cheap as devoted employees? Oh, and don't even think of taking all your money out of "our" privately-owned banks.

I call that entering the Tonto Condition. ("What do you mean 'we', Kemo Sabe?")

RAW CAPITALISM, triumphant in the 1990's, has REMOVED the last props to CIVIL SOCIETY. We are viewed as workers and consumers, not as citizens. Congress is bought by campaign contributions (BRIBES) and democracy short-circuited. The corporate world -- not We The People -- owns Government. What?! The corporate-owned media haven't told you this?

In a proper CIVIL SOCIETY, the economy is CONTAINED within the society's democratically-determined boundaries, but in this time, we have been sold the reverse: a "dog-eat-dog, every man for himself" rationale for economic efficiency. 90%+ of Americans have received no benefit at all from Wall Street's triumphant casino bubble. Wise alternatives to Capitalism and the straw-man, Communism, are not discussed anywhere.

WORKER OWNERSHIP.

Stock owners mostly represent the capitalist middlemen who initially brought labor and capital together to produce desired products and services. After the initial entrepreneurial burst, stock absentee- ownership serves a less vital role in the productive cycle, and siphons profit from the cash flow. (Bill Gates would have founded and managed MSFT for us for $50 million as surely as for $50 billion. He could never miss the difference. But we might. And he got where he is by sharing much of the increased wealth with the WORKERS.)

Workers and consumers have their finger on the vital pulses of economic productivity, and it is they who should own the rebuilding organizations of skills, property, technology, and knowledge if TEOTWAWKI gives us such an opportunity. More efficient, and more just.

Markets are not the problem, you Austrians & Microecons -- it's the OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE. I propose ownership of each major corporation's stock largely by its workers, somewhat by its consumers, none by government, not even "Social Security".

Back to y2k. Capitalism may have found something that PURE MONEY POWER just can't buy: Y2k REMEDIATION on time, with enough competent programmers, and a positive ROI out of it. (Y2k shortens the already- myopic planning horizon of business decision-making to near-zilch, and increases the required ROI to high-volatility levels. Result: no extraordinary remediation efforts.)

Capitalism suddenly needs Society again. Bad luck, old chap.

I say we make a better bargain this time, we 90%. Like any good takeover artist, we buy 'em when they're in crisis and their stock is cheap.

Most workers, even males, couldn't even vote in 1789. And today, the big difference is.....?

When will we finish the American Revolution?

-- (jor-el@krypton.com), January 23, 1999.

Jor-el

Interesting post. I think you're right on in at least one respect. The Ra Ra go programmer go just ain't going to work and complete the job. Just look at the Euro conversion. Those guys had a lot of pride at stake to get that thing up and running. Not to mention their own countries economic well-being in the long run. Some people on this forum don't understand or refuse to believe how or that the euro is working so far. One answer is because there was and is an incredible amount of motivation and pride in Europe concerning this issue. (And naysayers too, but they just motivate more in the big scheme of things)

As to the new OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE, I'm sorry I just can't make heads or tails of that. What would that accomplish?

When will we finish the American Revolution? Me thinks this is a rhetorical question!

--Jim the window washer

-- The Window Washer (Micaiah@2kgs.bbl), January 23, 1999.

Jim: You ask about pipe dreams and the severity of Y2K (4 vs 10). We must have posted almost at the same time, since I did not see your previous one when I posted last - but indeed my answer, in the context of factoring in human nature, is relevant anyway I think. Also, there has to be some correlation between the severity of Y2K and the opportunities (and degree of them) presented, don't you think? If it is "only" a 4, then I am assuming there will be electricity, phones, and at least some semblance of normality with regard to the infrastructure. In my opening post for this thread, TEOTWAWKI is what is assumed for the discussion. So if it is a 10, all bets are off, and we then contemplate turning 'dreams' into reality in a TBOTWAWBI scenario. Dreams are important, regardless of if they come true or not.

Jor-el: No, the Money Power can't buy it, and there is no ROI. There is only the potential ability to stay in business. That's right. Spend 10's or 100's of millions on Y2K remediation and what do you get: to stay in business - maybe - if your suppliers can get their stuff to you, if you have a working infrastructure, if the banks are up and running , if, if, if...

As far as worker ownership, we should start by "owning" our own money, and not by paying the 12 private credit monopolies the usurious and iniquitous taxes that they confiscate from us through the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System. The last person who tried going back to a constitutional monetary system was JFK. He actually got some notes printed that were United States Notes, not Federal Reserve Notes. We all know how that ended now don't we. So rather than think 'worker ownership', I think of "money/currency ownership", and letting the people, via a return to a constitutional monetary system, be freed of the insidious shackles that have chained us ever since Tuesday, December 23rd, 1913 when the Federal Reserve Bill was passed. The monetary system, whatever it becomes in a scenario of TBOTWAWBI, will be incredibly important to whatever freedoms people have or can hope for.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 23, 1999.

Hi Rob! Last night I met and chatted with Cliff Ford. He has written a new book called "Blood, Money, & Greed- The Money Trust Conspiracy". (Don't know if it's in Christian Bookstores yet or not.)

In it, he talks about the Federal Reserve Act. He said, "To ensure passage, the Act was presented on December 23, 1913, when the majority of legislators were home for Christmas. It passed without fanfare, and control of the United States monetary policy was quietly transferred from Congress to the banking community represented by the Federal Reserve." And a little further down, "All members of the Federal Reserve System are privately held banks." (He then lists the stockholders.) "Every one of the principle stockholders- all international banks- is in some way indebted and owes allegiance, not to the government of the United States or its people, but rather, to the Rothschild banking interests of London, Paris and Vienna."

Here is a quote from Nathan Meyer Rothschild: "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws!"

Very interesting reading!! I wonder if all of these guys are sweating Y2K??

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), January 23, 1999.

Yes, Gayla, he is correct. One of the best books ever written about it is called "The Secret World of Money" by Andrew Guase, who is a monetary historican. He also just published his Y2K book too. And that quote by Nathan Rothchild is a famous one.

As far as the Money Powers and Y2K, my opinion is that if Y2K is relatively mild they will just continue pushing for more globalism and control. If the Y2K impact is what we are talking about on this thread, TEOTWAWKI, then there is at least the possibility that it will also be TEOTW for the entire fiat system and international money powers too. However, if in a TBOTWAWBI scenario we give any select private group monopoly power of the monetary system, regardless of the type of government or laws that it abides by, we will just be slaves to the new money power, which is the essence of Rothchilds quote.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 23, 1999.

Sorry folks, the correct spelling is Andrew Gause. For those interested, his books are available at both amazon and barnes/noble.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 23, 1999.

I continue to be in total awe of the brain power and thought processes that are depicted in this forum. My husband and I are pretty well finished with our y2k preparations. For us it was not too difficult as we have lived y2k in Alaska and we had all the equipment such as grain grinders, cookers, tools, etc., plus a library of " how to" books and lots of experience of depending upon our own brains and hands for survival. So, I too have reached the point where I am trying to get over the wall and into the future post roll over. And I agree with most of the posts on this thread. But I see one big hang up that I feel prevents most of the proposed, wishful things from happening. That is the numbers of people in our country. And the vast numbers of non productive, non caring persons whose idea of preparation is to make sure they have enough cigarettes, booze, crack, marijuana, etc to make it through. If we hit the worst case scenario on the scale, these people will have to either get their act together and become contributors (not very likley, more apt to become mauraders) or die off. The elderly . the infirm, the disabled, etc will all have to die off. And this is going to be a very difficult time for everyone, including the survivors. And in the very long run, I am not sure but survival for man and the planet might need this reduction of man. There is one thing that Mother Nature abhorrs and that is A CROWD. It doesn't matter how well you take care of animals, if there are too many in a barn, they will become ill. Too many in the forest and they will starve or die of disease. So...my conclusions are that in order for small communties to form and survive they need lessor numbers and more space. How do you form a "comunity" in a ghetto of NYC or Chicago? These people, for the most part, don't have a clue how to survive if the stores are bare, and the gov't checks don't arrive. And I have found this to be true of friends who are smart, well off, etc. They don't have a clue. One asked us if he couldn't get an electric generator rather than gas or diesel. He was serious! These people would starve to death in a productive vegetable garden and a milk cow standing there lowing to be milked. I love your scenarios and I pray they come to fruition. However, I feel there will have to be a lot of death and misery before this happens. I hope this thread continues. The "wall" is high and prevents even us older and experienced folks from seeing over it and getting the old brain into a "future" mode when not too long ago it was planning on retirement in the sun and SS and pension checks rolling in like surf. Now its back to compost pile and saving seeds, canning or drying the harvest, and making the chicken house larger. Keep those thoughts coming. My old brain needs to be dusted off, oiled and put into working condition once more. I love you all.

-- Taz Richardson (Tassie@aol.com), January 30, 1999.

Taz: You bring up some interesting points that haven't yet been discussed on the thread - like the numbers of people and what decisions they will be confronted with making - especially the deadbeats. Small communities have, by definition, less people, but perhaps you mean this in a relative context - as far as needing more space, maybe you have a point, I hadn't thought about that. I agree that the people who only know how to survive based on the way things are now, and have not considered the radical changes that TEOTWAWKI may bring, will be in trouble. When will they have time to learn? And think about the circumstances that they will need to be dealing with at the same time they decide to try and learn. Unfortunately, there will be a lot of death and misery in any type of TEOTWAWKI scenario - but there will also be those who were either smart or lucky enough to survive through to the post-Y2K period - the folks who will be the builders of TBOTWAWBI.

I also hope this thread continues. I really do. We have only scratched the surface of TBOTWAWBI - with most of the discussion so far exploring ideas about government, economies, and also the monetary system. To me, your post indicates that your brain does not need "to be dusted off, oiled , and put into working condition once more." I wish more of the forum would take an interest in TBOTWAWBI - just my opinion, but it seems to me a better way to spend your keystrokes than feeding trolls or being in flame wars. So much is discussed about endings, yet there is still a lot to be said about beginnings. Don't you think?

So how about it gang, want to talk about post-Y2K "beginning again" possibilities and ideas? I still do.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 30, 1999.

If we have TEOTWAWKI (ie. society), and a lot of deaths, we will likely have small community societies. There may be a large number of kinds of communities, each with different beliefs, although likely similar values. I hope that one of the values that carries through is the acceptance of others' right to differ. Given our past, it's something that we will have to work at, IMHO.

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), January 30, 1999.

Its hard to contemplate something in which you have no experience and cannot identify. Its like asking a kid to invision a world without TV or computer games. He just can't do it. And if he can, he is thinking about it in short term, "until things get back to normal". If we as a nation, people, go down the tube, the cities will have to die. There is no way they can be supported or sustained. The only possible way of surviving would be in the small community, some of which are in existence and some of which are yet to be formed. A community starts because of like interests. Like interests of existing small self sufficient communities will be that of protecting and enhancing what they already have. The new communities will form from the survivors banding together to provide protection, shelter, food, etc. Hoovervilles! They in turn will have to depend upon their collective skills and the leadership abilities of those that rise to the top. They will also be dependent upon the regional towns and will have to contribute in order to draw sustanance from them. Be it barter, labor, etc. There will be a lot who die from lack of shelter, food and water. But there will be a lot that die from a bullet while trying to raid someone's hen house. My main thought here is that things will never be normal again in the present context. My biggest regret is that I won't live long enuff to see it all come out the other side. It will take years, but what a challenge. But I know from experience that the kid that spends his day on the end of a hoe isn't out car jacking!! Don;t be too hard on those who cannot get beyond the preparation and stocking of food, etc. They have staqes to go through to get "over the wall" and one has to have the immediate needs of food, water and shelter taken care of before one can think beyond that. Keep it coming guys...I felt the gears in my old brain try to move this morning.

-- Taz Richardson (Tassie@aol.com), January 31, 1999.

Taz: Your points are well taken - "normal" will re-define itself - perhaps in various and different ways than we can even think of - but it is so interesting to try. Whatever normal becomes, I agree that it will be different than now, and the more thought given to various possible 'normals' the better. To some degree, normal as we have known it is already gone for some of us - it is for me. There is only the thin veneer of normal still left, a coating over which potentially the TEOTWAWKI and TBOTWAWBI lies. A year ago I hadn't a care about self-sufficiency, building community, and most of the things that occupy my thoughts now. For me, almost half a century of "normal" went out the window. It was a necessary change, and I think a life-changing one. I have seen others post that they have been changed by Y2K forever also - even if it is not anywhere near a TEOTWAWKI impact. We have still changed, and there is no going back. There is only going forward, to TBOTWAWKI.

It was not my intent to come off sounding "too hard on others". I just wanted to give the tree a shake. They are concentrating on needed preparation and dealing emotionally with their own new and evolving definition of normal, just as we did, and to some extent, we also continue to do. The point I was trying to make was that collectively, as Y2K aware folks, we are out of balance - we spend so much more time talking of endings, and hardly any about beginnings. Granted this is difficult and some would say vexing, and I agree with you that preparation and the other stages of climbing the wall come first - it is a high wall, and TBOTWAWKI is towards the top - for some like us - to begin thinking about. There are so many things to talk about and contemplate - for example - right now, the kids are waking up - what does the TBOTWAWBI mean to them. Just one question, and an important one, that can lead to many other good questions. There are so many other areas that have not even been thought or asked yet. Let's do it.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 31, 1999.

Hi Rob and others.

This question was first posted about 10 days ago, and my wife, Sandy, is our household Y2K researcher, and gave an initial response. She brought this to my attention last Saturday. I read the postings at that time and have pondered it quite a bit since then. My question at this point is are you (or anyone else :) interested in continuing this discussion? I have a few comments on what has been said already, and maybe a thought or two to spur on the "vexing questions" that you pose.

Paul, the normally silent, thinking part of the Paul and Sandy household :)

-- Paul & Sandy Stambaugh (patches96@worldnet.att.net), February 01, 1999.

Good thread on how the end is a beginning.

Or in(more than a few) other words:

The Y2k effect can be seen as a stepwise increasing evolvement in the granularity of authority, as power of determination in the freedom and independence of oneself and others becomes localized, fragmented, and distributed in a decentrist reaction to a power loss, including outages and shortages in energy, economy, media, and government.

However as any decentrist trend (political or economic) arises, a response (which tends to be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction) will arise and appear to cancel out the influence. In other words if the grass roots get uppity, the big politicos will rise to the occasion. If small business starts doing well, big business will consolidate, aggregate, and balance it out.

As in "Follow the money" and "It's the economy, stupid" the political aspects of y2k do have to be viewed in the context of the economic climate. It's always advisable to store up money regardless of 'what form' or 'where' it is. Likewise accumulating reserves of food and essential supplies is clearly indicated as being the opposite of and antidote for an over-dependence on the Just In Time supply chain, and the governmentally and commercially given essential services.

As an effect of Y2k on the economy, there could be seen a rise in consumer demand as everyone stockpiles consumables (food and supplies), both individuals and businesses. This would suggest a burst of economic activity this year, followed by (as y2k hits the infrastructure and business), a downturn correction. Post y2k impact at the economic level? A big shake-out as the bottom falls out of commerce and industry starting with the infrastructure, hitting the middlemen distributors and purveyors, and spreading as the bell curve distribution of economic positions (mostly middle-class) splits into a bimodal distribution (small startups vs. big business).

If technical problems are systemic and uniformly distributed around the domains of the technological application, then the effect is like an across-the-board scaling down of influence or energy level in all fields, as in global recession. Even if the y2k effects are equal across the economic spectrum, the response and survivability of the individuals and companies would be enhanced at the positions of greater wealth, while the shape of the wealth distribution may remain largely unchanged. Most of the wealth and power still concentrated around the top, but having spread out a bit, like the trend in computing from centralized toward distributed.

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), February 01, 1999.

Rob,

Since you began this thread, I assume that your interest in the subject is quite high. You must read Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. It is the single most relevant work to TBOTWAWBI that I have ever found. Not only that, but unbelievable as it may sound, each of the posts on this thread are directly, accurately and understandably addressed!

YES! to all of these answers. Read Ishmael and you'll see how humanity can achieve all this and what must be done to do so!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 01, 1999.

... one more time

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 01, 1999.

Paul: The more thought the better! I don't know the answers to the questions that I pose either, which makes some call them vexing - but I enjoy trading thoughts - for me it isn't a matter of being right or wrong - it is a matter of both clarifying my own thoughts and having others push in directions that haven't been considered. IMHO, we can learn from other people regardless of if we agree or disagree. So if you feel you have something to contribute, then go for it.

Jon: I was with you until your last paragraph. I agree about the scaling down factor and see that this is at least partially due to the systemic nature of the problem, but I don't understand why problems would have to be "uniformly distributed around the domains of the technological application". Perhaps I am not thinking clearly about this, because I have never believed that the problems would be uniformly distributed - if anything, I have thought the opposite - that there would generally be great variances depending on factors such as our location. Am I mis-interpreting your remark or thinking about it in the wrong context? Next, I see Y2K as an equal threat to the wealthy as to anyone else. True, one can make the case that they are more insulated due to their having greater wealth comparatively, but this assumes they will get to TBOTWAWBI with their wealth more or less (mostly more) in tact. Also assumed is that whatever form they are using to store wealth now will still represent wealth during TBOTWAWBI. One other thing, the wealthy, since they are wealthy, have more to loose. Remember what the folk singer Bob Dylan sung : "When you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to loose". Just my opinion, but I think some that are wealthy now will not be during TBOTWAWBI.

Hardliner: Thanks for the tip about the book - I never would have guessed that there is actually something like that. My next stop to the bookstore will include this. In the meantime, if you have the time and are so inclined, feel free to post a bit about the actual contents, perhaps at the 30,000 foot level. Others who have posted to this thread may also find it interesting.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), February 01, 1999.

Rob, and anyone else that's interested,

Take this link to a thread on this forum for more about Ishmael and how it relates to Y2K and TBOTWAWBI. There are further links there.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 01, 1999.

Sandy sends this "thought" in from a plaque in our kitchen. It has some thoughts that might be applied or at least considered, when we survivors do the rebuilding. I choose to be an optimist in spite of all facts to the contrary.

A Happy Home Recipe

4 Cups Love 2 Cups Loyalty 3 Cups Forgiveness 1 Cup Friendship 1 Large Bunch Smiles 5 Spoons Hope 2 Spoons Tenderness 4 Quarts Faith 1 Barrel Laughter 3 Pints Consideration for Others

Take Love and Loyalty, mix thoroughly with Faith Blend with Tenderness, kindness, and understanding Add Hope, Friendship, and abundant Laughter Top freely with Smiles and Consideration for Others Bake with bright sunshine Serve daily in generous helpings.

Author..............Bradley Tyler

Rob, thankx for the invite to the discussion. Hope you do not regret it. :) I had originally thought to address individuals and their posts, but since I am getting in on the game late, I will just make my comments, and see what the result is.

1. Ursla K. LeGuin, writes in the second volume of the Earthsea Trilogy, "...the weight of liberty. Freedom is a heavey load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice make, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward towards the light; but the laden traveler may never reach the end of it." I for one will choose liberty at every step. I consider it something that is of worth beyond price. In the pholosophy of ethics, the topic of fundamental motives is discussed. Usually the "survival of the individual" is posited as the primary motive. This is true for most, but for those who seek true self-actualization, it can become secondary to the desire to be free. Maximilian Colby demonistrated this concept in the Nazi concentration camp when he "self-sacraficed" his survival for a "higher ethic." I hope my wife, daughter and I survive the transition period of Y2K. And if so, I plan on defending the freedom of the individual. One of the pre-revolution frence philosophers (Rousseau maybe?) said somthing to effect of "I may not agree with your opinion, but I will fight for your right to have it." I hope that what we build after will have the individual as paramount. 2. The fifth century B.C.E. philosopher Hericlities is reported to have build a system of thought on the idea that "one cannot step into the same river twice." All things are in constant flux. "This too shall pass" was mentioned. True, but I sincerely hope that we will learn from our mistakes, take those things of value from our past, and use them to build a new society. 3. Many of the posts seem to posit a "federal"-type government. I question the need and/or desire for a central government at all. This may sound naive, but hold judgement for a moment. With the current potential of photovoltaics, the communication systems could be re-estabalished in short order (or could have been made Y2K proof to begin with :) Full, open communication could be the basis for society interaction. Would we need to have the megalithic federal government system that we currently have? I realize all the "benifits" that our governments offer, but what about all the other "stuff" that goes along with it? I personally would choose to have my own power, protection, and build any "roads" that might be needed in my community, if I could do away with some of the other "baggage" of Big Government, (not to mention giving them 1/3 of my paycheck every week :) Prior to the fall of Rome, more than 2/3 of the "citizens" were on the government payroll. It really bothers me that so many of our friends and neighbors are currently feeding at the "government trough" today. What will they do when the checks stop, and they have to get off their behinds and do something to survive? This reaction scares me. There is a country song by Aaron Tippin called "Working man's PhD" that says that "more people should be pulling their weight." Post Y2K, this will become a reality, and I am not so sure that this is a bad thing. 4. How will people react to the breakdown? That is a question that has kept me up at nights. In "A Canticle for Leibowitz", Miller discusses a post-nuclear society in which as much damage was done by people reacting against/blaming "techies" for their situation as was done by the actual war. I sincerely hope that we do not creat a similar anti-tech reactionary society as was portrayed in that novel. 5. The failing of the fiat money system, and the electronic "vertual wealth" might just be the "silver lining" of the Y2K cloud. 6. One of the saying that has helped me though many of trials is "Whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger." I am not looking forward to the "culling" that Y2K will bring, and it brings tears to my eyes when I really consider it, but maybe the human race will become "stronger" as a result. Hopefully stronger in a more "humane" rather than an "animal" way. "Necessity is the Mother of Invention." "We the People" are tough, and we will do what is necessary and inventive. 7. Personally I too follow John Varley's hope "This is not the beginning of the end, but rather the end of the beginning." He wrote this in his novel "Millennium" (later made into a movie) as a sign of hope for the future of humanity. I feel that Y2K may be the "rite of passage" for the human race, and we can step into our "maturity" and put "childish things away." We must DECIDE to overcome our weakness of hatred, aggression, prejudice, and work toward building "community", the "co" of "unity", the working together for the good of all.

Thankx for listening, Paul P.S. Is there somewhere that has all the meaning of the "alphabet soup" of short cut initials? I have been able to gleen the meaning of most of them by context, but some still allude me.:)

-- Paul & Sandy Stambaugh (patches96@worldnet.att.net), February 01, 1999.

Wow, you guys are fantastic, this is another constitutional convention quality-of-discussion. However, I'm more pessimistic than most of you. I think earth life is inherently predatory. And Taz especially is right (there's been a past thread on this) large populations and freedom are contradictory by their very nature. I think the words of Ecclesiastes are universally true for all human situations at all times, sort of like the second law of thermodynamics...

I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 01, 1999.

Paul, here are a few:

TEOTWAWKI- The end of the world as we know it

TEOTW- The end of the world

TBOTWAWBI- The beginning of the world as we build it

FWIW- For what it's worth

IMHO- In my humble opinion

AFAIK- As far as I know

BTW- By the way

ROTFL- Rolling on the floor laughing

ROTFLMAO- Rolling on the floor laughing my a** off

WTSHTF- When the sh** hits the fan

LOL- Laughing out loud

-- Just helping (here@re.some), February 01, 1999.

Just Helping,

Thankx for the info. One other one that is still a mystery is "NG" in refering to this forum.

Paul

P.S. Sorry about the typos and format screw-up on the long post above.:)

-- Paul & Sandy Stambaugh (patches96@worldnet.att.net), February 01, 1999.

NG is just 'news group'.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 01, 1999.

Paul: Your post hurt my brain. No, No, only kidding. It was outstanding - So many ideas. You don't need to be invited, this is a public forum, just chime in when you have something to contribute.

Freedom and the individual - yes - existentialist philosophy. You know, I have posted the following before but it fits perfectly here: We will not be free until we fear slavery more than the responsibility that comes with true freedom.

I also hope that we will learn from our mistakes, take those things of value from our past, and use them for TBOTWAWBI - this is one of the original points for this thread - to explore this more.

I thought that many of the posts seem to posit a "local" (even tribal) type government rather than "federal", so I'm not sure how we got on two opposite tracks there. The key question, which has been only discussed briefly, is if it starts out as local, is it inevitable that it become re-centralized over time, and over what length of time?

You ask "how will people react to the breakdown?" - They won't be happy. I am of the opinion that this is where human nature comes into play big time. People will be people. One of the reasons I strongly favor building community now is that by doing this, more choices will exist for people in the context of their reactions later. Don't you think? I mean, if you have a community that is nowhere near prepared and folks do not even know each other, it seems to me that the potential for them making irrational and bad choices when problems start are much higher. There aren't good choices to chose from. What do you think?

Regarding the "alphabet soup" - here are some that I use: BTW=By the way, FWIW = For what its worth, BFN=Bye for now, ROFL=Rolling on the floor laughing, LOL=laughing out loud, TSHTF=The sh*t hits the fan, IMHO=In my humble opinion,FI=Forget its, DWGI=Don't wanna get its, and DGI=Don't get its.

RC: I tried telling you about this thread and one other thread (Forecasting Shifts in Mass Psychology) since I thought you would find them both interesting (guess you didn't see my messages) - seems I was right about this one anyway - if you see this post, take a look at the other thread - it's right up your alley, Cat! LOL. (Post to it if you want, I would value your opinions on the wave cycles and predictability of social phenomena. I think it's in Misc. but am not sure.

Forum: BRN, Rob. (offline)

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), February 01, 1999.

RC: Here is the url for the other thread.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000PRQ

Hardliner: Thanks for the link - I will check it out soon.

Gang: Looking forward to more discussion on this thread. Keep those thoughts coming!

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), February 01, 1999.

Paul S [with comments from Jon] writes:

1. "Freedom is a heavy load [heavier loads being potentially more deadly], a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake [cash and carry: pay the price and carry the burden]. It is not easy. [you have to work at it] It is not a gift given [you have to earn it], but a choice [to] make, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward towards [and downwards away from] the light; but the laden traveler [and anyone else] may never reach the end of it." I for one will choose liberty at every step. I consider it something that is of worth beyond price. In the philosophy of ethics, the topic of fundamental motives is discussed. Usually the "survival of the individual" is posited as the primary motive. This is true for most, but for those who seek true self-actualization, it can become secondary to the desire to be free. Maximilian Colby demonstrated this concept in the Nazi concentration camp when he "self-sacrificed "his survival for a "higher ethic." I hope my wife, daughter and I survive the transition period of Y2K [or any other imaginable cataclysm]. And if so, I plan on defending the freedom of the individual [and of the groups as well]. One of the pre-revolution French philosophers (Rousseau maybe?) said something to effect of "I may not agree with your opinion, but I will fight for your [and my] right to have it [or not have it]." I hope that what we build after will have the individual as paramount [of equal importance as that of the group].
2. The fifth century B.C.E. philosopher Heraclitus is reported to have build a system of thought on the idea that "one cannot step into the same river twice." [each day is a new world] All things are in constant flux. "This too shall pass" was mentioned. [all as impermanent, anicca] True, but I sincerely hope that we will [and do] learn from our mistakes, take those things of value from our past, and use them to build a new [more evolved for viability] society.
3. Many of the posts seem to posit a "federal"-type government. I question the need and/or desire for a central government at all. [there has to be some coordinating mechanism to allow 50 states to operate and trade] This may sound naive, but hold judgement for a moment. With the current potential of photovoltaics, the communication systems [you mean the electricity bus as a local DC source] could be re-established in short order (or could have been made Y2K proof to begin with :) [y2k is about much more than the AC power grid] Full, open communication [no privacy, all records public?] could be the basis for society interaction. Would we need to have the megalithic federal government system that we currently have? [it isn't megalithic, it's fragmented and overgrown] I realize all the "benefits" that our governments offer, but what about all the other "stuff" that goes along with it? I personally would choose to have my own power, protection, and build any "roads" that might be needed in my community, [balkanization, no federal standards for road and commerce for example?] if I could do away with some of the other "baggage" of Big Government, (not to mention giving them 1/3 of my paycheck every week :) [who is going to deal with the foreigners if no federal level] Prior to the fall of Rome, more than 2/3 of the "citizens" were on the government payroll. [or as Jefferson has said: the best government is that which governs least] It really bothers me that so many of our friends and neighbors are currently feeding at the "government trough" today. [parasites have been sucking the system dry at all levels for ages] What will they do when the checks stop, and they have to get off their behinds and do something to survive? This reaction scares me. There is a country song by Aaron Tippin called "Working man's PhD" that says that "more people should be pulling their weight." Post Y2K, this will become a reality, and I am not so sure that this is a bad thing. [regardless of y2k, pulling your own weight is a lesson which is good to know]
4. How will people react to the breakdown? [depends on where you are, the type of neighbors you have]
5. The failing of the fiat money system, and the electronic "virtual wealth" might just be the "silver lining" of the Y2K cloud [there is no silver lining].
6. One of the saying that has helped me though many of trials is "Whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger." I am not looking forward to the "culling" that Y2K will bring [y2k is not in itself going to be doing any culling, it's people that do it, but this is a process which is always going on in nature anyway], and it brings tears to my eyes when I really consider it, but maybe the human race will become "stronger" as a result. Hopefully stronger in a more "humane" rather than an "animal" way. "Necessity is the Mother of Invention." "We the People" are tough, and we will do what is necessary and inventive.[the earth crisis is of greater overall impact than y2k]
7. Personally I too follow John Varley's hope "This is not the beginning of the end, but rather the end of the beginning." [as is each moment in time] He wrote this in his novel "Millennium" (later made into a movie) as a sign of hope for the future of humanity. I feel that Y2K may be the "rite of passage" for the human race, and we can step into our "maturity" and put "childish things away." [is it moving away from depending on devices?] We must DECIDE to overcome our weakness of hatred, aggression, prejudice, and work toward building "community", the "co" of "unity", the working together for the good of all. [first to decide how to be, then to decide how to create it, then when, where, with who, and why]

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), February 02, 1999.

Rob, I kind of skipped a step in talking about the "federal." History seems to indicate that grouping tend to expand into territories building larger interconnections, except in very remote areas (and even then can be "absorbed" by large governments, just think of Tabet). I think that many of the wars in world history had more to do with expansion then survival. My point was aimed at trying to NOT do this this time. You asked about how long this process takes, or might take. Here is the paradox. In History, the process was usually linked to communication. In ancient Greece, the City states were independant for centuries, tied by trade and later finally joined into a unit under Philip of Macadonia, Alexander's father. But today? who knows. After? depends on the actual conditions, but I feel that communication will again be the key to banding together into tribes first, and then tying together for trade and exchange. Hopefully we will be able to establish this without the real possibility of local(and other level) fighting and war.

Jon, thankx for your comments. We seem to have some similar attitudes.

I realized this morning thinking about things, that the true spirit of the "freedom of the press" has moved from the published papers and magazines onto the internet. Thankx everyone:)

-- Paul & Sandy Stambaugh (patches96@worldnet.att.net), February 02, 1999.

Hardliner: I read with interest both of the "Flying in the Goo" posts - excellent. You have lit a fire under my feet to get the book soon. I also will be getting the other book mentioned earlier on this thread (Sovereign Individual).

Paul & Sandy: So communications, at least historically, has played an important role as a determining factor in the 'how long' part of the process. This has interesting ramifications, after all, we live in the so-called information age - where information and communication have grown together so much. To some degree, the information age was brought about by the leaps in communications and other technology. In a TBOTWAWBI scenario, communication and information will also be key - they always have been and always will be - though the methods used to gather information and facilitate communication may be quite different than what we have become used to given the current technological infrastructure.

The mainstream press seems to be a few weeks behind the net, at least from what I have seen. Some things don't seem to be reported at all - So I think you are right in your last remark - just remember that the net has all kinds of stuff and is, to me at least, similar in some respects to the old characterizations of the "wild wild west". Freedom and responsibility are inseperable.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), February 02, 1999.

I would like to explore the link between communication and the impact that it will have on how we eventually govern ourselves in TBOTWAWBI. If we accept the premise of TEOTWAWKI for the purposes of this discussion, then we to some extent also accept the inevitable changes and loss of the methods currently used to facilitate communication. Given a crippled infrastructure that is unavailable long enough, we may have a preponderance of local-only communication. We won't be able to reach out and touch anyone, that is, if they are not local. Perhaps for a time we may not even need to, should the local community be truly self-sufficient. Another assumption for the discussion is that the national and state governments are down for the count in TBOTWAWBI. So where does that lead us regarding the relationship between communication and governing.

Two cents:

The longer the infrastructure stays down, the longer it will take for local leaders to expand power regionally, I think. Without regional/national communication we have mostly local communication, and the amount of elapsed time between communications may once again be a factor of distance. How long will it take to get from your local area to the adjacent one, for instance. This may give local ideology more time to entrench itself, which becomes interesting later as communication improves and power grows outward, since ideologies may conflict. This assumes ideologies will develop locally and local leaders will later try extending their power past existing local boundaries - leading in affect, for lack of a better description, to tribal warfare between local communities with differing ideologies.

OTOH, if there is a viable method of regional (wider than local) communication still working in TBOTWAWBI, doesn't this argue for a quicker move of local leaders to consolidate and expand power, and also to reduce differences in potential ideological views between different local areas, since there will be less time for local ideology to become entrenched?

Once again, I am just thinking out loud. Any of this make sense to you? What are your thoughts regarding communication and TBOTWAWBI.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), February 04, 1999.

Rob,

I don't mean to sound like a shill for Ishamel, but the exact question you pose about locality and communication is directly addressed. Without the common background of the book, all that I can say is that I am convinced that such conditions are to be desired.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 04, 1999.

Hardliner: I plan on getting the book soon - so maybe it makes sense to hold off further disucssion on TBOTWAWBI until afterwards. Looking forward to more discussions then. Rob.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), February 04, 1999.

I'm almost done reading the book and I do warn you in a friendly way that I'm not in the "oh, this has changed my life" camp about it.

We are probably better off stating our own opinions on this NG as much as possible rather than appealing to another text that most NGers won't read ....

And if we're talking mythology in the Ishmael sense, Ishmael has grossly misunderstood most (not all, not all) of the biblical myth, and on that latter subject I am an expert. It's the only subject in life on which I am an expert. Open-minded, but expert, say, the way Hardliner is about the Marines. Seriously.

Which doesn't mean I'm unwilling to tumble around in a positive spirit about Ishmael, just that those kind of threads will draw fierce and flaming religious debates. You guys decide!

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 04, 1999.

A problem with the black-and-white premise of 'infrastructure down for a long time':

Way over simplified to assert total outages of all components of the infrastructure (energy, media, services, and supply lines) including "loss of communication links", more so the belief in an extended duration. Even with local (and of course temporary) blackouts, some components will continue to function (think wireless, shortwave, and not everything depends on the AC power grid).

More precise to consider post-y2k shortages and effects of impaired infrastructure. If the y2k is a uniform handicap, the partial loss of power will be an across-the-board downscaling of status and activity. The impact may be non-selective in terms of hitting all industry sectors with equal or proportionate force (likelihood of y2k-caused problems and magnitude of impact), but the impact can be attenuated by suitable preparation, so foresight and planning have added survival value.

A common fear is that, in response to the impairment of the infrastructure and subsequent loss of energy and food, people will turn into violent criminals and hungry cannibals. But we are not looking at a 100% reduction of resources, the failures are partial, not complete. However it is in any case a good idea to have the security of some type of defense capabilities.

Meanwhile, forming communication links with others in the local neighborhood is always a good idea, including if there is a common threat of civil disorder. It could be a counterswing from the isolationism of materialism (people getting absorbed consuming tv programming, etc. and not associating with people living with or near them), back to the communalism of group intent (necessity as the mother of cooperation).

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), February 04, 1999.

Thanks for drawing my attention back to this thread, Rob.

In my opinion the future will be about the understanding control of resources, much as has the past, but with a definite look towards sustainability.

I am lucky enough to get paid for doing what I love, interpreting natural systems. My gravy comes from the top of the Fortune ### heap, as well as other fascinating groups and individuals. They peer through my looking glass, as I often get a glimpse through another.

The present and future already make for strange bedfellows, if you look from a micro point of view. Some of the most active stewards of the South American rain forests are international pharmaceutical firms. My brother is a *gasp* developer, and as much as we are two sides of the same coin, he's helped to illuminate responsible land use issues for me in a way that I'd be hard pressed to find from someone in another camp.

I'm running out of time at the moment, but I'd like to quickly express grave concern about an issue that will affect the future of our culture. Maybe it's different in your neck of the woods, but around here the family unit is an endangered species. I expect this to have a huge impact on life as we know it in the years ahead.

-- flora (***@__._), September 15, 1999.

Hi again Flora. When I pointed you to this thread to look at the local control part of the discussion here, I wasnt expecting that you would post to it. Thank you for bringing up such an important subject.

You have hit a nerve with me by bringing up the family unit. I have some very strong opinions here, and guess they could be categorized as old fashioned. I grew up in a house where it was instilled in us that not much on Gods green earth is more important than family. Therefore, I am appalled at the degeneration of what I have always believed is the glue that holds us together. Not just a particular family, but the shared values of the family unit that helped to make a neighborhood a real community, and the collection of these neighborhoods a functional society.

Many of folks extended family was either down the block or just around it. By contrast, today families are much more dispersed. Its hard, but not impossible, to stay close when you are scattered all around and distance becomes a factor. You cant look someone in the eye on the phone, or provide a hug when needed. Also by contrast, there were social stigmas associated with both divorce and being on relief. Look at the statistics for divorce over the decades for a comparison. And being 'on relief has, sadly, become a way of life for some from one generation to the next.

Everyone pulled together regardless of the usual clashes and misunderstandings. We were Family! This led to a deep sense of trust, love, and confidence that IMHO is sadly missed by many today. In fact, the disintegration of the family unit is a major contributor to the problems that people sometimes find themselves faced with today. My family and others that I know are still living these old fashioned values. We do most things together. My wife was raised the same way. I could go on and on about this but you get my drift.

This is an important topic and merits its own thread. I plan on starting one later tonight. Maybe others will also find this a subject worthy of some exploration and discussion. Well see.

BFN, Rob

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), September 15, 1999.

While I have to go back and read many of the posts to this thread more thoroughly, I really appreciate, and have long thought about the necessity of "building something better"....long before I knew or understood anything about Y2K. There are forum discussions in other places, and many archived here at Time Bomb from 1998 that discuss the potential opportunity Y2K affords for doing just that - building something better. The discussions have become fewer here in the last months. I wonder if there is still and more difficulty in imagining the necessity of building something better because the imaginer must be motivated by the possibility that "what is" no longer "is".

In many forum discussions I participated in we invariably hit the wall of symbolic graffiti that was participants uttering in fear: "but, but, but,...the existing system won't fail....it can't! Inconceivable! Unthinkable!

I'm going to continue in my life making as many changes for the better to the world around me. More community cooperation and creativity,...more visioning and more refusing to just accept the old lame lament - "This is all there is; as good as it gets."

--She in the sheet upon the hill whispering, 'Change is the only constant.'

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 15, 1999.

Donna wrote I wonder if there is still and more difficulty in imagining the necessity of building something better because the imaginer must be motivated by the possibility that "what is" no longer "is".

This is exactly what must be done. On many threads that I have started, I ask the reader to accept an assumption in order to facilitate the discussion regardless of if they believe it or not in actuality. This gets us out of our own box in some cases, and in others forces us to expand the scope of our thoughts. My latest thread called Getting back to normal after a severe Y2K starts with just such an assumption and request to accept it for the discussion. Is this easy? No. But that is what makes it valuable and interesting. So I would think that it is not any more or less difficult  it is simply a matter of taking the time to think seriously about the subject presented, possibly accepting assumptions which we may not agree with, and trying to reach some conclusions.

Imagination knows no boundaries, but our willingness to unfetter our imaginations is a whole different story. Most people would rather be entertained than have to think, and they find it inconceivable to seriously contemplate a contradictory opinion and line of thought.

"As so often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains, and we never even know we have the keys". The Eagles  from the Song "Already Gone"

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), September 15, 1999.

One of my favorite sanity-making quotes from Margaret Mead:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has".

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 16, 1999.

And this jewel recently discovered online:

James Bender, in his book *How to Talk Well* (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1994) relates the story of a farmer who grew award-winning corn. Each year he entered his corn in the state fair where it won a blue ribbon. One year a newspaper reporter interviewed him and learned something interesting about how he grew it. The reporter discovered that the farmer shared his seed corn with his neighbors. "How can you afford to share your best seed corn with your neighbors when they are entering corn in competition with yours each year?" the reporter asked. "Why sir," said the farmer, "didn't you know? The wind picks up pollen from the ripening corn and swirls it from field to field. If my neighbors grow inferior corn, cross-pollination will steadily degrade the quality of my corn. If I am to grow good corn, I must help my neighbors grow good corn."

He is very much aware of the connectedness of life. His corn cannot improve unless his neighbor's corn also improves. So it is in other dimensions. Those who choose to be at peace must help their neighbors to be at peace. Those who choose to live well must help others to live well, for the value of a life is measured by the lives it touches. And those who choose to be happy must help others to find happiness, for the welfare of each is bound up with the welfare of all. The lesson for each of us is this: if we are to grow good corn, we must help our neighbors grow good corn. (from Martha Mainous)

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 16, 1999.

Here is a good essay by Paul H. Ray:

The Rise of Integral Culture

The site is "The Institute of Noetic Sciences"

--She in the sheets upon the hilltop, scanning for all the 'something betters'

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 16, 1999.

Donna,

I'm glad you're back.

{Doesn't it get a bit breezy on top of that hill?}

-- flora (***@__._), September 16, 1999.

Thanks flora,...Yep, way too windy sometimes. I have a love/hate relationship with the winds of change. LOL

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 16, 1999.

Donna: Thanks for the farmer story. People helping each other. What is this world coming to? :)

I have only glanced at the "Integral Culture" link and think I will print it out later. Looks interesting.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), September 17, 1999.