Millenial Madness, FBI, Steve Davis, and Y2K Todaygreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Interesting reading at Y2K Today: Steve Davis of Coalition 2000's editorial, "Y2K and Terrorism-- A Convergence of Threats. Writes Steve Davis on Millenial Madness: "My definition of 'millenial madness' is the growing and unreasonable fear of (or desire for) Y2K-induced TEOTWAWKI... that Y2K will be an excuse for martial law, confiscating guns or property, and internment. This is usually coupled by a fear of civil unrest, looting, and the infamous 'band of roving marauders.'"
Does that mean that if you believe that all conditions *could* occur (martial law, confiscation, and internment) that you have millenial madness? Or do you need only believe that the possibility of one of these three things *could* happen *if* Teotwawki... to have millenial madness? Do you have millenial madness if the mere thought of such a possibility has crossed your mind? Or must you have made preparations or statement for or about one of these scenarios to be millenially mad. Finally, if you are mad about the progress of remdiation for Y2K, are you also one that has millenial madness? Is there any difference?
"While the FBI says there is little credible intelligence to directly support this [fear of people who have millenial madness and may commit acts of violence],Robert Blitzer, Chief of the FBI Domestic Terrorism Unit, stated that FBI agents are working on nearly 1,000 cases of potential domestic terrorist activity: "As we get closer to 2000, we'll probably see more people come out of the woodwork. Some of these people have an apocalyptic vision, and they may go violent."
I would really like to know what percentage of "nearly 1,000 cases of potential domestic terrorist activity" are represented by the particularly American brand of millenial madness.
In general, I think Steve paints too broad a definition for what he describes as the beliefs that illustrate Millenial Madness. In fact, it seems that people here have a variety of definitions of TEOTWAKI. It seems an unkind gesture on his part -- and from a man that has done a great deal to create awareness of potential Y2K problems and get people to make some preparations. Yet I think I understand his motivation: Steve seems to be sacrificing the so-called "extremists" and "survivalists" to public ridicule and concern in order to get out his message to prepare for Y2K problems and take it seriously. I think it would be appropriate for Ed Yourdon to reply about this new device.
Sincerely, Stan Faryna
-- Stan Faryna (email@example.com), April 18, 1999
Y2K Today article link ...
Steve Daviss Coalition 2000 web-site ...
He has one of the better Y2K Community Preparedness sites.
-- Diane J. Squire (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 18, 1999.
I'm not sure how to anwswer other than to say I stick by my definition: "unreasonable fear of (or desire for) Y2K-induced TEOTWAWKI". This is clearly different than reasonable fear. We all should have some reasonable fear of Y2K. As you say, it is pretty obvious that I take this threat seriously; I am not trying to sacrafice anyone who takes it seriously... just trying to explain what the "madness" is and how it might impact us. As Jesse Helms said of pornography... I know it when I see it.
Best of Luck, Steve
-- Steve Davis (email@example.com), April 18, 1999.
Steve, Morris Dees went on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago following a portion of the program that featured Ed Yardeni warning the public about Y2K , and said : "There are hate groups in this country who, like Mr. Yardeni, would like to see disruptions. Those were his words. If you guys want to do the public a service, denouncing this kind of divisive rhetoric could go a long way.
-- KoFE (your@town.USA), April 18, 1999.
Steve ... Your spreading the same preliminary labeling and stereotyping used by the government before Ruby Ridge and Waco to ready the "sheeple" for the slaughter of those with "millennial madness', "terrorists", "cyberterrorists", etc. etc. . Either your a dupe or a government employee of the alphabet soup boys. It was the same in Nazi Germany before the concentration camps. The "Big Lie"; but the masses say, it's not O.K. BUT IT'S NOT ME !! Later fear alone keeps anyone from attracting attention to him/her self as they witness the horror. Where was the outcry when they bulldozed the women and children into mass graves at Waco ? OFF LIMITS to civilians. No one allowed NEAR the site ! Wise up ; if your not with them , STOP SPREADING there garbage and infecting the minds of the sleeping couch potatoes !! We have enough problems to face with Y2K and Russian nukes. They are seeking SCAPEGOATS at this stage of the "game" ; YOUR HELPING !!! Old Man ... Hoping to spend a few more years with the grandchildren. THINK and REASON !
-- A Wise Old Man (Saw it Before@Waco.com), April 18, 1999.
Let me tell you a little story about how the FBI functions:
Once upon a time there was a white supremacist hit man who had connections to a wide variety of crimes, a number of murders (for which he was wanted either as the perpetrator or as an accomplice), and who bore a striking resemblance to the witness sketches of "John Doe #2" from the Oklahoma City bombing. Those murders, by the way, included at least one 14 year old girl, as well as her mother and father.
After the particular individual in question had been living with his girlfriend in the basement of his parents' house for at least six months, with the FBI being fully aware of his location (we know, 'cause we gave them the information); nothing had happened. You see his daddy has connections in the Democratic party, and he has other relatives with, uhm, I guess you could call them other foriegn business interests on the east coast.
Even though there was enough evidence to convict this guy several times over, the feds did NOTHING. That is until some rather independent citizens took action to publicly humiliate the Feds in the European press..see Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's article at:
A week and a half after that article was published the feds busted the Brescia. As soon as he and his lawyer saw the evidence that had been compiled against him, he rolled and turned state's witness on his former buddies...
Remember those bank robbers that styled themselves as the "aryan republican army"? Remember when two of them committed suicide? Now you know why - 'cause Brescia was their former boss...and he sold them out completely to save his own hide. Far as I know Brescia is now in some maximum security prison somewhere, being protected by the feds from his erstwhile neonazi compatriots.
Currently, My friend Mike and I, and a number of other folks are on the aryan nations' list of what they call 'race traitors and racial renegades'. What that means is that they get bigtime neonazi brownie points (or would that be 'brown shirt points'?) for killing us. At the same time, since we're armed conservative Americans who happen to believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution mean what they say, we are also classed as subversive and 'potential whatever's' by the current federal regime. There's even a court ordered wire tap on Mike's phone.
I guess my point here is that personal experience has taught me that blindly taking the word of the FBI (or any other part of the federal government) for anything is really not advisable.
[who hopes this bit wasn't too over the top for some folks]
-- Arlin H. Adams (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 18, 1999.
I'd like to thank Steve Davis for his response... and for his efforts to create awareness about the Year 2000 technology problem. I like what Coalition 2000 is doing. He's done a lot more than a lot of people and put the kind of time into this effort that makes you wonder if he can bi-locate.
I'd like not to discourage him in his good works; I'm sure he faces enough challenges everyday in doing what he does well. I'm not accussing him of using scapegoats to expedite the message about possible Y2K problems. I'd really like for him, however, to reflect on how his definition can easily be broadened to make reasonable people *seem* to be lunatics in the public eye.
What are unreasonable fears in the light of Y2K problems? Is it really unreasonable to be hit in the gut when you first get it? Hearing about the stomach aching and emotional adjustment to getting it, most people would think this typical new GI is quite unreasonable. After all, the official statement of the Y2K Czar is that the worst will be like a winter storm (or in most people's minds: this is just another winter storm warning that may or may not happen). Do you think it is normal when people stock up for even a month of food, water, and supplies when they get a winter storm warning? In the city, that's just kooky!
That's the kind of kook that you raise your eye brows at or look at someone you know and... smile knowingly... or you both burst out laughing at the same time. Ok, so now this kook is talking to you about all kinds of weird things like how to convert a plastic bucket into a portable toilet or how they are filling fifty of those plastic one liter soda bottles with tap water and adding clorox. And people are thinking that the kook has lost it... gone off the deep end. But that's alright until you see the kook at Walmart buying a shot gun. Now, this kook is dangerous. This must be "Milennial Madness!"
But the jump to the erroneous conclusion that a GI has milennial madness does not necessarily require all of these observations in the mind of the general public joe and jane. It could have just been an awkward conversation.
GI: Do you know about Y2K? DGI: Not really, why?
GI: It could be really bad. Some computers are going to have problems. Power could go out, water and sewage too. Maybe, your bank's ATM might not work on January 1, 2000. You might think about preparing for Y2K.
DGI thinks: Oh yeah! This must be a millenium nut!
If fact, it just seems incredibly unreasonable to talk or wonder out loud about the possibility of martial law, confiscation, and/or internment. That doesn't happen in America! Come on! Do you really think that it could ever happen! You got some screws loose, buddy. These are unreasonable fears! Heck, to think that Y2K is going to more than a three day annoyance is pretty unreasonable. Look around you. Everything's doing good. Dow is up. It's a beautiful day. Cheer up. Are you paranoid or what? Oh yeah! You got that millenium madness!
Honey, this is a problem. You can GI or whatever you call it...all you want... but I can't live this way. I can't live with you while you are talking about all these crazy things you read on Ed Yourdon's forum and filling up all those little one liter soda bottles with water.
But I'm just stocking up for a few weeks. It's for us, baby. Just in case...
Honey, you need help. It's Y2K or me and the kids. Do you GET IT?!
Of course, domestic terrorism is a serious issue that does deserve our attention as a nation. But domestic terrorism and the activities of good and reasonable people concerned about the Y2K technology problem (which may sometimes get a little weird, after all Y2K is very weird!) need to be clearly distinguished. Otherwise, people aren't going to be able to communicate well about Y2K with each other at the local and personal level. And I don't believe Steve Davis intended this at all.
Sincerely, Stan Faryna
-- Stan Faryna (email@example.com), April 18, 1999.
Mr. Davis's irresponsible and shortsighted attempt to link Y2K issues with domestic terrorism is one more symptom of millennial madness.
-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), April 18, 1999.
Blitzer (FBI Domestic terrorism Unit) was presenting this same position as early as Sept last year in an LA Times article.
But, at that time, more specifically targetting "....armed Christain groups ...holded up behind closed doors.... very difficult to penetrate..." etc. In other words, presenting simliar public postions that threaten US citizens.
What I don't understand is: why fear people "holed up" and prepared for problems, and never mention the thugs and criminals OUTSIDE in the streets who actually are breaking the law, and so threatening the honest citizens who are "holed" up? Why does the FBI of this administration so fear people who are preparing their families against potential troubles?
-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 18, 1999.
Robert - that's an extremely relevant question, and one that everyone here should be thinking about...since even the non-Christian preparers seem to have been lumped in with the rest of us lately anyway, if one pays attention to the mainstream media.
Basicly what scares them is that those of us who are preparing independently are not subject to their absolute control. What scares them even more about conservative Christian groups is that we do not hold all of the same values as the current federal leadership - for instance most Christians (and a lot of non-Christians) consider rape to be a major crime, unlike the majority of the current federal administration...you know, things like that.
they don't like us, because we're different, and because we don't want to be just like they are...prejudice, you know?
-- Arlin H. Adams (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 19, 1999.
See current thread on what TEOTWAWKI actually means. Might be helpful as it's bandied around so much in the wrong context.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 19, 1999.
I've read the article and I see nothing wrong with it. If you people think the crazies aren't going to come out of the woodwork at the end of this year, then I suggest you get a dose of reality. A lot of people on this forum get their shorts in a twist when they hear the words "survivalist, religious fanatic, cyber terrorist or millenial nuts" used by writers or law enforcement people. And yes I know that some law enforcement people get over zealous, and some are downright rotten, and some of our laws are stupid, but I'd rather have all the alphabet agencies and law enforcement officials checking them out than taking for granted they are just ordinary folks stocking for an emergency. Steve Davis, according to my interpretation, was not talking about ordinary folks.
And as far as Waco is concerned. In case you've forgotten, David Koresh was a religious fanatic and nut, who preyed on the gullible, the needy, the brainwashed, and they followed him like sheep. Calling himself Christ!! Sheesh! If he was a man of God, and of peace, why did he have an arsenal. Rice and beans, a gun or two for personal protection is one thing, an arsenal is another.
I read a personal account from a young girl whose mother chose to follow that idiot, and it was tragic. For those of you who take such delight in bashing "that rapist in the White House," I would remind you that David Koresh had sex with anyone he pleased at that compound. Yes, the outcome was tragic, but put the blame where it belongs, on a nut case. I don't, and won't blindly follow any government agency, just because they tell me it's for my own good. But then I'm not going to be holed up, shooting at anyone that disagrees with me either.
And Arlin, you don't know anything about hate until you've been a non-Christian on the receiving end of holier-than-thou Christians or the religious right. I do. I've experienced hate, which sometimes takes the form of disbelief, anger, amusement, discounting behavior, and worst of all, the smug, patronizing condescension of good Christians to an inferior mortal. They'll forgive you, and pray for you, if you've been raised in a non-Christian home, because they feel you haven't been exposed to the one "true" religion. But, if you've been raised in a Christian home, as I was, and you reject the dogma of the Christian religion, you are vile, misguided and evil. You may be a spiritual person, a caring, geneours, tolerant person, or just simply a non-joiner, but that means nothing. You have SINNED!
And cyber-terrorists. Read Cliff Stoll's book, "The Cukoo's Nest," (I think), about hacking into government agencies, and that's just one; no telling how many there are. And "thugs and criminals OUTSIDE in the streets;" well that's just business-as-usual, the ordinary, mainstream scum they deal with every day.
Christians whining about persecution? That's a laugh. Christians have persecuted any and all who've disagreed with them, in one way or another, through the ages. Now they howl about persecution. Atheists, heretics and non-Christians have been slaughtered wholesale for thousands of years. The only Christians I've heard of being slaughtered, are those in foreign countries spreading their religion to people who don't want to hear it
And talk about sterotyping and labels, I've heard the words, "liberal, left wing, Democrat, Clinton lover," more on this forum, than I heard in all the past 5 years past added together. And that doesn't even include Invar's filth. What the hell am I doing here?
-- gilda jessie (email@example.com), April 19, 1999.
I believe you. I do believe that you have suffered both Christians and conservatives. I feel bad that you may continue to have to suffer further. I'd like to say not all Christians are so unkind, nor are all conservatives. I hope you get to meet more of these kind of people in your life. As a Christian that is a member of the Catholic church, I hope that I have not personally offended you. If I have, please let me know. I will make amends immediately-- if you will only allow me to.
I trust in God and cleave to the truths that he has revealed. Nor do I see this trust as contrary to my freedom, reason, dignity, nature, and/or destiny. For me, believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by a command of my will which is moved by God through grace. I also believe that no one should be forced to embrace Christian faith against their will. I am sure that the definition of faith as a free act and that people must not and should not be coerced to believe in Jesus Christ is also a doctrine of my ancient church.
I also believe that God loves you, Gilda. I believe that God invites you to a lively understanding of God's plan and the mysteries of faith, of their connection with each other and with Christ... to faith and conversion. Though I may believe that without faith, a person *may* not (1) attain to full christian fellowship with me, my brothers, and sisters, (2) obtain eternal life, and (3) the fulfillment of your person, dignity, nature, and destiny, I do not know what will happen with you with any certainty. Not only do I not know, I do not have contempt for you. Nor would I want to taunt you.
Certainly, I wish you the best. I wish you the greatest happiness and good. If you are in trouble and I am able to help you, I will... just ask. I may make judgements about the content of your character and the goodness or badness of your actions. This is a natural, human, and intellectual activity. If I misjudge you, forgive me, and point out my error. I expect also to be judged by you and hope that I will prove to be a better witness of faith than others may have been in your eyes.
Finally, I am sorry that you have cause to fear Christianity and my church. Our history (like human history) is fraught with wonders and evils. I would only like to point out that it is the wonders, the achievements, and the very real contributions to human civilization that I believe to have been accomplished in the true spirit of Christ. The evils and the gruesome terrors committed in the name of Christ do not appear to me to be in the spirit of Christ. Rather, I see these evils as human failures that remind me to be vigilant against evil.
Sincerely, Stan Faryna
-- Stan Faryna (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 19, 1999.
"Mr. Davis's irresponsible and shortsighted attempt to link Y2K issues with domestic terrorism is one more symptom of millennial madness." -- Elbow Grease
FEMA links Y2K and terrorism.
So do many of the .gov and .mil sites. You haven't been paying attention.
(BTW, Gilda & Stan, religious belief aside, there are many kind, loving and tolerant people of all faiths, across the planet. And those, of all persuasions, who are not. Recall, there are many paths up that Mountain, not just one.)
-- Diane J. Squire (email@example.com), April 19, 1999.
Diane -- no authentic Christian can possibly assent to the "many paths" thing: that's equivalent to spiritual suicide and denial of our Master. But you ARE absolutely right that kindness and acts of DOING good are spread all around among many "religions" (and even among those who write, "none"; all over. As are acts of evil.
Whether the Nazarene ever sanctioned/sanctions religions is another matter, but I fear it would be misunderstood by my compatriots as well as by others. Yikes! I'd better stop. (These religious threads are creeping back in, aren't they)?
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 19, 1999.
Just one more thing, I didn't mean to imply that all Christians are mean and hateful. This is just my opinion, but it seems that just in the past 10-15 years reborn again fundies have become more agressive, and less tolerant. Most ordinary Christians aren't all that much different than they ever were. I agree Diane there are many ways up the mountain, but Big Dog, you are a tolerant, sweet person even if you don't agree. Stan, thanks for your post, I appreciate it.
I simply think we shouldn't go around thinking everything our government does is in our worst interest. Lots of times they are bungling fools, but I do believe they try to do the right thing many times, if for no other reason than to make themselves look good.
I still find no fault with the Davis article. I'm sure the government doesn't want another Jim Jones mess to explain.
-- Jean Scott (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 19, 1999.
... no authentic Christian can possibly assent to the "many paths" thing: that's equivalent to spiritual suicide and denial of our Master. Or Whether the Nazarene ever sanctioned/sanctions religions is another matter ... -- BigDog
The many paths analogy comes from The Bible! Sheesh.
And the wise Nazarene teacher NEVER endorsed what Christianity has become, in its extreme forms, over the past two millennia. He was a Jew, teaching love and kindness, as different from what the traditional Jewish religion had become in his day and age! He taught a new way of being in relationship with the Divine and one another, not a new religion.
But, youre right. Thats off topic.
Back to Y2Kism.
-- Diane J. Squire (email@example.com), April 19, 1999.
Diane -- Sorry to make you gag. Interesting. You're wrong on this one.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 19, 1999.
Big Dog, That's what cured me of the Christian religion forever; that old crap about "we are the only TRUE religion."
-- gilda jessie (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 20, 1999.
gilda --- Diane gags; you call it crap. I don't refer to your convictions that way, but I could.... there is not a single human being who isn't convinced their convictions, their world view is THE truth, starting with you and Diane. I didn't say you and Diane needed to/should be forced to share my convictions; I only stated what they are and that minimally.
Gilda, I've heard you describe your world view over and over again on this forum at great length: FAR greater length than I have and with tremendous anger at those who don't share it. I don't mind the thought that religious threads should be kept to a minimum on this forum, though not everyone agrees and I ain't running for sheriff. But it's asking too much of me, at least, if people intend to be blatantly disrespectful of my convictions but expect me to be respectful of theirs.
"Gagging" and "crap" are not signs of simple respect.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 20, 1999.
Gilda, please don't repeat that canard (lie) that Koresh was having sex children: Janet Reno admitted in congressional testimony after the Waco murders that that particular 'fact' was made up out of whole cloth. Propaganda. Made killing those people easier for fools to swallow. Like you.
-- Spidey (email@example.com), April 20, 1999.
BigDog (after having his buttons pushed one too many times) wrote:
".... there is not a single human being who isn't convinced their convictions, their world view is THE truth,...."
I'll step forward & claim to be this non-existent single being. I'd be happy to briefly discuss this off forum if you would like. My e- mail is legit.
You are one of many who have been touched by Gilda's/Jean's heavy hand. I've attempted to contact her off forum, without success. Too bad.
Best wishes to All
-- Bingo1 (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 21, 1999.
My point, Bingo1, isn't that folks aren't willing to consider alternate views (who of us hasn't done so on at least several occasions in our lives?), but that it is inherently, indeed trivially the case, that we inevitably operate TODAY on the operational basis that our convictions are THE SOLE TRUTH about the way things are. It's intellectually, psychologically and spiritually impossible to do anything else. The only exceptions are people who have multiple personalities (I'm serious).
Consequently, those who argue that "they" are so "open-minded" that they don't believe in A truth are epistemologically self-deceived. Unfortunately, this self-deception has practical consequences: it actually makes them less willing to be the open-minded people they fancy themselves as .....
It is far easier for a dedicated set of Christians, Jews, Moslems and atheists who are self-aware about their convictions to dialogue and, yes, perhaps, change one another's world views OVER TIME than to hold a dialogue (in fact, it's impossible) with someone who claims to hold no truth because they don't understand that, OF COURSE THEY DO.
Those who, for instance, claim that "all paths lead to God", apart from the fact that this is quite ordinary Hindu theology, are aggressively defining the nature of truth with their very statement. They're entitled to do so, just not entitled to claim that a Muslim is "narrow" because s/he is convinced that Allah is supreme, Mohammed is his prophet and all other religions are, at root, wrong or demonic.
I'm sorry to bore you with what is, indeed, trivial, but most in our culture are clueless .......
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 21, 1999.
Let me preface my response to BigDog by stating for the record that I do not wish to hurt anyone's feelings. My intent is never to harm. I know from reading many, many posts from BD that he's intelligent, & his self-esteem is certainly not derived from nor shaken by the comments of others. :-)
BD stated, "...it is inherently, indeed trivially the case, that we inevitably operate TODAY on the operational basis that our convictions are THE SOLE TRUTH about the way things are. It's intellectually, psychologically and spiritually impossible to do anything else. The only exceptions are people who have multiple personalities (I'm serious)."
I see things quite differently, BigDog. I don't operate on the basis that my views are THE SOLE TRUTH about the way things are for anyone or everyone. Period. Why? Because I do not know anyone's inner experience other than my own. Who am I to tell anyone what THEIR TRUTH is or isn't? IMHO if I were to follow this course of action it would reflect the height of pomposity. I am not omniscient. I cannot know YOUR TRUTH. I am overjoyed that you say you have found YOUR TRUTH!
I am serious when I say that I do operate on multiple levels of personality. My guess based upon observation is that many people do likewise. But I don't wish to go into this area at this time.
BD stated, "It is far easier for a dedicated set of Christians, Jews, Moslems and atheists who are self-aware about their convictions to dialogue and, yes, perhaps, change one another's world views OVER TIME than to hold a dialogue (in fact, it's impossible) with someone who claims to hold no truth because they don't understand that, OF COURSE THEY DO."
I never claimed I hold NO TRUTH. I don't, as far as I know, hold THE TRUTH. I live seeking, learning, practicing, knowing MY SOLE/SOUL TRUTH. Dialogue is one thing but to attempt to change another's spiritual views would be to show a distinct lack of respect for that person. I will not disrespect you or anyone else in such a manor. I respect everyone's journey to find THEIR TRUTH.
I leave you with this: If there is one UNIVERSAL TRUTH, I would hazzard a guess that it is LOVE. Regardless, I will continue to open my heart to all.
-- Bingo1 (email@example.com), April 22, 1999.