July, 1998

 

Dear ICE Subscriber:

For those of you who are the Reconstruction Committee, and have been receiving my monthly tape series on Leadership After 1999, some of this will seem repetitive. I have been filling in the gaps in my tapes. That series is aimed exclusively at the remnant of a remnant. This letter is aimed at a larger group: the remnant.

I have done my best since late 1996 to lay the groundwork for a major paradigm shift. There are several aspects of my plans. The visible one is my web site. That site is aimed at the person who wants evidence for my views of the coming devastation. It now has over 1,800 documents. The larger it gets, the more upset my critics get.

Many years ago, I told Greg Bahnsen what my plans for ICE were. "I shall stuff their mouths with footnotes." That is what http://www.remnant.org and http://www.garynorth.com are all about. (Different addresses for different direct mail recruiting strategies.)

The web site is building my credibility. The ABC Evening News featured me, not because of my legendary good looks, but because a reporter had found my web site. That site is designed for reporters. They have deadlines. They cannot research everything. So, I divided up my site into categories. I have done their homework for them. I have given them links to the primary and secondary sources. My motto: "If I build it, they will come."

My model is the index of the New York Times. That index is what has made the Times the "newspaper of record" for the United States. I began in January, 1997, to build the web's equivalent for y2k.

The larger the site gets, the more formidable it is. The less easily I can be dismissed as a nut case. It was on the basis of my site that I have been invited to lecture to European senior government officials and businessmen as a keynote speaker this fall. I have not decided whether to accept the offer. I don't like travel, especially across several time zones. But the offer did convince me that my strategy for my site is working.

When Art Bell put me on his all-night satellite radio show for four hours, it was because of my site. He has an audience in the millions. He ran the entire show a week later. He has placed a link to my site on his site. He has invited me back to do a monthly update.

The site provides legitimacy. It also provides me with a bully pulpit: the interpretation I put on each document. The reader can ignore my views, but after a steady diet of them, my perspective begins to influence his thinking. The secret of winning any debate is to get your question framed as the question. That's what my site does.

No one has to read my preliminary remarks. He can click right to the document. I don't force anyone to sit through my sermon to get his free bowl of soup. But most people do. Some of them even get a liking for my soup. That, too, has been part of my strategy for the site.

As the bad news spreads, the influence of my site will increase. The bad news is spreading. One Canadian critic sent me a link to a document that supposedly proved that Canada is in great shape. It proved only that the head of Canada's y2k repair was covering his flanks. Within days, that official had prudently resigned his position.

Agents of national governments and large businesses are telling us as little as possible about y2k. They understand the biblical rule: "A prudent man concealeth knowledge" (Prov. 12:23a). That is why, when bureaucrats admit things that indicate that a disaster is coming, we should take them seriously. These people do not want the ship to go down on their watch. They occasionally go public with mild concerns, so as to cover themselves when disaster strikes. "See? I warned everyone." Whispered, maybe — not much more.

What governor has gone public to warn his state's voters that the welfare checks may stop coming in 2000? None. What banker has gone public to admit that his bank is not compliant, that the software vendors that have supplied the banking industry with its software have not delivered 2000-compliant software, and that noncompliant data from other banks will destroy a compliant bank's repair? None. And none will. Bank runs are too fearful; the threat of them drives bankers into a prudent silence.

On the next page, I have provided a sample letter for you to mail to your bank. You could write a variation for every public utility. In fact, you should. I have designed it in such a way that your banker cannot answer evasively. He will almost certainly not answer it. I have put bombs into this letter that will force your banker to admit that the banking system is not going to make it. Yet the questions are not trick questions. They are the questions that the House and Senate Banking committees ought to be asking weekly.

I realize that most people really don't want to know if their bank is compliant, let alone their local power company. It's like knowledge of one's own breast cancer or prostate cancer. There is a psychological desire not to know. To learn the truth is to face a painful series of choices. People often prefer ignorance. Sometimes ignorance is helpful. Example: Do you really want to know the date of your death? Or would you rather be kept in the dark? But if you can avoid a major disaster by accepting the burden of mini-disasters, shouldn't you? Yes. So, here is my sample letter to your bank.

Joe Jones, President

GalaxyBank

GalaxyBank Plaza
123 4th St.
Hometown

 

Dear Mr. Jones:

As a depositor in your bank, I am concerned with the Year 2000 problem. I am concerned about the safety of my money next year and in 2000. I would appreciate it if you

would provide answers to the following questions, all of which are relevant to the future solvency of your bank.

1. How many lines of mainframe computer code does your organization have?

2. Is your code repair team at the code-remediation stage?

3. How many full-time programmers do you employ exclusively for code repair?

4. How many third-party software vendors supply your company with software?

5. How many of them have delivered Year 2000-compliant upgrades?

6. On what date do you plan to begin testing the completed code?

7. Do you plan to do full parallel testing, which requires a second computer and second programming team to monitor the results of the data being run simultaneously through your existing, pre-repaired system?

8. How will your computers be shielded from noncompliant data sent electronically by other banks or government agencies in 2000?

I need to make decisions regarding my continued relationship with your bank. I would appreciate a prompt reply.

Very truly yours,

This letter is an all-purpose letter. If you are still doubtful about my Year 2000 scenario, write up half a dozen of these and send them to any organization you rely on.

You must now assess your future vulnerability. Do not let anyone else do all of your research for you. Accept no one's unsigned opinion as anything more than rumor. What you need is a stack of signed letters on company letterhead stationery — letters that provide explicit answers to all eight questions.

You will not get them. I predict that you will not get even one such letter. Such a signed letter from any organization that is not compliant would be a neon sign saying, "Come sue us!" in 2000.

This letter's eight questions are the heart of the y2k problem. It is a systemic problem. It cannot be fixed. It will not be fixed. Question 8 is the killer:

"How will your bank's computers be shielded from noncompliant data sent electronically by other banks or government agencies in 2000?"

There is no positive answer. If a compliant organization cuts itself off from all those that are not compliant, it pulls out of the system. For banking, that's the end unless almost all banks are compliant, and their y2k repairs are integrated with each other. In short, the programmers must fix everything in order to guarantee anything.

That's what Cornelius Van Til said of all non-theistic thought. The non-theist must know everything exhaustively in order to know anything truly. The millennium bug is about to bury the humanist world order by means of Van Til's insight.

I have used banks as my example. Banks are not your biggest problem. Your biggest problem is your local power company. If it cannot supply power to your local water company, you are facing a disaster, and maybe death. It's that important. I told the ABC news crew, "If the power grid goes down for 60 days, Western civilization will end." They ran that statement.

There are 7,800 power companies in the United States. Not one is 2000-compliant. Prove me wrong. Send the sample letter to your power company. If you get no reply, or if you get evasive mush, put your home on the market. If they tell you they will be ready for testing on January 2, 2000, and you believe them, call them on January 2 and ask if they have begun testing. If they haven't, put your home on the market on January 2.

Don't make your decision based on what I say. Make it on what agents of your life-support systems are willing to sign. Without water, electricity, and money, what kind of lifestyle would you have? If you refuse to find out if you're at risk, the way I say you are, then you are on your own. I have done my best to warn you. If you rely on the unsigned opinion of your brother-in-law's cousin's next-door-neighbor, don't blame me in 2000.

Sincerely,