The survivalistsI have read and heard that during the height of the cold war, some people had bomb shelters. I have never personally seen one and suspect that they were not all that common. But some people still remember how the public was encouraged to practice survivalism against a possible hydrogen bomb attack - and some actually built bunkers (bomb shelters). The Communist attack on our country did not materialize - the hydrogen bombs never fell. Those who have gone along with a compelling impending danger that didn't happen, are less likely to fall for any more scare stories. Some are disillusioned about having followed Howard J. Ruff 's (or Ravi Batra's) "gloom and doom" advice which kept them from making money in the stock market, while everyone else was making money hand over fist and having a high old time. No one wants to be made a fool of, although life is pretty good at doing that. It is sort of like "you can fool me once, but you cannot fool me twice." These people, now jaded by one means or another, tend to feel that anyone who has concerns about Y2K survival preparedness has a "bunker mentality" - this of course is not intended as a compliment. There truly are hard core Y2K survivalists who reportedly are preparing to hole-up in some of these old bunkers, resplendent with survival food, water, supplies and plenty of armaments. Some are merely relocating to remote cabins hidden away from the masses that "just don't get it." Why do they do this? Probably because they fear civil unrest and danger and to protect themselves from "normal people" who are not preparing and from their government who will likely institute martial law. They are acutely aware that executive orders are in place for the government to take full control of everything, for any declared emergency situation, whatsoever. Y2K may nicely fill the bill as a full blown emergency situation. They know that when and if this happens we will all be living in a police state. They are aware that concentration camps really do exist all over our nation that could be used to imprison our citizens, and they don't want to end up in one of the victims - yes, these are truly crazy people - they like their freedom. They are aware that our government even in good times is not our servant, friend or protector, but rather our oppressor. Time will tell if these hard core survivalists truly are radical or just prudent or both. Some, in addition to getting away from it all and existing on stored survival food and water, are moving back to the "small farm" with the intention of growing food, having a cow or a goat and maybe a few other animals to prolong their ability to survive - they are afraid of the really big one TEOTWAKI (The End Of The World As We know It). There are all degrees of this type of survivalist thinking. The purest of these will try to live like the Amish people, with none of the modern conveniences and perhaps tilling their ground with horse drawn implements. Many of these are city people, who have scarcely ever seen a farm and probably think that there can't be all that much to it (and have no idea of how much oats and hay a horse eats per day or how much natural fertilizer they produce in their stalls). If a dumb farmer could do it, they, being much smarter, could only do it better. City folk have always thought they were a lot smarter than their country cousins. A small percentage of these who are going to sttempt the farm thing, may actually make it work. Probably, a larger percentage will be in over their heads and after a few months of farm living might decide that living with "normal people" and the raging, pillaging mobs in the big cities, and the government troops are really so bad after all.. Farming and living off the ground isn't all that easy. Most modern day real farmers, who know what they are doing, have a tough go of it and really are not that much more self-sufficient than city folks. This wasn't always true, but it is now. "Normal people" do not wish to be identified with any "radical" fringe group thinking. "Normal people" tend to think that anyone who is at all survival preparation minded, is radical, whether or not they really are. "Normal people" still trust our government and its competence and its "good" intentions, to an unbelievably high degree. Not only do they trust the government, they also trust completely in the god of technology, American ingenuity, the silver bullet theory, etc. Normal people who are Christians may "just trust in the Lord," which is a good thing to do, but should not be used as an excuse for not preparing. Worst of all, many "normal people" just do not understand that our whole economy is now a computer based and computer controlled economy with a high degree of complexity and interrelatedness. They just don't know what makes things work. A lot of people, even the Y2K problem is carefully explained to them, will either not understand or not believe, or both. Many choose not to believe and are in denial. They don't want to even hear about it - some of them just get kind of angry and defensive. It also does not help that disaster has been confidently forecasted before without occurrence. Some people have responded before to disaster calls and it took them years to live it down. Spouses, and acquaintances have not let them forget their "foolishness". These people are not eager to stick their necks out yet again. Of course, from a logical basis standpoint, the fact that somebody made an incorrect prediction in the past has no bearing on whether or not a current prediction will come to pass. By the way, current Y2K predictions are not based upon gazing into a crystal ball, fingering through Tarot cards, Nostradamus or any other "prophecy." Some think that God may be using this to bring judgement to our errant nation - could be - who knows? He certainly would have a lot of justification and many good reasons to do so (i.e. baby killing, blatant homosexuality, evil governments and leaders, a citizenry that doesn't care, etc. - how many reasons do you want?). But this consideration need not be brought into the equation at all. The Y2K computer problem exists either way. It is something that definitely is coming down - we just don't know how hard, or how bad, or how long. The Y2K issue is based upon hard cold facts. For instance, December 31, 1999 (midnight) is a well established date and hour for the millennial bug to hit and it will come (some things may be happening even earlier). Another well established fact is: the starting issue is that computer programmers, for very good reasons at the time, allocated two fields for dates instead of four. Collective management (corporations and government) has dropped the ball and failed to correct the problem in a timely fashion, even though the problem has been well known for years (at least by some). Other simple facts are that computers don't think, they can only calculate very well and very fast. How many have heard the little phrase, "good data in, good data out" or "bad data in, bad data out." What happens when computers are operating on bad data (i.e. interpreting a date of 00 as meaning 1900 instead of 2000)? For any calculation involving dates, one of two things will happen. Either bad (corrupted) data will be generated or the computers will crash and the systems they control will shut down. At this point, "normal people" will say something like, "well this doesn't concern me, I don't even have a computer." Wrong! It does affect them - it affects everyone. Our whole economy is based upon the use of computers. Nothing is done by people that can be done by computer. The problem could have been fixed (but wasn't) and even though some may make the deadline, it appears that many will not. Then the question remains, how will the interconnectivity (domino effect) behave? No one can prove or disprove that it won't be won't be a disaster. A certain small percentage of the population has become quite (painfully) aware of and knowledgeable about the Y2K Computer problem, and for this "aware group," it seems almost surprising that there are still so many do not know, even at this late date. Having Internet and email capability is a big plus for being aware of the Y2K problem, but even many of these who could know (from the Internet), don't. That seems kind of strange - what it is that they do while they are on the Internet? One quick input of the term "Y2K" in just about any search engine will bring up thousands of hits. In this wonderful age of information and communication, it would seem that there would be at least some curiosity as to what is being said about Y2K. The Internet is the Y2K information source of choice (actually about the only source, unless knowledgeable people tell others) since the official news media is ignoring and suppressing information about the Y2K problem. Only very recently has the media said anything meaningful at all - scant information is beginning to trickle though.. Some think this Y2K news blackout is deliberate - with a planned agenda which is not for our good. The Media has long functioned as the Ministry of Disinformation for the federal government. It is incredible that something as big as Y2K has been addressed so little by our government (and it's controlled media). If the leadership of a nation doesn't care to address a topic, all the cheerleading, all the dire warnings, and all the concerned testimony on earth will not move that nation an inch. It appears that our leaders do not care -- state, Federal, local; church, civil, or business. They do not (or claim to not) believe in Y2K's effects. Perhaps they are afraid of causing a needless panic. Perhaps they are afraid of being wrong or looking like alarmists. Perhaps they are terrified of peer pressure. Then too, leaders are fed a diet of lies by subordinates who don't want to be reprimanded for not meeting deadlines. Perhaps the federal government wants the Y2K situation to escalate to a true emergency so that martial law can be declared and all our remaining freedoms eliminated. "Normal people" will find this just too radical to believe. Some "normal people" have even had difficulty (when they were children), believing that they were born because their parents had sex - why their parents never would have done anything like that! Now they may be thinking, why our government would never do anything like that (i.e. allow Y2K to develop so that martial law could be declared). I hope they are right. Even among those who finally do learn of the Y2K problem, there is a quite a diversity of opinion on the issue. Some will say "let's all work together, deal with the problem and get it fixed." Or, "Communities and Churches must band together and collectively do whatever survival preparation is prudent." Others will feel that what they think and do in the way of survival preparation should be done in secret, for their own safety - "you just shouldn't talk about it" - "someone may later kill you for your food." Those of the "let's do it in secret" mentality cannot be counted upon to convince others to band together and do collective things - it would probably not be successful anyway - furthermore, this would merely tip their hand as to what they are doing and ruin their little secret. This is a little like wartime and blabbing your mouth actually might not be the prudent thing to do. One other aspect of this line of reasoning is not knowing for sure what the government may or may not do, or how they might interpret things. Just as a "for instance," having your food or your financial reserves confiscated for redistribution to the unprepared masses is a viable concern. This pattern of thinking and doing is already well established - they have through oppressive taxation, been practicing redistribution of financial wealth for many years now. The liberal inspired warm fuzzy idea of "banding together" theoretically speaking, is a very good idea, but in actuality is really a Pollyanna approach. It is just not very practical (knowing human nature) and probably will never happen. If some individuals or groups of individuals can pull this off, fine - just as long as this "banding together" mentality does not preclude individual preparation. Our government, the liberal element and a the collective group of scoffers tend to play down the idea of survival preparation, some even ridiculing those who believe they should prepare. The scoffers tend to be characterized by some or all of the following: too busy; supposed intellectual superiority to the point of stupidity; ignorance; pride; passivity; gullibility; laziness; "too poor" financially; undue and unwarranted trust in government, management, media and technology; distancing themselves from survivalists, militia, millennial and crazies mentality. This is a summary list - the actual full list would be much longer. There is a small percentage of the "Y2K informed" that believe there is a good case for personal survival protection. These are people who are not in much of a position to fix the problem, or influence situations (or people) to get things fixed. Furthermore they have little likelihood of organizing, or being a part of "support groups" in their own communities. They would have a better chance living in a "support group" environment, by relocating to a Y2K Survival community, but probably aren't going to have that luxury. Most of these are stuck wherever it is that they live, and about all they can do is accomplish individual survival preparation which will not include relocation. We all hope that everyone who is in any position at all to fix the problem will work their hardest and best to accomplish their task. However, to place all of one's hopes on the performance of "others" to completely fix the problem is unrealistic. Even though some progress is being made, reporting is spotty and vague - possibly distorted information is deliberately being promulgated - possibly just plain old fashioned lies and deceit being crafted by corporate lawyers - and some are just going to report whatever it is that they believe the public wants to hear. After all, we don't want to have public panic and we certainly don't want the stock market to drop, do we? It seems unlikely that everything is going to be fixed. It is still prudent to accomplish personal survival preparation, since there are so many possible consequences of a failure of many corporations, financial institutions and government agencies to properly deal with the "millennium bug" issue. Global economics chaos could also occur without Y2K and will be intensifies even more with Y2K. There may be mass withdrawals from the world's largest banks, a halt to the flights of many major airlines (due to problems with air traffic control systems), telephone lines going down and severe power outages. Depending upon the severity, there could be civil unrest and looting. If things get real bad and stay bad long enough, there could be "the end of the world as we know it" (or TEOTWAKI, as it is known). The threat is being taken seriously by Canada's military establishment, which earlier this month announced the establishment of "Operation Abacus" designed as an emergency response plan in the event that Canada see widespread loss of power, looting or civil unrest. Operation Abacus will reportedly see navy ships posted on both Canadian coasts in December of 1999 to provide emergency power if needed, as well as provide military assistance in the same manner as soldiers did during last winter's ice storm in eastern Canada. The biggest concerns about Year 2000 survival, however, are coming from the U.S. And it is troubling to learn that many of these concerns are being expressed by well educated computer professionals. These are not the classic wild-eyed millennium zealots touting a biblical cataclysm -- or misfits with conspiracy theories. They are often bright and talented programmers that have looked into the face of the Year 2000 problem, declared that much of it cannot be fixed by the immovable Dec. 31, 1999 deadline and are taking action as a result. I applaud those who have studied the Y2K situation and concluded that there is a risk of significant magnitude to lead them to accomplish survival preparation, which would consist at a minimum of stockpiling food, water, and other emergency supplies. Some will go so far as to move out of the cities and go to more rural areas, the reason being to get as far away from those who cannot or will not prepare, and civil unrest, for their own protection. It makes sense for them to keep survival plans to themselves and not advertise them. I can understand the wisdom in their having "personal protection." Horrors, does this mean guns and ammo? Actually, yes, it does mean that. More power to them I say. Human nature can turn pretty ugly in bad times. The present passive denialists could get a whole lot less passive, possibly downright dangerous, if they get hungry and desperate enough. According to Canadian Year 2000 analyst Peter de Jager, who runs what is probably the most well respected independent "millennium bug" Web site at http://www.year2000.com and has advised governments and leading corporations on the issue, survivalists are giving up too easily. "This [fixing the Y2K problem] is not going to be pretty, but the notion that we should all run for the hills is truly silly," he says. "Why? Because it's like finding a hole in the boat, giving up immediately, and jumping overboard, only to either drown anyway in the deep water or looking like a fool standing in a foot of water." For de Jager, it seems a little premature to be running for cover. "Nobody, but nobody, knows how this one will shake out. Let's at least try to fix it, before we give up," he advises. The above paragraph leads me to wonder why there are some who have such a negative view of those who prepare. It really isn't any of their business - but they make it their business. Now, trying to fix the problem is just fine, but why do they go on to say that it is silly to do preparation and even sillier yet if it means relocation? I can see some definite advantages for those who wish to survive, physically separating themselves from those in denial, the scoffers, etc. Those who are now so passive about the whole thing now are not going to be so passive when they have gone for a few days or weeks without food. One fact in this whole matter is that it doesn't matter what you believe, things will be as they will be. If you believe it is going to be very bad and prepare, you haven't lost much if you were wrong. If you believe it is not going to be much of anything at all, don't prepare at all, and you turn out to be wrong, the die is cast, and there is no going back to a safe position - you are in deeper trouble than you ever could have imagined.. Peter de Jager goes on to say, "Don't misunderstand me. I'm not against contingency plans for applications and services. I live in Canada and it gets rudely cold in winter. Having a generator in the garage has always been a good idea. If I go for a long drive with my family in the dead of winter, it is irresponsible for me as a parent not to have some emergency supplies in the trunk. But moving to the South Sea islands to escape the mere possibility of an ice storm and advising everyone to follow me, is irresponsible at a totally different level." Let's look some more at Peter de Jager's comments: "it seems a little premature to be running for cover. "Nobody, but nobody, knows how this one will shake out. Let's at least try to fix it." I agree with the part of "Let's at least try to fix it." I strongly disagree with the part "it seems a little premature. . ." Actually, it is a little bit late to be preparing, but preparing now is better than later. The longer one waits, the more difficult it will be to prepare - shortages will start - prices will go up - and there could be a depression or even a financial meltdown - there will likely be a time of public panic. All of these factors will make preparation increasingly more difficult. By the time we know ". . .how this one will shake out. . ." it will be way too late to properly prepare. As far as his saying ". . .the notion that we should all run for the hills is truly silly. . ." I say, what is truly silly is facing the probability of significant danger from Y2K, and not preparing. It is also "silly" to ridicule others who are preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. They are not hurting anybody. They are actually doing their bit to mitigate the Y2K problem.
Reference: GEOF WHEELWRIGHT's
|
|