[interdoc-y2k 293] Disengaging from Peter de Jager

[Bob Olsen <bobolsen@tao.ca>]

          This follows on Peter de Jager's widely
          published Y2K article, "Doomsday Avoided"


Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 20:31:24 -0500
From: Terry Cottam <di238@freenet.carleton.ca>
Subject: Y2K: Deception, disengaging from Peter de Jager

I feel I've made my point with Peter de Jager. So I won't talk with
him again unless I have to. I see his "function" (as Chomsky would
say) as a hired lightning rod to distract us away from more important
matters.

One woman wrote me: "I find myself drawing back from any movement that
is based on power and control, rather than encouragement and
invitation... Stay with your focus of building community resiliency,
Terry. Let those who have ears to hear, hear."

I'm for that! But we must also caution people not to be lulled by
media reports that Doomsday has been called off by Peter and Co (or
whoever). In so doing, he is exploiting the craving of many for an end
to the uncertainty around y2k. If this goes unchallenged, it may cost
us more weeks of public outreach on preparedness (as was so well
illustrated by the comments of that frustrated woman in Nelson BC).

Rather, we need to question authorities everywhere, especially in our
own communities, where cooperation is more attainable. Accordingly, in
Ottawa we are engaging our local and regional levels of government,
churches, agencies and citizens groups. This is starting to bear fruit
(please see our report at
http://www.inode.org/y2k-archive/msg00162.html).

It just so happens we also deal with Peter's employee in Ottawa Bill
Syrros. He asked me: why aren't you giving credit where it's due? We
are pleased to do so, but also don't shy away from criticizing. Bill
is proud of Peter's new webpage, "Promises Kept," which gives free
space to self-reported claims of progress by companies, utilities and
government agencies. Is this what will encourage preparedness? Why not
also have a page of "promises NOT kept"?

Bill also asked me, why do you give space to "hecklers" on your
website? Criticism should always be welcomed. The website in question
is a bit extreme, so I will add a caution. But then so is Peter's own
"Year 2000 Centre" website. Together they represent the extremes of
y2k: Denial and survivalism.

Last Wednesday morning, after Peter had unleashed his fury to me on
the phone, I hoped that he might, at the very least, acknowledge some
problems with his article. Instead, now he has continued his attack in
his rebuttal. It's "my way or the highway."

Now that I've chilled out somewhat, I understand better what this is:
it's bluster. From his lofty bully pulpit Peter is hard to challenge,
but we don't have to tolerate it locally.

That's the main reason I'm writing this: to highlight common tactics
of deception that we can easily spot anywhere if we're watchful.
Whether it's y2k or any other issue, the tactics are similar.
According to the Ottawa-based Alliance for Public Accountability,
there are at least four "D's" of deception: delay, denial,
discrediting, and divide and conquer.

Let's take a look at Peter's rebuttal: 

>Here's my assertion. We've avoided Global bank failures, Global power
>outages and Global communications collapse. These 'Doomsday Scenarios'
>(what was the title of my article?) have been avoided.

Peter denies potential problems before they have even come to pass.
Rather than give us evidence, he states them in absolute terms. This
is the "big lie" technique: repeated often enough, anything can seem
true. As he says...

>That's good news and needs to be stated loudly and strongly. Why?
>Because there are charlatans, religious extremists masquerading as
>technical experts and conspiracy theorists posing as computer
>consultants who are saying everything is going to, with 100%
>certainty, collapse around our heads. They're wrong and they know it.
>Trouble is, the media and the average Joe in the street doesn't.

Here Peter strives to discredit his critics by portraying everyone who
disagrees with him as extremists. He denies any middle ground. Only a
nebulous "they."

Peter has received many well-argued reponses. But as Larry Victor
explains, Peter has trouble seeing beyond present power structures.
See http://azstarnet.com/~nuu/INVITATION/ready_vs_compliant.htm

>Here's the dilemma, do you continue to raise the alarm in a feeble
>attempt to make everyone work on the problem... and play into the
>hands of the charlatans by feeding the growing panic? Or do you
>recognize and accept, albeit reluctantly, that while there is still
>work to be done... we have avoided the doomsday scenarios? That we
>have indeed bypassed the worst of the technical problems and now it is
>time to turn your attention to the hard reality that the charlatans
>are scaring the population more than necessary?

More denial and discrediting. More repetition, sweeping
generalizations. How is it we've bypassed the worst problems? Who are
the charlatans? He doesn't say.

>This is not 'spin' as some have suggested. It is merely a recognition
>that the worst has passed. That TEOTWAKI is unadulterated nonsense
>spread by those either ignorant of the issues and/or those with hidden
>agendas.

More denial, discrediting. More repetition, generalizations.

>In addition to the fact that the worst is behind us, you also have to
>wrestle with the following...
>
>A question for all of you... it's actually more of a challenge...
>since you've taken exception to what I've posted... it's one you'd
>better have an answer for... When you are standing before an idiot
>company headed by incompetent managers who have not yet started their
>Y2K projects... what is it you are going to say to convince them to
>act, that has not already been said?

More denial. "It can't be done." There is no alternative. 

Also an example of delay. We had asked Peter why he relied on
self-reported progress from these companies. Here he deflects our
attention from his failure to respond. I also asked him on the phone.
His answer was that we do not have enough political power to pressure,
for instance, Ontario Hydro (his example) to submit to an independent
audit. Nor do we have the funds or the expertise for such an audit.

This is very curious because Hydro has in fact completed an
independent assessment. Their y2k program director Bill Imms called
me. He said he had no objections to releasing the results were it not
for a clause in the contract which prohibits this. It even prohibits
publicly identifying the consulting firms which conducted the
assessment. How is this permitted from a Crown Corporation which
allegedly serves the Ontario public?

>Some messages tried to make the point "That even if we've jumped the
>hurdle of denial, we must jump all of them to succeed"...  Fair point.
>But I'll say again, the denial hurdle was the tallest, clear this one
>and the rest is a relative non-issue.

How ironic that Peter's article has now given licence for everyone to
slip back into denial, by handing the media two potent words:
"Doomsday avoided."

>Which brings me at last, to the most ludicrous category of messages...
>those that started with 'Why are you telling people to not make
>preparations?...' At this point I'll admit to a practically
>uncontrollable urge to use at least some mild profanity to describe
>these messages. Even worse, these assertions have been sent to various
>mail lists. I said practically uncontrollable... I've learned some
>restraint over the years.

Peter has been misunderstood. He has "earned" the right to be
arrogant, to attack all his critics. Hence we appreciate all the more
Peter's "restraint."

>I have never said preparations are unnecessary...

He says this five times. In each case, he conveys the opposite message
by again dumping on the extremists without offering solutions.

....I have said that anyone who is telling you to remove all (the key
>word here  is 'all') your money from the banks is either ignorant of
>computer systems in general, Y2K in particular or is simply a
>charlatan.

Next he promises to inform us as to what preparations _are_ necessary.
What will he say? Will he downplay any preparedness considered extreme
by his clients? Will he discuss community preparedness? Unlikely
because the title is "Personal Y2K Preparations." Part of "divide and
conquer" is to discourage organizing and alliances, and encourage
people to act quietly, in isolation.

>I have always chosen to work on the biggest problem facing us, which I
>could have a positive impact on. Years ago that was the denial
>surrounding Y2K, today it is the hype. I  have, and always will, speak
>honestly about this subject based upon the facts I have at my
>disposal.

Part of the Big Lie is to both claim the high ground and mix in truth
with the deception. Confusion dulls the senses. How many facts or
references have we seen in this letter? None are needed. Folks,
Peter's word is all we need.

>Similarly, when there is good news to communicate, I'll communicate it
>regardless of the consequences.
>
>Yours truly
>Peter de Jager
>March 17,  1999


So there it is: Deception cannot go unchallenged. Peter, like many of
us, has taken on a very big job in the public interest. As leaders, we
will all have critics, and we must all strive learn from them, not cut
them down.

Best wishes,

Terry


   .............................................
   Bob Olsen, Toronto            bobolsen@tao.ca
   .............................................