The article by Charlie Reese is great! I thought the following articles,
that I picked up here and there, might also be of interest.

Bill

The Delphi Technique

The information below describes how "consensus" is falsely reached
within a group when a person manipulates the group using the DELPHI
TECHNIQUE, a RAND Corp. development. The latter part describes how to
neutralize this manipulation and gives a case study. (I thank a friend,
Jay, for this information.)

Although many are critical of the technique and claim it is not valid, I
can testify that the method is effective in moving a group's opinion to
a desired end. It was used during a local debate where I debated against
a Proposed Home Rule Charter as a new form of county government. The
Home Rule Advocates were coached by the DCA (Department of Community
Affairs) located in our State capitol, Harrisburg.

Many may be critical of the supposed hard science of the technique and
the statistics generated by the questions asked in Delphi surveys. There
is no hard science on this method. That part is true. On the side of
"soft science", and the way meetings are facilitated by this method,
Delphi is a highly effective means of consensus building. This method
could also be applied to Internet discussion groups etc.

Sincerely,

Ken

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Delphi Technique: how to achieve a workable consensus within time
limits

The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the
opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to
face. In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader
finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion
that there is lay, or community, participation in the decision making
process, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out.

A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the
Alinsky Method (ibid., p. 123). The setting or group is, however,
immaterial. The point is that people in groups tend to share a certain
knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristic (known as
group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic
technique. The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of
acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to
elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy
in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms task forces,
urges everyone to make lists and so on. While she is doing this, the
facilitator learns something about each member of the target group.
He/she identifies the leaders, the loud mouths, as well as those who
frequently turn sides during the argument - the weak or non-committal.

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes devils advocate. He/she dons
his professional agitator hat. Using the divide and conquer technique,
he/she manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is
accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear
ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic. He/she wants
certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions
to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological
manipulation. She/he is able to predict the reactions of each group
member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut
out of the group.

The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school
children, and any community group. The targets rarely, if ever, know
that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect this is happening,
they do not know how to end the process.

The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to
become accepted as a member of the group and group process. He/she will
then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during
discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to
adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to
accept the proposition.

The technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a
controversial topic in group settings. It requires well trained
professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members,
pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint
appear ridiculous so the other becomes sensible whether such is
warranted or not.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disrupting the Delphi
By Lynn M Stuter


Note: The Delphi is being used at all levels of government to move
meetings to preset conclusions. For the purposes of this dissertation,
facilitator references anyonFor the purposes of this dissertation,
facilitator references anyone who h

There are three steps to diffusing the Delphi Technique when
facilitators want to steer a group in a specific direction.


1. Always be charming. Smile. Be pleasant. Be Courteous. Moderate your
voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

2. Stay focused. If at all possible, write your question down to help
you stay focused. Facilitators, when asked questions they don't want to
answer, often digress from the issue raised and try to work the
conversation around to where they can make the individual asking the
question look foolish. feel foolish, appear belligerent of aggressive.
The goal is to put the one asking the question on the defensive. Do not
fall for this tact. Always be charming, thus deflecting any insinuation,
innuendo, etc. that may be thrown at you in their attempt to put you on
the defensive, but bring them back to the question you asked. If they
rephrase your question into an accusatory statement (a favorite tactic)
simply state, "That is not what I stated. What I asked was...[repeat
your question.]"

3. Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work,
facilitators often resort to long, drawn out dissertations on some off
the wall and usually unrelated or vaguely related subject that drags on
for several minutes. During that time, the crowd or group usually loses
focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let them finish with
their dissertation or expose. Then nicely with focus and persistence,
state, "But you didn't answer my question. My question is --" and repeat
your question.


Always be charming, stay focused and be persistent.

Never, under any circumstance, become angry. Anger directed at the
facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This
defeats the purpose which is to make you the victim. The goal of the
facilitator is to make those they are facilitating like them, alienating
anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda.
[People with fixed belief systems, who know what they believe and stand
on what they believe are obvious threats.] If the participant becomes
the victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is
why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, why objections
are written on cards, not voiced aloud where they are open to public
discussion and public debate. It's called crowd control.

It is always good to have someone else, or two or three others who know
the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd; who, when the
facilitator digresses from the question, will stand up and say nicely,
"But you didn't answer that dispersed through the crowd; who, when the
facilitator digresses from the question, will stand up and say nicely,
"But you didn't answer that lady's/gentleman's question." The
facilitator, even if suspecting you are together, certainly will not
want to alienate the crowd by making that ac

If you have an organized group, meet before the meeting to strategize.
Everyone should know their part. Meet after the meeting to analyze what
went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next
time around. Never meet during the meeting. One of the favorite tactics
of the facilitator if the meeting is not going the way they want if they
are meeting measurable resistance, is to call a recess. During the
recess, the facilitator and his/her spotters (people who wander the room
during the course of the meeting, watching the crowd) watch the crowd to
see who congregates where, especially those who have offered measurable
resistance.

If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will usually
gravitate to that group to join in the conversation and will report back
to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer
clear of those who are resistors. Do not congregate. Hang loose and work
the crowd. Move to where the facilitators or spotters are. Listen to
what they have to say, but do not gravitate to where another member of
you team is.

This strategy also works in face to face, one on one, meeting with
anyone who has been trained in how to use the Delphi Technique.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From a representative republic to a participatory democracy


With the advent of education reform the ensuing turmoil among the
citizenry, and the grassroots research that has been sparked therefrom,
a consistent pattern with respect to public participation and input has
emerged, giving cause for alarm among people who cherish the form of
government established by our founding fathers. Recent events, both
inside and outside education have brought the emerging picture into
focus.

In the not too distant past the hiring of a consultant by the City of
Spokane to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city
government brought a hue and cry from the populace at large. Eerily,
this scenario held great similarity to what has been happening in
education reform. The final link came in the form of an editorial
comment made by Chris Peck regarding the "Pizza papers". The editorial
talks about how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together
to enter into a discussion of what they felt (as opposed to know) needed


to be changed at the local level. The outcome of the compilation of
those discussions influenced the writing of the city/county charter.

Sounds innocuous enough. But lets examine this a little closer. Let's
walk through the scenario that occurs in these facilitated meetings.
First, about the facilitator. The facilitator is hired to facilitate the
meeting. While his/her job is supposedly non-directive, neutral,
non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there
to move the meeting to a preset conclusion. This is done through a
process known as the Delphi Technique, developed by the RAND Corporation
for the US. Department of Defense as a psyoccurs in these facilitated
meetings. First, about the facilitator. The facilitator is hired to
facilitate the meeting. While his/her job

It is imperative to the success of the agenda that the participants like
the facilitator. Therefore, the facilitator first works the crowd to
cause dis-equilibrium-establishing a bad guy good guy scenario. Anyone
who might not agree with the facilitator must be seen by the
participants as the bad guy, the facilitator the good guy. This is done
by seeking out those who might not agree with the facilitator and making
them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, sending a clear message to the
audience that if they don't want the same treatment to keep quiet. The
facilitator is well trained in how to recognize and exploit many
different psychological truisms to do this. At the point the opposition
has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy
- a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting is established
without the audience ever being aware of it.

Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups - usually of seven
or eight people - each group with a facilitator. Discussion ensues
wherein the participants are encouraged to discuss preset issues, the
group facilitator employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator.
Usually participants are encouraged to put on paper their ideas and
disagreements, these to be later complied by others. Herein lies a very
large problem. Who complies what is written on the sheets of paper, note
cards, etc.? When you ask the participants, you usually get, "Well, they
compiled the results." Who is "they?" "Well, those running the meeting."
Oh-h! The next question - How do you know that what you wrote on your
sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome? The answer you
usually get is, "Well, you know, I've wondered about that, because what
I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected here. I guess my viewpoint was in
the minority."

And there you have the crux of the situation If you have fifty people in
a room, each writes his/her ideas and dislikes on a sheet of paper, to
be complied later into a final outcome, each individual having no idea
of what any other individual wrote. How do you know that the final
outcome reflects anyone's input? The answer is - you don't.

The same scenario holds when there is a facilitator recording your
comments on paper. But the participants usually don't question this,
figuring instead that their viewpoint was in the minority and thus not
reflected.

So why have the meetings at all if the outcome is already established?
Because it is imperative to the continued well being of the agenda that
the people be facilitated into ownership of the preset outcome. If
people believe the idea is theirs, they support it: If the people
believe the idea is being foisted on them, they will resist. Likewise,
it is imperative to the continued well being of the agenda that the
people perceive that their input counts

This scenario is being used very effectively to move meetings to preset
conclusion, effectively changing our form of government from a
representative form of government in which individuals are elected to
represent the people to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens,
selected at large, are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes,

perceiving that their input resulted therein. The reality is the outcome
was already established by others, but this is not apparent to the
citizen participants.


The Hegelian Principle


Kevin J. Brosius
March 4, 1999
Aired March 5, 1999


This is Kevin Brosius with my view on America. Today's installment:
The Hegelian Principle

Today I had planned to go into the first case detailed in Ofra Bikel's
PBS documentary entitled "Snitch". You will want to hear about the cases
detailed in this documentary because even the people most knowledgeable
about government corruption will be surprised at the openness with which


government officials abuse their power. But to better understand the
cases detailed in "Snitch" I must first provide a little background.

As the title indicates, the PBS documentary "Snitch" shines a bright
light on the ever-increasing use of informants by the law enforcement
community. Informants have been used for a long time, but there was a
demarcation point at which the use of snitches exploded and that was
with the passage of mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws by Congress
in the mid-1980's. These laws required judges to sentence drug
defendants to long prison terms. Drug defendants are now whacked with
major league prison sentences for crimes that may have only brought
probation before passage of the mandatory minimums. The sentences are so
harsh that one would do almost anything to get out from underneath
them--and alas my friends, that was part of the plan.

It is no mistake that Congress left only one way to escape the full
force of a mandatory minimum sentence and that was to provide the
government "substantial assistance" in making cases on other
individuals. In other words, the defendants have to turn into snitches
or go away to prison for a very long time--and snitch they do.
Accordingly, we now have armies of slugs amongst us trying to work off
drug charges by turning in, setting up, and even completely lying about
family members, close friends, and acquaintances--literally anyone the
snitch can feed into the system in order to save the snitch's rear end.

Have you heard of the Hegelian Principle? The Hegelian Principle is
engaged when a government or ruling body intentionally creates a
"problem" and then offers a solution for that problem. The "solution"
always, but always, increases the ruling class's power and control over
its people.

U. S. government agencies, most notably the CIA, have been involved in
trafficking drugs into this country for some time now--this cannot be
denied. The question is, why? They were creating the problem. Their
"solution" was to create a drug war where they, in addition to a laundry
list of other crimes against the people, sent hither multitudes of
low-life snitches to harass our People, and eat out their substance.
Sounds an awful lot like one of the reasons our forefathers signed that
Declaration of Independence.

End



----------
HOW TO CONTROL PEOPLE
by Charley Reese
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb1075995

The difference between true education and vocational training has been
cleverly blurred. Here are a few tips on how smart people can control
other people. If any of this rings a bell - Well, then wake up!

The first principle of people control is not to let them know you are
controlling them. If people knew, this knowledge will breed resentment
and possibly rebellion, which would then require brute force and terror,
and old fashioned, expensive and not 100 % certain method of control.

It is easier than you think to control people indirectly, to manipulate
them into thinking what you want them to think and doing what you want
them to do.

One basic technique is to keep them ignorant. Educated people are not as
easy to manipulate. Abolishing public education or restricting access to
education would be the direct approach. That would spill the beans. The
indirect approach is to control the education they receive.

It's possible to be a Ph.D., doctor, lawyer, businessman, journalist, or
an accountant, just to name a few examples, and at the same time be an
uneducated person. The difference between true education and vocational
training has been cleverly blurred in our time so that we have people
successfully practicing their vocations while at the same time being
totally ignorant of the larger issues of the world in which they live.

The most obvious symptom is their absence of original thought. Ask them
a question and they will end up reciting what someone else thinks or
thought the answer was. What do they think Well, they never thought about
it. Their education consisted of learning how to use the library and cite
sources.

That greatly simplifies things for the controller because with lots of
money, university endowments, foundations, grants, and ownership of
media, it is relatively easy to control who they will think of as
authorities to cite in lieu of doing their own thinking.

Another technique is to keep them entertained. Roman emperors did not
stage circuses and gladiator contests because they didn't have
television. We have television because we don't have circuses and
gladiator events. Either way, the purpose is to keep the people's minds
focused on entertainment, sports, and peripheral political issues. This
way you won't have to worry that they will ever figure out the real
issues that allow you to control them.

Just as a truly educated person is difficult to control, so too is an
economically independent person. Therefore, you want to create conditions
that will produce people who work for wages, since wage earners have
little control over their economic destiny. You'll also want to control
the monetary, credit, and banking systems. This will allow you to inflate
the currency and make it next to impossible for wage earners to
accumulate capital. You can also cause periodic deflation to collapse the
family businesses, family farms, and entrepreneurs, including independent
community banks.

To keep trade unions under control, you just promote a scheme that
allows you to shift production jobs out of the country and bring back the
products as imports (it is called free trade). This way you will end up
with no unions or docile unions.

Another technique is to buy both political parties so that after a while
people will feel that no matter whether they vote for Candidate A or
Candidate B, they will get the same policies. This will create great
apathy and a belief that the political process is useless for effecting
real change.

Pretty soon you will have a population that feels completely helpless,
and thinks the bad things happening to them are nobody in particular's
fault, just a result of global forces or evolution or some other
disembodied abstract concept. If necessary, you can offer scapegoats.

Then you can bleed them dry without having to worry overly much that one
of them will sneak into your house one night and cut your throat. If you
do it right, they won't even know whose throat they are cutting.

Charley Reese
E-mail: OSOreese@aol.com

============================================================
The 545 People Responsible For All of America's Woes
by Charley Reese
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/woes.htm
===============================================================

APFN Petition Page
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/petition.htm

American Patriot Friends Network (APFN)
http://www.apfn.org
APFN EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE IN SUBJECT LINE TO: apfn@apfn.org
 
APFN CONTENTS: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/apfncont.htm
APFN MSG BOARD: http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I
can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will
not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do,
I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God,
I will do." - Edward Everett Hale

Bill Mauldin