You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of
these meetings. Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead
or "facilitate" the meeting. Supposedly the job of the facilitator is to be a
neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly. Actually, he or she
is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the
meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting.
The process used to "facilitate" the meeting is called the Delphi Technique.
This Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of
Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon
during the cold war. However, it was soon recognized that the steps of Delphi could be
very valuable in manipulating ANY meeting toward a pre-determined end.
How does the process take place? The techniques are well developed and well defined.
First, the person who will be leading the meeting, the facilitator or Change Agent must be
a likeable person with whom those participating in the meeting can agree or sympathize
with. It is, therefore, the job of the facilitator to find a way to cause a split in the
audience, to establish one or a few of the people as "bad guys" while the
facilitator is perceived as the "good guy." Facilitators are trained to
recognize potential opponents and how to make such people appear aggressive, foolish,
extremist, etc. Once this is done, the facilitator establishes himself or herself as the
"friend" of the rest of the audience. The stage is now set for the rest of the
agenda to take place.
At this point, the audience is generally broken up into "discussion groups"
of seven or eight people each. Each of these groups is to be led by a subordinate
facilitator. Within each group, discussion takes place of issues, already decided upon by
the leadership of the meeting. Here, too, the facilitator manipulates the discussion in
the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints. Generally,
participants are asked to write down their ideas and disagreements with the papers to be
turned in and "compiled" for general discussion after the general meeting is
THIS is the weak link in the chain which you are not supposed to recognize. WHO
compiles the various notes into the final agenda for discussion? AHHHH! Well, it is those
who are running the meeting. How do you know that the ideas on YOUR notes were included in
the final result. You DON'T! You may realize that your idea was NOT included and come to
the conclusion that you were probably in the minority. Recognize that every OTHER citizen
member of this meeting has written his or her likes or dislikes on a similar sheet of
paper and they, too, have no idea whether THEIR ideas were "compiled" into the
final result! You don't even know if ANYONE'S ideas are part of the final
"conclusions" presented to the re-assembled group as the "consensus"
of public opinion. Rarely, does anyone challenge the process since each concludes that he
or she was in the minority and different from all the others. So, now, those who organized
the meeting in the first place are able to tell the participants AND THE REST OF THE
COMMUNITY that the conclusions, reached at the meeting, are the result of public
participation. Actually, the desired conclusions had been established, in the back room,
long before the meeting ever took place. There are variations in the technique to fit
special situations but, in general, the procedure outlined above takes place.
The natural question to ask here is: If the outcome was preordained BEFORE the meeting
took place, WHY have the meeting? Herein lies the genius of this Delphi Technique. It is
imperative that the general public believe that this program is THEIRS! They thought it
up! They took part in its development! Their input was recognized! If people believe that
the program is theirs, they will support it. If they get the slightest hint that the
program is being imposed upon them, they will resist.
This VERY effective technique is being used, over and over and over, to change our form
of government from the representative republic, intended by the Founding Fathers, into a
"participatory democracy." Now, citizens chosen at large, are manipulated into
accepting preset outcomes while they believe that the input they provided produced the
outcomes which are now THEIRS! The reality is that the final outcome was already
determined long before any public meetings took place, determined by individuals unknown
to the public. Can you say "Conspiracy?"
These "Change Agents" or "Facilitators" CAN be beaten! They may be
beaten using their own methods against them. Because it is SO important, I will repeat the
suggestions I gave in the last previous column.
ONE: Never, NEVER lose your temper! Lose your temper and lose the battle, it is that
simple! Smile, if it kills you to do so. Be courteous at all times. Speak in a normal tone
TWO: Stay focused! Always write your question or statement down in advance to help you
remember the exact manner in which your question or statement was made. These agents are
trained to twist things to make anyone not acceding to THEIR agenda look silly or
aggressive. Smile, wait till the change agent gets done speaking and then bring them back
to your question. If they distort what you said, simply remind those in the group that
what he or she is saying is NOT what you asked or said and then repeat, verbatim, from
your notes the original objection.
THREE: Be persistent! Wait through any harangues and then repeat the original question.
(Go back and re-read the previous column.)
FOUR: (I wish to thank a reader of the previous column for some EXCELLENT suggestions.)
DON'T go alone! Get as many friends or relatives who think as you do, to go along with you
to the meeting. Have each person "armed" with questions or statements which all
generally support your central viewpoint. DON'T sit together as a group! Spread out
through the audience so that your group does not seem to be a group.
When the facilitator or change agent avoids answering YOUR question and insists that he
must move on so everyone may have a chance to speak, your own agents in the audience can
then ask questions, worded differently, but still with the same meaning as yours. They can
bring the discussion back to your original point. They could even point out, in a friendly
manner, that the agent did NOT really answer your question. The more the agent avoids your
question, and the more your friends bring that to the attention of the group, the more the
audience will shift in your favor.
To quote my informant: "Turn the technique back on them and isolate the change
agent as the kook. I've done it and seen steam come out of the ears of those power brokers
in the wings who are trying to shove something down the citizen's throats. And it's so
much fun to watch the moderator squirm and lose his cool, all while trying to keep a smile
on his face."
Now that you understand how meetings are manipulated, let's show them up for the
charlatans which they are.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com :
republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."