Posted on 03/06/2009 6:55:10 AM PST by Jenny Hatch
I just wanted to make everyone aware of the Delphi Technique. It is a Consensus and Facilitation technique that keeps those who are unaware of how it works from being effective political activists. For those who are just beginning as politically active conservatives, mastering the countering techniques will help us be much more effective as we move against the Marxists who have overtaken our government.
(Excerpt) Read more at tcotprojects.ning.com ...
Jen
site requires a login, how about posting the info here?
You need a password to get in.
Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus
How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation
In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous. In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is "community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out." The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy. The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form "task forces," urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the "leaders," the "loud mouths," the "weak or non-committal members," and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument. Suddenly, the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and "devil's advocates." Using the "divide and conquer" principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out. The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The "targets" rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.
Consistent use of this technique to control public participation in our political system is causing alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our Founding Fathers. Efforts in education and other areas have brought the emerging picture into focus. In the not-too-distant past, the city of Spokane, in Washington state, hired a consultant to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city government. This development brought a hue and cry from the local population. The ensuing course of action holds an eerie similarity to what is happening in education reform. A newspaper editorial described how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to "discuss" what they felt needed to be changed at the local government level. A compilation of the outcomes of those "discussions" influenced the writing of the city/county charter. That sounds innocuous. But what actually happened in Spokane is happening in communities and school districts all across the country. Let's review the process that occurs in these meetings. First, a facilitator is hired. While his job is supposedly neutral and non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to direct the meeting to a preset conclusion. The facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a good-guy-bad-guy scenario. Anyone disagreeing with the facilitator must be made to appear as the bad guy, with the facilitator appearing as the good guy. To accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out those who disagree and makes them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which sends a clear message to the rest of the audience that, if they don't want the same treatment, they must keep quiet. When the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting are established without the audience ever realizing what has happened. Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups of seven or eight people. Each group has its own facilitator. The group facilitators steer participants to discuss preset issues, employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator.
That is the crux of the situation. If 50 people write down their ideas individually, to be compiled later into a final outcome, no one knows what anyone else has written. That the final outcome of such a meeting reflects anyone's input at all is highly questionable, and the same holds true when the facilitator records the group's comments on paper. But participants in these types of meetings usually don't question the process. Why hold such meetings at all if the outcomes are already established? The answer is because it is imperative for the acceptance of the School-to-Work agenda, or the environmental agenda, or whatever the agenda, that ordinary people assume ownership of the preset outcomes. If people believe an idea is theirs, they'll support it. If they believe an idea is being forced on them, they'll resist. The Delphi Technique is being used very effectively to change our government from a representative form in which elected individuals represent the people, to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens selected at large are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes. These citizens believe that their input is important to the result, whereas the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the participants.
Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting in a specific direction.
Never become angry under any circumstances. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose. The goal of facilitators is to make the majority of the group members like them, and to alienate anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. People with firm, fixed beliefs, who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, are obvious threats. If a participant becomes a victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, and why objections are written on paper rather than voiced aloud where they can be open to public discussion and debate. It's called crowd control. At a meeting, have two or three people who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd so that, when the facilitator digresses from a question, they can stand up and politely say: "But you didn't answer that lady/gentleman's question." Even if the facilitator suspects certain group members are working together, he will not want to alienate the crowd by making accusations. Occasionally, it takes only one incident of this type for the crowd to figure out what's going on. Establish a plan of action before a meeting. Everyone on your team should know his part. Later, analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time. Never strategize during a meeting. A popular tactic of facilitators, if a session is meeting with resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his spotters (people who observe the crowd during the course of a meeting) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered resistance. If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will gravitate to that group and join in the conversation, reporting what was said to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of the resistors. Do not congregate. Instead gravitate to where the facilitators or spotters are. Stay away from your team members. This strategy also works in a face-to-face, one-on-one meeting with anyone trained to use the Delphi Technique. |
We have lots of facilitators here on FR especially for Global Warming.
‘the Delphi Technique’....also known as Obama White House ‘summits’..’working groups’...etc.
Known as a board meeting in a Dilbert cartoon.
Here are a couple of links:
A Post at Free Republic that shares how the Delphi Technique is being used all over the Obama Administration Web Sites.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2200435/posts?page=7
About Consensus and Facilitation: http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/~consensus.htm
Restructuring of America: http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/~transformation.htm
Please take a few hours to read through this whole web site to educate yourself. It is the best resource on the web to help educate the next generation of political activists who want to restore freedom. Many of those in power in our government from the lowliest little PTA to all three branches of the federal government have been trained in these "crowd control" measures and we will be more effective if we understand how they work AND how to counter them.
The Delphi Technique — What Is It?
The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In recent times, however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose. In Educating for the New World Order by B. 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 lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out." The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take over of the schools.
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 characteristics (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 s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".
Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he 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." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/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. Or, if they suspect this is happening, 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. S/He 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.
This 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.
The Delphi Technique is based on the Hegelian Principle of achieving Oneness of Mind through a three step process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In thesis and antithesis, all present their opinion or views on a given subject, establishing views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their own views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, Oneness of Mind will supposedly occur.
The theory of the Delphi and the reality of the Delphi are, obviously, quite different — the reality being that Oneness of Mind does not occur but only the illusion of Oneness of Mind with those who refuse to be Delphi'd being alienated from participating in the process.
While proponents of education reform feel they are quite justified in this, the effect of this unethical manipulation of people is to create polarized camps. In an effort to maintain the process, advocates have marketed a plethora of publications (such as What's Left After the Right, No Right Turn and If You Don't, They Will) intended to label, castigate, and alienate anyone who does not go along with them. As a result, parents come to understand that their role in education reform is merely perfunctory; that the outcome is preset, that they are not but the rah-rah team so when opposition does arise, advocates of education reform can say, "we had community input."
To make sure that the situation is controlled, only those parents who agree with the process are allowed on the restructuring teams. New participants are carefully screened to ensure that education reform goes forward unquestioned.
If measurable opposition persists, advocates are told, get the local ministers on board. Take steps to neutralize, by whatever means necessary, the opposition. In some places, opponents have been harassed, both at home and on the job, personal property has been damaged and vandalized, people have lost their jobs. Anyone who does not go along with the restructuring of our society is susceptible to the totalitarian tactics of those promoting education reform – whether it be parents, teachers, principals, superintendents or board members. The need exists for advocates to maintain an iron grip on the process. They cannot, for instance, withstand open public debate of the issues. Therefore, they do not partake in public forums. They cannot withstand the criticism, so they close every avenue for parents to address the issues. They are rapidly creating, through their divisive tactics, a volatile situation. America is being torn apart.
Parents, citizens, teachers, principals, superintendents who are opposed to the new purpose being given our American education system need tools to withstand the process being used to bring it in — against the Delphi Technique and consensus which, through their basis in the Hegelian Principle, have Marxist connections and purposes.
First, no opportunity must be left untaken to expose this unethical, divisive process. Second, when this process is used, it can be disrupted. To do so, however, one must be able to recognize when the Delphi Technique is being used, and how to disrupt it.
The Delphi Technique — How to Disrupt It
Ground rules for disrupting the consensus process (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 or aggressive. The goal is to put the one asking the question on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. 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)." Stay focused on 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 which time the crowd or group usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let them finish with their dissertation/expose, then nicely, with focus and persistence, state, "but you didn't answer my question. My question was… (repeat your question)."
Remember…
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 lady's/gentleman's question." The facilitator, even if suspecting you are together, certainly will not want to alienate the crowd by making that accusation. Sometimes it only takes one occurrence of this type for the crowd to figure out what's going on, sometimes it takes more than one.
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 he/she wants, if he/she is 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 facilitator or "spotters" are, listen to what they have to say, but do not gravitate to where another member of your team is.
This strategy also works in a face to face, one on one, meeting with anyone who has been trained in how to use the Delphi Technique.
What American Citizens Need to Know About Consensus and Facilitation
Your local newspaper publishes a notice that a meeting will be held one night next week to solicit input from the community regarding a proposed plan for community development. Being a civic minded individual, believing that community involvement is very important to the health of the community, you mark the date on your calendar and make a mental note to hold that night free of other commitments that you might attend this meeting to give your input.
The next day you call the number noted in the announcement and ask to obtain a copy of the proposed plan for community development, that you might read it before the scheduled meeting date. You are told that the proposed plan is still at the printers but will be available at the door. On the prescribed night you arrive at the meeting, a little early as is your custom. You are greeted at the door by an individual who hands you an agenda and the proposed new plan for community development heretofore unavailable. You find the agenda rather odd; you were under the impression that this was a public meeting. What you envision is what has always been — a panel of individuals at the front of the room, with one or two microphones positioned in the aisles where individuals from the audience may voice their comments or opinions.
As you enter the room, you are further amazed by the setup. There are no tables and chairs for the panel at the front of the room, there is but one microphone positioned beside a podium at the front of the room, lecture style. Further, the room is filled with tables — round tables, with six to eight chairs around each table. For an open public forum meeting, you find this rather odd and ask the greeter if this is really where you are supposed to be. Yes, you are assured, this is where the meeting is being held. Somewhat confused, you take a chair. Others file in, some you know, some you don't. You note that others, like you, find this new layout for a public forum meeting "different". Soon a speaker calls the meeting to order.
After a short introductory speech the presenter asks for your cooperation in utilizing a new concept in decision making. Following a presentation regarding the new purposed plan, each table will participate in a discussion with the help of a facilitator. Each table will put on paper their thoughts and feelings about this new community plan — their likes and dislikes. A roundhouse discussion will ensue at each table from which will emerge a consensus of the group — a narrowing of the listed likes and dislikes to two or three that the group deems most important. These, you are told will be later synthesized. What is going on? You look around and note a look of bewilderment on several other faces. No explanation is offered; and you, feeling at quite a disadvantage but not wanting to look like a total ignoramus or fool, are hesitant to ask. You say nothing and go along. But the feeling of discomfort remains and continues to grow. What is going on?
A phrase heard a lot these days is paradigm shift. What is described above is part of that paradigm shift. Parents, community members, citizens, taxpayers have no idea what they are walking into when they suddenly, and without warning, find themselves participating in a whole new concept of a "public forum meeting". While the semantics may vary to some degree from meeting to meeting, the underlying framework of the process to which the people will be exposed does not.
Under the new paradigm, decision making is to be "decentralized" moving away from decisions being made solely by elected and/or public officials accountable to elected officials, moving to decision-making including the people. The "public forum" meeting and community participation process is the venue for that decentralized decision-making process.
The decentralized decision-making process is being sold to the people as a "move to empower the people," a way for people to have greater voice in their governance and in decisions made that will affect them. This is the rhetoric, this is not the reality. What people don't know, at the outset, is that the goal or outcome of the process is predetermined. This is made very clear in book after book on the facilitative process.
The decentralized decision-making process has three steps. The first step, unbeknownst to the people, is to assess the people as to "where they are now." This is accomplished by feeding people information relative to the issue at hand — be it education reform, land use planning, etc, then soliciting the feedback of the people relative to the information presented. The feedback solicited is put in writing, to be later analyzed, assessing the people, as a collective, as to "where they are now."
The second step is the process of moving the people from "where they are now" to "where we want them to be" — to acceptance of, ownership of, what is being advocated by the meeting planners relative to the issue at hand.
Step two has two phases. The first phase is to establish the framework for moving people "from where they are now" to "where we want them to be." To accomplish this, people must become "adaptable to change." People whose belief system is strongly grounded in absolutes, in Judeo-Christian principles, are not easily manipulated, are not easily "adaptable to change." That belief system must be changed in a greater number of people if the goal or goals are to be realized, if sufficient buy-in is to be realized to give the agenda the foreword momentum needed to achieve the goal. The facilitation process, utilizing up to nine basic steps, is intended to move people from a belief in absolutes — that right is right, wrong is wrong, to believing that right and wrong are situational, a matter of perception, from beliefs holding basis in Christian principle to beliefs holding basis in humanism (although this is never divulged). For those who refuse to become adaptable, concession "not to sabotage" or "openly oppose" augments the forward momentum of the agenda. In some school districts teachers are being required to sign a charter agreeing not to oppose education reform.
The second phase is to facilitate people into ownership of the preset outcome. The process of facilitation is intended to produce consensus which means "solidarity of belief". In other words, through a facilitated process, oneness of mind theoretically occurs. Consensus holds basis in the Hegelian Dialectic of thesis — a belief or supposition; antithesis — the opposite belief or supposition; and synthesis — the synthesizing (bringing together) of thesis and antithesis to form a new thesis. The process then begins again and through continual evolution, oneness of mind theoretically occurs. Consensus, however, left to its own devices, cannot be controlled. As such, a manipulative form of consensus, utilizing facilitators highly trained in group dynamics, is used to ensure the outcome. While the facilitators are billed as neutral to the facilitated process of consensus, they are anything but neutral; they are key to the group reaching the preset outcome. And, if facilitated properly, the people emerge believing the decision made — the outcome — was their idea; unaware that they were facilitated in a certain direction. This, then, sets the stage for the third step. (Click here to learn more about what is commonly referred to as the Delphi Technique, and Click here to learn how to disrupt it.)
The third step is accountability. First, the outcome of the facilitation process is decided; second, the people are facilitated into acceptance of, and ownership of, the preset outcome; third, authorship of the preset outcome is given to the people. The people, then, as a collective, become accountable for the decision made. This is why, when people have objected to being governed by consensus decisions, they have heard, "but we had the input of the people." What this does, very effectively, is two-fold — it gives the bureaucracy license to do whatever it wants under the guise of "doing what the people authorized us, via their decision, to do;" and second, it makes the people, not the bureaucracy, accountable for decisions made. The people become at once the scapegoat and the victim.
Most people have no idea, when they become involved in consensus circles, what their purpose is in the larger picture, that they are being assessed, that their belief system is being targeted, that they are being used.
What is established, via the consensus process, is covert authority — the same authority that under girds socialist/communist regimes that justify their existence and governance structure in the collective authority of the people. In the Soviet Union, a consensus circle is known as a soviet.
The religion of socialist/communist regimes is humanism. Humanism is a man-centered religion, believing that man is devoid of spirituality or self-determinism, that man must, therefore, be conditioned to his environment — whatever that environment is decided to be. B F Skinner gave this "conditioning" a name — operant conditioning — a practice used pervasively in classrooms across America, especially under outcome-based education. Humanism is a pagan, occult, satanic religion. This is why socialism and communism are oppressive governments; why they lead people into darkness, into hopelessness, into bondage. Humanism is what is undergirding the paradigm shift in America, not only in education but in all facets of the restructuring of the American society.
America was established on Judeo-Christian principles. This was not by accident, this was by design. Our Founding Fathers knew that there was only one religion under which any nation had ever prospered; under which man would ever know freedom. That religion was Christianity. The American government was established on the principles of Biblical law — a government of laws, not a democracy (a government of men, humanism) which by its very nature is arbitrary and capricious.
The contrast between Christianity and humanism is the difference between individuality and collectivism, freedom and bondage, prosperity and adversity, light and darkness.
What can people do? First people must educate themselves. When participating in public meetings, insist the meeting be conducted under Roberts Rules of Order — no consensus circles. It is the elected officials and those accountable to the elected officials who should be held accountable for decisions made. Pressure legislators to dispense with appointed commissions, councils, and agencies that are not accountable to the people and that are, via legislation, not accountable to the Legislature. Pressure legislators to return to the limited form of government established by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Such a government limits itself to addressing those structures over which it is given specific authority. Push for judicial reform that removes from the judiciary the right to legislate via interpretations of law that hold no basis in the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson stated, in 1823, On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
To be able to do that, however, one must have a strong foundation in Western culture and history — something very few Americans have today.
If we are to save our nation, we must become involved in the governance of our nation — whether local, state, or national. We can no longer sit back and abrogate our duties as American citizens. We must become informed and involved. The price of freedom is vigilance. Vigilance has been want for too long.
Jenny Hatch
PS Please pass along this information to ANYONE who is protesting. Also be prepared that this site and twitter are going to be blasted with marxist trolls who will do anything to disrupt the tea parties and derail those who are planning them, including using the Dephi Technique at every juncture to make us feel like we are accomplishing something when in fact, we are just spinning our wheels, doing nothing effective.
Excellent summary. Thanks!
People are divided up into groups and assigned a "task" (Oboma did this, and the Washington idiots actually did what he told them to do!), but the "task" is irrelevant. The "task" is designed to find out who the leaders are and who the followers are within the groups. The "speaker" manipulates the group by pitting the pros against the cons, and supports the side they want to win. It becomes so intense, the "followers" change sides, and the "leaders" apposed to an issue are attacked until they back down or freak out. Their anger is then used against them.
In the end, most people believe they actually had an input in the outcome of the meeting.
The public schools use this on parents all the time.
Why can’t we use this technique ourselves? Why are we always on the defensive?
If you want examples of bad, deceitful debate technique on FR consider the following snippets that I often see used to shut down and diminish contrary opinion:
"Birthers"
"Yawn"
"Free Traitors"
Because this Delphi Method, i.e., Alinski Method, i.e., Group Dynamics is unethical. It hurts a lot of innocent people when used for evil purposes. It manipulates the groups free will. People are deceived, and later suffer the consequences of what they've unwilling done. They become victims - for real.
It's cruel, and just plain evil. That's why the "All praise goes to Lucifer" Alinski followers use it.
It really isn’t as sinister as the articles make it sound, it is a common negotiation technique, after all, you don’t go in to tie, you go in to win. It is how it is used that can be troubling, just like NLP, simple cognitive techniques, but in the wrong hands can cause problems.
Excellent post.
“Because this Delphi Method, i.e., Alinski Method, i.e., Group Dynamics is unethical” “It hurts a lot of innocent people when used for evil purposes.:”
Of course - But last time I checked, I wasn’t evil and what Conservatives want to preserve is our Constitution and government as it was intended and that’s not evil.
If we know that it’s being used for gaining people to their side - a side that we all know is bad because it’s going to be used against the framework of the country - why not turn the tables for the good?
Know the enemy!
The Delphi Technique was exactly what the Episcopal Church used to force the gay agenda. Surveys with predetermined outcomes followed by intensive "small groupings" were the favored tactics, patiently pursued for years.
One quibble I have with the suggested response: I think a tactic of "nip it in the bud" is best. Once the Delphi Technique is spotted, it must be exposed. If there is an attempt to hire a "facilitator" or commission a "feasibility study" (two buzz terms that immediately raise a rotten stink), attack on the grounds that this is wasteful spending, and ruthlessly expose the agenda.
Research who wants to hire the facilitator/consultant. Remind everyone what agendas those pushing the study/survey/facilitator have had in the past. Research the firm/individual involved. Are there ties to ACORN? Gay activist groups? Environmentalist wackos? Contact talk radio. Pack the meetings of those who will do the funding. Kill the beast in its crib.
Once you sit down in a "small group" with these folks, you have lost. Deny their legitimacy. Walking away is better than participating in a farce.
Like I recently told an old friend who asked me why I listen to NPR and Democracy Now - I listen to them for the same reason I learned Russian and listened to those bastards on the radio when I was in the Army. So I'll know what the sneaky little Communist f***ers are up to!!! You have to learn their language first.
Thanks for the post. Good info.
There's also key words:
Examples - advancement, amazing, announcing, appealing, at last, authentic, breakthrough, challenge, change, deserve, exciting, extraordinary, fresh, indispensable.....etc. you get the drift. He's finalizing the "sale."
Covert Hypnoses is temporary at first. If reinforced enough, it becomes a habit, and the message remains until it's deprogrammed. HE MUST stay in your face for this to work. This is how he built his "army."
The Chicago inner city schools use this technique on their wayward students. Oboma was big in these schools, so he's learned it well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.