PDA

View Full Version : Ultimate Meeting/Convention Knowledge/Tactics




clintontj72
04-08-2008, 04:46 PM
Just as important as using these tactics in an ethical manner is KNOWING when they are being used against us!!!! The following is kinda scary, but very interesting. I personally have seen this used once and it works good. I did not understand what I was seeing at the time, but after having read this...every part in my experience was exactly as described!!!


This was posted by JohnGalt300 on DP.


HOW COLLECTIVISTS USE THE DIAMOND TACTIC TO
SWAY PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HOW TO THWART THEM

by G. Edward Griffin

In the 1960s, I came across a small training manual distributed by the Communist Party that
showed how a small group of people – as few as four – could dominate a much larger group
and sway the outcome of any action taken by that group. It was called the Diamond
Technique. The principle is based on the fact that people in groups tend to be effected by
mass psychology. They derive comfort and security from being aligned with the majority,
especially if controversy or conflict is involved. Even if they do not like what the majority is
doing, if they believe they are in the minority, they tend to remain silent and resigned to the
fact that the majority should rule. This being the case, the Diamond Techniques is designed
to convince the group that as few as four people represent the majority. Here is the strategy:

1. Plan ahead of time what action you want the group to take: nominate or oppose a
candidate, support or oppose an issue, heckle a speaker, or whatever. Everyone on
your team must know exactly what they are going to do, including contingency plans.

2. Team members should arrive at the meeting separately and never congregate together.

3. Team players should arrive early enough to take seats around the outside of the
assembly area, roughly in the shape of a diamond. They must not sit together.

4. The object of the tactic is place your people around the perimeter of the audience so
that, when they begin to take action, those in the center will have to do a lot of head
turning to see them – to the right, then the left, then the rear of the room, then the
front, etc. The more they turn their heads, the greater the illusion of being surrounded
by people in agreement with each other, and the more they will be convinced that
these people represent the majority opinion.
I have seen this tactic used by collectivists at numerous public meetings over the years, and I
have participated in it myself on several occasions when confronting collectivists in their
own tightly held organizations. It works.
The only way to thwart the Diamond Tactic is to always be prepared to match it with your
own team. Never take a meeting for granted, especially if something important is scheduled
to transpire, such as nomination of officers. Even a simple gathering to hear an important
speaker can turn into a nightmare if opponents send in hecklers. So, always plan for the
worst and be prepared to spring into action with comments from the floor such as: “I want to
make it clear that these people do not speak for me. I am in total opposition to what they
stand for. In fact, I would like to ask them to identify themselves. Who are you? Why did
you come to this meeting? What is your agenda?” If comments such as this are heard from
three or four people around the outside of the room, the meeting will be very exciting, but
the tactic will be defused.


Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus
How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation

The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.
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.


How the Delphi Technique Works

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.

Participants are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the results to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask participants, you typically hear: "Those running the meeting compiled the results." Oh-h! The next question is: "How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome?" The typical answer is: "Well, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected. I guess my views were in the minority."

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.


How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique


Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting in a specific direction.

Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or questions. When facilitators are asked questions they don't want to answer, they often digress from the issue that was raised and try instead to put the questioner on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Courteously bring the facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so that it becomes an accusatory statement (a popular tactic), simply say, "That is not what I asked. What I asked was . . ." and repeat your question.

Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long monologues that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually forgets the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish. Then with polite persistence state: "But you didn't answer my question. My question was . . ." and repeat your question.
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.



LET'S STOP BEING MANIPULATED!
THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE


By: Albert V. Burns


More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to "participate" in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to "help determine" public policy in one field or another. They are supposedly being included to get "input" from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be. Sounds great, doesn't it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.

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 re-convened.

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 of voice.

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.

The Lantern
04-08-2008, 05:02 PM
Just as important as using these tactics in an ethical manner is KNOWING when they are being used against us!!!! The following is kinda scary, but very interesting. I personally have seen this used once and it works good. I did not understand what I was seeing at the time, but after having read this...every part in my experience was exactly as described!!!


This was posted by JohnGalt300 on DP.


HOW COLLECTIVISTS USE THE DIAMOND TACTIC TO
SWAY PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HOW TO THWART THEM

by G. Edward Griffin

In the 1960s, I came across a small training manual distributed by the Communist Party that
showed how a small group of people – as few as four – could dominate a much larger group
and sway the outcome of any action taken by that group. It was called the Diamond
Technique. The principle is based on the fact that people in groups tend to be effected by
mass psychology. They derive comfort and security from being aligned with the majority,
especially if controversy or conflict is involved. Even if they do not like what the majority is
doing, if they believe they are in the minority, they tend to remain silent and resigned to the
fact that the majority should rule. This being the case, the Diamond Techniques is designed
to convince the group that as few as four people represent the majority. Here is the strategy:

1. Plan ahead of time what action you want the group to take: nominate or oppose a
candidate, support or oppose an issue, heckle a speaker, or whatever. Everyone on
your team must know exactly what they are going to do, including contingency plans.

2. Team members should arrive at the meeting separately and never congregate together.

3. Team players should arrive early enough to take seats around the outside of the
assembly area, roughly in the shape of a diamond. They must not sit together.

4. The object of the tactic is place your people around the perimeter of the audience so
that, when they begin to take action, those in the center will have to do a lot of head
turning to see them – to the right, then the left, then the rear of the room, then the
front, etc. The more they turn their heads, the greater the illusion of being surrounded
by people in agreement with each other, and the more they will be convinced that
these people represent the majority opinion.
I have seen this tactic used by collectivists at numerous public meetings over the years, and I
have participated in it myself on several occasions when confronting collectivists in their
own tightly held organizations. It works.
The only way to thwart the Diamond Tactic is to always be prepared to match it with your
own team. Never take a meeting for granted, especially if something important is scheduled
to transpire, such as nomination of officers. Even a simple gathering to hear an important
speaker can turn into a nightmare if opponents send in hecklers. So, always plan for the
worst and be prepared to spring into action with comments from the floor such as: “I want to
make it clear that these people do not speak for me. I am in total opposition to what they
stand for. In fact, I would like to ask them to identify themselves. Who are you? Why did
you come to this meeting? What is your agenda?” If comments such as this are heard from
three or four people around the outside of the room, the meeting will be very exciting, but
the tactic will be defused.


Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus
How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation

The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.
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.


How the Delphi Technique Works

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.

Participants are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the results to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask participants, you typically hear: "Those running the meeting compiled the results." Oh-h! The next question is: "How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome?" The typical answer is: "Well, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected. I guess my views were in the minority."

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.


How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique


Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting in a specific direction.

Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or questions. When facilitators are asked questions they don't want to answer, they often digress from the issue that was raised and try instead to put the questioner on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Courteously bring the facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so that it becomes an accusatory statement (a popular tactic), simply say, "That is not what I asked. What I asked was . . ." and repeat your question.

Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long monologues that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually forgets the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish. Then with polite persistence state: "But you didn't answer my question. My question was . . ." and repeat your question.
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.



LET'S STOP BEING MANIPULATED!
THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE


By: Albert V. Burns


More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to "participate" in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to "help determine" public policy in one field or another. They are supposedly being included to get "input" from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be. Sounds great, doesn't it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.

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 re-convened.

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 of voice.

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.

WOW!

orlandoinfl
04-08-2008, 05:43 PM
ninja tactics, i like it.

clintontj72
04-08-2008, 06:23 PM
ninja tactics, i like it.

LOL...Ninja indeed :P

clintontj72
04-09-2008, 03:26 PM
Bump

TruthAtLast
04-09-2008, 03:34 PM
Great stuff. It should be REQUIRED reading for EVERY meetup group and every Patriot.

humanic
04-09-2008, 03:36 PM
Excellent.

orlandoinfl
04-09-2008, 05:14 PM
would be interesting to see if two opposing groups tried the same tactics at a meeting.

nate895
04-09-2008, 05:28 PM
That was scary. I think my teachers have used the technique Delphi in the past. Luckily I am not quick to anger.

Sandra
04-09-2008, 06:42 PM
They tried the Delphi technique for the town hall meetings concerning the TTC and Baton Rouge Loop. It didn't work very well because people were passionate about losing their homes rather than looking silly in front of others. In the end the facilitators just kept very quiet. They may have figured this was too big for that to work anyway.

satchelmcqueen
04-09-2008, 07:42 PM
now that i read that, i can say ive seen this happen before.

Ready2Revolt
05-01-2008, 02:19 PM
now that i read that, i can say ive seen this happen before.

Tagged for later. Great info. Now I just need 3 more Texas Delegates...

Pauliana
05-01-2008, 02:53 PM
Very enlightening...

STRATIOTES
05-01-2008, 03:05 PM
Linguistic Tools and Tactics For Political Activists
by
Tom Saunders

For professional salesmen, and especially high pressure salesmen, developing linguistic tools is part of the trade, and skills for the job. A professional knows the spangle, (The packaging/advertising), from the swazzle, (The real product, goods or services), and knows how to orchestrate his presentation based upon every move you make, (body language) and everything you tell her/him.

A high pressure salesman is somebody usually selling something you don't really need. He/she will put you in an elaborate setting like a showroom office, and fit his product into what you tell him, and he will note and emulate your every physical move so you don't notice, unless you know the trick. There are lots of tricks. Second mortgages, and vacation packages are prime examples of things that get sold to people, by 'Pros.'

I've worked with some brilliant Linguists developing high pressure sales, but what I find in the political arena are people almost as astute in how to control the ''Linguistic Environment.''

The Pivot

A pivot is like a pin or axel upon which things turn. A pivot in the dialectic changes the perspective and point of view in the argument. The ''Ransberger Pivot,'' (Also known by other names) is common in political debate, and is easily recognized when you hear, '' we all want the same thing........,'' in a retort. The idea is to negate the absolute duality of pro and con concerning the issue, which keeps the dialectic from getting good, bad, or ugly.

The pivot doesn't work on everything, but its reliable if you learn how to use it. The aim of the activist has to be to always pivot back to the point of his issue. In this case, Constitutionality.

Delay, Distract, Discredit, Spotlight, Scapegoat (See; http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060906J.shtml)

In dialectics, these five elements are like an arsenal of pivots, to discourage any change in the political status quo. As a Political Activist I have a collection of letters from Congress that can reflect the validity of how well this arsenal works against persuasion.

The defense against these pivots is to sidestep them, as they come at you, much like a karate fighter who blocks a kick, then a punch, counters a grab, then throws his opponent in a ditch.

There are all kinds of ways to delay, and distract an issue. To discredit something or someone is not that hard to do, if you/they aren't ready for it. Often to maintain power, an opponent of an issue will spotlight unrelated stuff to confuse the issue, and scapegoat to unrelated issues. This creates opportunities to take the higher ground in dialectics or "Linguistic Environments," but like the 'pivot,' you have to be ready for it. Salesmen train, so should political activists.

McCarthy Confrontations

'McCarthyism' is generally, the act of making insufficiently supported accusations or engaging in, or engineering unfair investigations against people or organizations in an attempt to discredit, outlaw, and silence them.

The status quo retains power with the politics of fear in order to polarize a group against a perceived threat. This is generally an appeal to the emotional side of issues, that often times will impede the rational response needed to reveal the McCarthy kind of confrontation as sophistry. But that is what must be done, the McCarthy accusation must be countered with rational truths, or effective pivots that reject outlawing people on a sophic basis.

Know your issue, and how to confront different kinds of sophistry. The political activist does not always need to treat his subject like the salesman who would never use 'negatives' against a buyer, because that would lose the sale. The aim of the political activist is to sell the rational causes of liberty and justice, in accordance with Constitutional obligations. Everybody's obligation, and some special ones as well.

The 'Delphi Method' of Dialectic Control

The 'Delphi Method' or use of the Hegelian Dialectic, is a way to 'pivot' thesis and antithesis, into a new thesis. This is called synthesis, and is used to create a general consensus on a common opinion or view. This is very much like the salesman's aims to keep everything in a positive mindset, and turn the 'client's' thoughts to those condusive of 'buying' into an idea.

The problem with political machines that use this method of 'spotlighting' is they perpetuate what is central to the cause of the issue, and this 'delays' the rational methods of solving the root problem.

Another thing to spot in a Dialectic, or "Linguistic Environment," is synchysis. Synchysis: ''A disorderly placing of a word in a sentence to indicate or cause confusion of thought. Or a word dislodges from the common usage in a lexicon and becomes, 'Obsolete': No longer in general, current use, and therefore its meaning may become questionable.'' (Dictionary of Linguistics, Pei and Gaynor, Littlefield, 1975, p. 209.)

A good fighter always uses his opponent's moves against him.

Focus on the 'Trained' Issue

The trained salesman knows how to manipulate his opponent and follows the physical and verbal cues just like the fighter 'mirrors' his opponent. Then, when the opportunity to strike presents itself, 'the trained' move into position to achieve their goal.

Based upon the concept that a physical fight, and a verbal argument are forms of communication, control of the winning paradigm, requires the same kind of strategy and perfection of skills. This is because winning means overcoming the defenses of the opposition. For the salesman this means money, and for the political activist and reformer it means justice, for the Patriot it means liberty. The focus should be to manipulate what the opposition gives you to work with, and what you give him/them.

Most of the political activists I know understand how very much Americans are being abused in regard to their Constitutional Rights. FEAR, FIJA, AMOJ, The Urban League, LEAP, The Sam Adams Alliance, The Future of Freedom Foundation, and most Libertarians understand the need to adhere to Constitutionality for the sake of freedom. They lack the technical knowledge in most cases to show proofs.

Focus has to be on achieving the goals of re-establishing Constitutional protections and rights, and this has to be a movement large enough to generate change in the political arenas, and the social fabric. The 'Trained Activists' are those that learn to wait for the opportunities and strike. Movements need to have 'numbers' enough to cause a shift in the American culture, and attract the Media, in regard for that change.

The nature of the political fight is it can happen in time and space differently than most physical fights which by their nature require immediate cause and effect. A written fight, can take a long time. However the dynamics of offense and defense, yin and yang, are still the same. The defense against getting slammed by a front snap kick, or a 'scapegoat response' is to use the move against the opponent. The salesman knows how to turn your objections about his product around to his favor. The political activist must learn the same skills to break through the defenses.

Pivoting Constitutionality

The saving grace about the American Constitution is that every American has a duty to unify and see that it works. The big trick for political activism and reformers is to get people to unify in meaningful ways so as to move the direction of the status quo. What has to be made clear to the masses and media, not to mention Congress, is Constitutionality can be demanded in terms of protected rights, and defined in terms of political science, i.e. doctrinal proofs.

I always teach the yardstick theory of how to show proofs, because its relatively simple. Proof of the yardstick's authentic value as an established example of a yard, means you can show prima facie the 'stick' or object is 36 inches, or three feet long, and corresponds directly to that set standard. This is a standard of proof which by its nature is immune to meaningful 'discredit.'

This is the way the political activist must learn to present issues directly related to rights because it has to get passed the natural defenses of the status quo, in the "Linguistic Environment." This includes the status quo or collective of reformers, and activists. Confronting a Congressman or public official with a group is always more effective.

In this confrontation the issue is the Congressman's (Public Official's), civic and fudiciary duty to uphold what can be shown with 'yardstick' precision as a primary duty of his office.

Showing the Obligation to 'Pivot' Your Way

Causing a pivot in the "Linguistic Environment" can mean changing the dialectic to your favor with one person or a group. This environment can be supportive or hostile, but the major obligation to Constitutionality comes in the form of civic duties. Americans have duties as Citizens generally and there are Constitutional obligations by Oath of Office for public officials.

Constitutionality is a duty of the entire American Collective. This must be a basic premise for a reason to unify in like or different causes to support a Constitutional Progressive movement.

Political Activists must use the tools of communication like the salesman. The constitutional activist can 'sell' the desired product, anywhere, but meaningful change requires the 'Constitutionality' be sold everywhere. It is best to work the 'best' leads, that will motivate the changes in the American collective.

It was for the purpose of showing the political obligation to 'rights' that I wrote about and defined, "Law of the Land Rights." This is a method of defining a Constitutional right, by using the Constitution, Legislative acts, and Judicial decisions, (stare decisis), that support the right, with 'yardstick' like precision.

A "Law of the Land Right" is established by defining a particular 'right' by presenting a Constitutional mandate, or 'enumerated right,' with 'stare decisis' of court decisions, and/or Legislative Acts. This merges both the Judicial, and Legislative bodies of government in agreement to the intended cause and effect of the law, concerning enumerated rights from the U. S. Constitution. (Thomas M. Saunders, BA./BS., Certified Linguist.)

I have an old friend I worked at the San Diego Urban League, circa 80's. named John Williams. He got noticed on the Professional Golf Tour. John didn't play golf, but he did carry around a sign that said, "No Ash, No Player." It is rare for one person to grab the attention, and change the political fabric. But, it can be done. You have to know when to strike and how to see the opportunities.

Organizing to Create a Pivot

The ''Field of Dreams'' build a cause or an organization for a cause, and 'they' will come, approach to organizing causes has proven less than effective in a lot of cases. If there is a common collective of American Activists, they are diversified among a lot of different organizations and causes. This creates a very mixed bag of polarities in the collective which serves to keep unification on a single cause by the masses down to a minimum.

This disunification is the current authoritarian government's aim in regard to propaganda, through the media, they control the collective's 'spotlight,' generally. Ask anyone in a Militia from the 80's, they know about the bond between government and the media. They should know about delay, distract, discredit, spotlighting and scapegoating. They did not know how, nor did they have a cause basic enough to help the entire collective, so they have virtually disappeared.

The leadership of these minor American movements did not know the basics of showing constitutionality for a cause. The Constitutional Pivot carries stronger 'medicine.' But, it must be pushed by those who can use it to influence and motivate the social fabric of the 'American Establishment,' and its 'Linguistic Environment.'

It is my own approach to take issues like Bills of Attainder, and show how they effect other's causes. My cause becomes their cause, and hopefully visa versa.

...

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
05-01-2008, 04:41 PM
Interesting. B-bump.