Demented Delphi and Creepy Consensus

In the late 1960s, the esoteric think tank called RAND Corporation developed a particular program or process with “consensus” the core element.

There is a growing consensus that Globalization must now be reshaped to reflect values broader than simply the freedom of capital. - John Sweeney

Our nation’s founders were people of many backgrounds and interests, but they had a common goal — developing a new nation, a Republic. Despite differences, the Founders compromised on many issues. They worked together in a struggle to free themselves from the Crown and craft the Constitution. With the cancellation of history, we rarely hear about compromise. Up until the recent time, it was “consensus.” Now, it is akin to the Caustic Cancel Culture Pogrom.

In the late 1960s, the esoteric think tank RAND Corporation developed a program or process with “consensus” as the core element. That is known as the Delphi Method (or Technique).¹ This process developed into “forecasting methodology,” a group decision-making instrument. That paved the way by which a group of experts could come to some “consensus of opinion” when the key factors of an issue were subjective. More specifically, facts and knowledge are secondary elements.

The Delphi Method has recently evolved into a completely different process and purpose. This process, “Consensus Building,” may seem familiar sounding. Surely, many adults, regardless of their social status, have been subject to this sinister groupthink process. It exists in churches, businesses, government, schools, academia, civic associations, etc. It has been so successful as a tool with perceived results that most people embrace the consensus process without knowing its sinister nature.

In group settings, consensus-building can be unscrupulous to achieve harmony on controversial topics. For high-profile issues, it requires well-trained “change agents” that are presented to the group as “facilitators.” Even well-meaning people get trained to be facilitators and conditioned to promote the Delphi Method based on consensus. Once trained, the facilitators unwittingly (or wittingly) cause tension between group members. The goal is to pit one faction against another to make a pre-selected viewpoint seem sensible. At the same time, it is the protocol of the consensus process to make opposing views appear unreasonable.

The “Alinksy Method” is a certain form of the consensus-building process for the educational setting.² In this case, the environment or group is secondary. Groups tend to share certain knowledge and show certain identifiable characteristics. That is “group dynamics,” and the change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer. The facilitator gets each group member to express their concerns about a topic. They then listen to form workgroups, advocate participants to make lists, and ask for comments. During this process, the facilitator learns something about each group member. That enables the facilitator to find the talkers, sub-group “leaders silently,” and those who are non-committal to an idea or policy.

At this point in the process, the well-trained facilitator engages in psychological manipulation (divide and conquer), whereby those who are out of step become stigmatized as being “resistant to change” or “against progress.” Since the professional facilitators are well-trained, they are experts able to predict each person’s reactions. Those opposed to the intended outcome become alienated from the group. Those named out of step rarely know they are under a manipulation scheme.

With the above achieved, the group becomes divided, and the facilitator magically becomes accepted as a group member. The facilitator is now on the way to becoming a change agent. They do this by presenting the idea at hand for group discussion. Magically, the polarized participants from the group started to embrace the concept as if it were their own. This pressures all participants to accept the idea or proposition.

Spotters watch the participants during the meeting. For continued resistance, it is time to call for a coffee break. During the break, the facilitator and co-facilitators decide who congregates and where. If the participants that resist the process assemble, a spotter will mingle with that group. They then report back to the facilitator. That is how the facilitators know whom to avoid as the session continues.

The consensus-building process uses the Hegelian Dialect of collective thought based on a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.³ The consensus process is the practical application of differing or opposing views (thesis and antithesis). As illustrated above, those with opposing views change toward an intended thought process (synthesis). The group members accept “ownership” of the new idea changing their views by manipulation to align with the new policy or vision.

Change agents believe in the process or have justification programmed to use consensus-building. Nevertheless, the net effects of these psychological manipulations include polarized sub-groups. Either people do not know what is going on or understand that their role is merely obligatory. Those not duped see that it is a preset outcome and that they are not a part of the “go team.” When opposition occurs, reform change agents can say there was actual “community participation.”

Only parents who agree with the process can be on restructuring committees in public school settings. Carefully screened new participants ensure that education reform goes forward unquestioned. If sizable opposition persists, the change agents take steps to neutralize opposition.

If the above technique successfully neutralizes a group, why hold such meetings, particularly if the outcome is pre-selected? In the long term, the answer is that the change agents obtain an overarching acceptance of their radial result, even if it is illusionary. Virtually every nefarious post-modern program has its roots in the Consensus Hegelian Alinsky Delphi (CHAD) system. Fruits of CHAD include but are not limited to:

• 2SLGBTQI+

• Abortion cult

• Antifa is fiction

• Cancel culture

• Critical Race conspiracy Theory

• Diversity Inclusion and Equity (DIE)

• Environmental Social and Governance (super Woke)

• Extreme environmentalism (e.g., climate change)

• Burn Loot and Mayhem (BLM) fiery but mostly peaceful protests

• Gender affirmation

• Globalism (nation hatred)

• Graphic K to 12 graphic sex “education”

• Legacy media manipulation

• Medical authoritarianism

• Medical mutilation madness

• Memes & mentally-physically mutilated masses

• Nefarious influencing

• Not woke equals domestic terrorism

• School programming system

• Semi-communism (collectivism aka Wokeisim)

• Thoughtcrime

• Totalitarian tolerance and demented diversity

• Traditional family hatred

• Undocumented visitors

CHAD works so well that the most sinister human-hating program, such as extreme environmentalism that trumps human rights, shall be “accepted.” Dare any person even talk about unreasonable extremist environmentalism’s nasty side; they will face branding as polluters and animal murderers. Today, anything under the sun will get the “phobic” treatment if it does not fit the narrative.

The detestable CHAD system changed our nation from a representative republic to a fake “participatory democracy” (Dumbocracy). Citizens at large find themselves brainwashed into fiat ownership of preset outcomes.

I can only present advice to be aware of and resist psychological manipulation. If your employer or other organization you belong to mandates your attendance at a consensus-building meeting, be unafraid. Reduce your participation to a minimum, and never show anger. Even a well-trained change agent will be stumped and only figure out your position when too late in the game. As such, it is essential to take part minimally and not let anyone know you disagree with the “program.” In the end, you may face the voluntold option to present your position and, if possible, calmly say that the outcome is unacceptable and that you must abstain. If it is necessary to be in “consensus” (to keep your job), it may, unfortunately, be time to say that you can “live with it.” But today, even that may not work; after all, “silence is violence” in the mind of the woke folk.

While resisting all nefarious consensus-building sessions may not be possible, you now have the tools to let non-woke folk know what is occurring. Let those whom you trust to fight the dreadful consensus-building sessions. You will also see when a consensus-building session is acceptable (not based on CHAD). Please see “The Delphi - How to Disrupt It.”

Sources: 

• B.K Eakman, Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality through Education (Lafayette, LA Huntington House Publishers, 1998) 

• Frederick R. Smith’s life experience at workplace meetings under the auspices of the Delphi Method. 

---

Author and publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Editor, Sean Tinney (original post)

1. The precursor to the Delphi Method is the Tavistock Method. In 1932, a psychiatrist and British military officer named John Rawlings Rees headed the Tavistock Clinic. That is an outgrowth of the Tavistock Institute of Medical Psychology, founded in 1920. A 1947 Rockefeller Foundation grant redirected the program to become the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. That same year, Tavistock partnered with Kurt Lewin’s Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan. The story goes deep into a rabbit hole. Still, briefly, the key point is that Lewin’s Group Dynamics marked the beginning of a collaboration between Lenin and the Tavistock Institute in Britain. See pp. 191 - 195 of Cloning of the American Mind.

2. Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) was a debased organizer and a key figure in developing unions in Chicago in the 1930s. Trained as a sociologist at the University of Chicago, he felt that social change could only occur by the mobilization and organization of people seeking such change (direct democracy). Alinksy was involved in many “social justice” (Communism) issues, and in the 1950s, he founded the Industrial Areas Foundation. Alinsky developed his brand of radical community-based organizing. He authored the books “Reveille for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals.” Barack Husain Obama has close ties to Alinsky. Check out Hillary Haters’ Fixation on Saul Alinsky to see how the debased folk spin this subject.

3. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) became prominent during “German idealism” in the decades following Kant, the philosopher. Throughout his published writings and lectures, Hegel tried to elaborate a comprehensive and systematic ontology (philosophical metaphysics concerned with the nature of being) from a “logical” starting point. He is most well-known for his natural (as opposed to a supernatural account of history). Hegel’s interpretation of history found its way to Marx, who “inverted” it into a materialist theory of historical development (Communism).