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.
The Founding Fathers were people of diverse backgrounds and interests, but they had a common goal — the development of a new nation, a Republic. Despite their differences, the Founders compromised on certain issues but worked together in a struggle to free themselves from the Crown. With the cancellation of history, we rarely hear about compromise, and up until the recent time, it was “consensus.” Now it is the Caustic Cancel Culture Pogrom.
In the late 1960s, the esoteric think tank called RAND Corporation developed a particular program or process with “consensus” 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.
In more recent times, the Delphi Method has 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, and civic associations. It has been so successful with perceived results that most people embrace the consensus process without knowing its sinister nature.
During group settings, consensus-building can be an unscrupulous way 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-intentioned people are 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” 2 is a certain form of the consensus-building process for the educational setting. In this case, the setting or group is secondary, but the people in groups tend to share certain knowledge and show certain identifiable characteristics. This is known as group dynamics and the change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer. The facilitator gets each person in the group to express their concerns about a topic. They then carefully listen and designate workgroups, advocate participants to make lists (sound familiar?), and ask for comments. During this part of the process, the facilitator learns something about each member of the group. That enables the facilitator to silently find the talkers, sub-group “leaders,” 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 with being “resistant to change” or “against progress.” Since the professional facilitator is well trained, they are experts at being able to predict the reactions of each person. As such, those opposed to the intended outcome become alienated from the group. Those named to be out of step will rarely know that 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 start to embrace the concept as if it were their own. This pressures all participants to accept the idea or proposition.
If there is continued resistance, it is time to call for a coffee break. During the break, the facilitator, and co-facilitators (or spotters who watch the participants during a meeting), 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. One positive outcome from Coronadoom — it sure put the brakes on this element of the program.
The consensus-building process uses the Hegelian Dialect 3 of collective thought based on a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The consensus process is the practical application of differing or opposing views (thesis and antithesis). As illustrated above, the opposing views are changed toward an intended thought process (synthesis). The group members accept “ownership” of the new idea changing their views by manipulation to line up with the new policy or idea.
Change agents believe in the process or have justification programmed into their minds 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 that there was actual “community participation.”
In public school settings, only parents who agree with the process can be on restructuring committees. 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. Whatever the nefarious program, be it outcome-based education, school to work, sex “education” for early grade school, or the environment. That works so well that the most sinister human-hating program such as extreme environmentalism that trumps human rights will be “accepted.” Dare any person even talking about unreasonable extremist environmentalism’s bad side; they will face branding as polluters and animal murderers. Today, anything under the sun will get the “racist” treatment if it does not fit the narrative.
The Delphi Method effectively changed our nation from a representative republic to a fake “participatory democracy” in which citizens at large find themselves brainwashed into fiat ownership of preset outcomes.
The only advice this author can present is to be aware and resist psychological manipulation. If your employer or other organization you belong to mandates your attendance at a consensus-building meeting, be not afraid. Reduce your participation to a minimum and never show anger. Even a well-trained change agent will be stumped and will only figure out your position when too late in the game. As such, it is essential to minimally take part and do not let any person know that you disagree with the “program.” In the end, you may be voluntold to present your position and, if possible, calmly say that the outcome is unacceptable and that you are compelled to 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 debased commie woke folk.
While it may not be possible to resist all nefarious consensus-building sessions, you now have the tools to let cogent non-woke folk know what is occurring. Let those who you trust have the empowerment to resist the dreadful consensus-building sessions. You will also know when a consensus-building session is acceptable (it is not based on the Delphi Method). For added guidance, please see “The Delphi - How to Disrupt It.”
B.K Eakman, Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality through Education (Lafayette, LA Huntington House Publishers, 1998)
Personal experience at meetings with the Delphi Method in action.
Cogent Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Cogent Editor, Sean Tinney
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 was an outgrowth of the Tavistock Institue 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.
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.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) came to prominence 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, where he “inverted” it into a materialist theory of historical development (Communism).