How to win popular concensus with "expertise"!

by Utopian Reformist 5 Replies latest jw friends

  • Utopian Reformist
    Utopian Reformist

    Another tool in the arsenal of zionist-democracy!


    THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE
    How to achieve a workable consensus within time limits

    by Lynn Stuter

    The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "Lay, or community, participation in the decision­making process), while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."

    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 she is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. He/she 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." He/she dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, he/she 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." He/she 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. If they do suspect this is happening, they 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. He/she 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 well­trained 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.

    DISRUPTING THE DELPHI

    Note: The Delphi is being used at all levels of government to move meetings to preset conclusions. For the purposes of this dissertation, "facilitator" references anyone who has been trained in use of the Delphi and who is running a meeting.

    There are three steps to diffusing the Delphi Technique when facilitators want to seer 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 dent 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 or 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 off­the­wall and usually unrelated or vaguely related subject that drags on for several minutes. During that time, the crowd or group usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let them finish with their dissertation or expose. Then nicely with focus and persistence, state, "But you didn't answer my question. My question was...[repeat your question.]"

    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 (/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 meting 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 they want if they are 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 wi11 steer clear of those who are resistors . Do not congregate. Hang loose and work the crowd. Move to where the facilitators 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.

    FROM A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC TO A PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

    With the advent of education reform, the ensuing turmoil among the citizenry, and the grassroots research that has been sparked therefrom, a consistent pattern with respect to public participation and input has emerged, giving cause for alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our founding fathers. Recent events, both inside and outside education have brought the emerging picture into focus.

    In the not too distant past. The hiring of a consultant by the City of Spokane to the tune of $47.000 to facilitate the direction of city government brought a hue and or from the populace at large. Eerily, this scenario held great similarity to what has bean happening in education reform. The final link came in the form of an editorial comment made by Chris Peck regarding the "Pizza papers." The editorial talks about how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to enter into a discussion of what they felt (as opposed to know) needed to be changed at the local level . The outcome of the compilation of those discussions influenced the writing of the city/county charter.

    Sounds innocuous enough. But let s examine this a little closer, Let's walk through the scenario that occurs in these facilitated meetings. First, about the facilitator. The facilitator is hired to facilitate the meeting. While his/her job is supposedly non­directive, neutral, non­judgmental, the opposite is actually true­­the facilitator is there to move the meeting in a preset conclusion. This is done through a process known as the Delphi Technique, developed by the RAND Corporation for the US. Department of Defense as a psychological warfare weapon in the 50s and 60s. Comforting, no doubt. With this established, let's move on to the semantics of the meeting.

    It is imperative e to the success of the agenda that the participants like the facilitator. Therefore. the facilitator first works the crowd to cause disequilibrium­­establishing a bad guy, good guy scenario. Anyone who might not agree with the facilitator must be seen by the participants as the bad guy, the facilitator the good guy. This is done by seeking out those who might not agree with the facilitator and making them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, sending a clear message to the audience that it if they don't want the same treatment to keep quiet. The facilitator is well trained in how to recognize and exploit many different psychological truisms to do this. At the point that the opposition has bean identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy­­a friend­­and the agenda and direction of the meeting is established without the audience ever being aware of the same.

    Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups ­ usually of seven or eight people ­ each group with a facilitator. Discussion ensues wherein the participants are encouraged to discuss preset issues, the group facilitator employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator. Usually participants are encouraged to put on paper their ideas and disagreements, these to be later compiled by others. Herein lies a very large problem. Who compiles what is written on the sheets of paper, note cards, etc.? When you ask the participants, you usually get, "Well, they compiled the results." Who is "they?" "Well, those running the meeting." Oh­h! The next question is ­ How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome? The answer you usually get is, "Well, you know, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected here. I guess my viewpoint was in the minority." And there you have the crux of the s situation If you have fifty people in a room, each writes his/her ideas and dislikes on a sheet of paper, to be compiled later into a final outcome, each individual having no idea of what any other individual wrote. How do you know that the final outcome reflects anyone's input? The answer is ­ you don't. The same scenario holds when there is a facilitator recording your comments on paper. But the participants usually don't question this, figuring instead that their viewpoint was in the minority and thus not reflected.

    So why have the meetings at all if the outcome is already established? Because it is imperative to the continued well­being of the agenda that the people be facilitated into ownership of the preset outcome. If people believe the idea is theirs, they support it: If the people believe the idea is being foisted on them, they will resist. Likewise, it is imperative to the continued well­being of the agenda that the people perceive that their input counts. This scenario is being used very effectively to move meetings to a preset conclusion, effectively changing our form of government from a representative form of government in which individuals are elected to represent the people. to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens, selected at large, are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes, perceiving that their input resulted therein, when the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the citizen participants.

    THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE
    How to achieve a workable consensus within time limits

    by Lynn Stuter

    The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "Lay, or community, participation in the decision­making process), while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."

    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 she is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. He/she 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." He/she dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, he/she 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." He/she 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. If they do suspect this is happening, they 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. He/she 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 well­trained 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.

    DISRUPTING THE DELPHI

    Note: The Delphi is being used at all levels of government to move meetings to preset conclusions. For the purposes of this dissertation, "facilitator" references anyone who has been trained in use of the Delphi and who is running a meeting.

    There are three steps to diffusing the Delphi Technique when facilitators want to seer 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 dent 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 or 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 off­the­wall and usually unrelated or vaguely related subject that drags on for several minutes. During that time, the crowd or group usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let them finish with their dissertation or expose. Then nicely with focus and persistence, state, "But you didn't answer my question. My question was...[repeat your question.]"

    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 (/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 meting 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 they want if they are 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 wi11 steer clear of those who are resistors . Do not congregate. Hang loose and work the crowd. Move to where the facilitators 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.

    FROM A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC TO A PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

    With the advent of education reform, the ensuing turmoil among the citizenry, and the grassroots research that has been sparked therefrom, a consistent pattern with respect to public participation and input has emerged, giving cause for alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our founding fathers. Recent events, both inside and outside education have brought the emerging picture into focus.

    In the not too distant past. The hiring of a consultant by the City of Spokane to the tune of $47.000 to facilitate the direction of city government brought a hue and or from the populace at large. Eerily, this scenario held great similarity to what has bean happening in education reform. The final link came in the form of an editorial comment made by Chris Peck regarding the "Pizza papers." The editorial talks about how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to enter into a discussion of what they felt (as opposed to know) needed to be changed at the local level . The outcome of the compilation of those discussions influenced the writing of the city/county charter.

    Sounds innocuous enough. But let s examine this a little closer, Let's walk through the scenario that occurs in these facilitated meetings. First, about the facilitator. The facilitator is hired to facilitate the meeting. While his/her job is supposedly non­directive, neutral, non­judgmental, the opposite is actually true­­the facilitator is there to move the meeting in a preset conclusion. This is done through a process known as the Delphi Technique, developed by the RAND Corporation for the US. Department of Defense as a psychological warfare weapon in the 50s and 60s. Comforting, no doubt. With this established, let's move on to the semantics of the meeting.

    It is imperative e to the success of the agenda that the participants like the facilitator. Therefore. the facilitator first works the crowd to cause disequilibrium­­establishing a bad guy, good guy scenario. Anyone who might not agree with the facilitator must be seen by the participants as the bad guy, the facilitator the good guy. This is done by seeking out those who might not agree with the facilitator and making them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, sending a clear message to the audience that it if they don't want the same treatment to keep quiet. The facilitator is well trained in how to recognize and exploit many different psychological truisms to do this. At the point that the opposition has bean identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy­­a friend­­and the agenda and direction of the meeting is established without the audience ever being aware of the same.

    Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups ­ usually of seven or eight people ­ each group with a facilitator. Discussion ensues wherein the participants are encouraged to discuss preset issues, the group facilitator employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator. Usually participants are encouraged to put on paper their ideas and disagreements, these to be later compiled by others. Herein lies a very large problem. Who compiles what is written on the sheets of paper, note cards, etc.? When you ask the participants, you usually get, "Well, they compiled the results." Who is "they?" "Well, those running the meeting." Oh­h! The next question is ­ How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome? The answer you usually get is, "Well, you know, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected here. I guess my viewpoint was in the minority." And there you have the crux of the s situation If you have fifty people in a room, each writes his/her ideas and dislikes on a sheet of paper, to be compiled later into a final outcome, each individual having no idea of what any other individual wrote. How do you know that the final outcome reflects anyone's input? The answer is ­ you don't. The same scenario holds when there is a facilitator recording your comments on paper. But the participants usually don't question this, figuring instead that their viewpoint was in the minority and thus not reflected.

    So why have the meetings at all if the outcome is already established? Because it is imperative to the continued well­being of the agenda that the people be facilitated into ownership of the preset outcome. If people believe the idea is theirs, they support it: If the people believe the idea is being foisted on them, they will resist. Likewise, it is imperative to the continued well­being of the agenda that the people perceive that their input counts. This scenario is being used very effectively to move meetings to a preset conclusion, effectively changing our form of government from a representative form of government in which individuals are elected to represent the people. to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens, selected at large, are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes, perceiving that their input resulted therein, when the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the citizen participants.

  • abbagail
    abbagail

    THE "DELPHI" & "DIAMOND" TECHNIQUES: THEIR "STRATEGIES" to DECEIVE, CONFUSE, INTIMIDATE & "PERSUADE" YOU...

    How To Stop Being Manipulated! - Introduction
    http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/05/04/how_to_stop_being_manipulated.htm

    How collectivists create their own opposition - and how not to be fooled by it:
    http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/falseopposition.pdf

    How collectivists use the DIAMOND TACTIC to sway public meetings - and how to thwart them:
    http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/diamond_tactic.pdf

    How collectivists use the DELPHI TECHNIQUE to create group consesus at public meetings - and how to thwart them:
    http://www.freedom-force.org/pics/delphi_technique.mht

    More about the Delphi Technique to manipulate public meetings - and how to overcome it:
    http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/newsarchive/Stop_being_manipulated_by_Delphi.mht

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    How To Stop Being Manipulated!
    http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/05/04/how_to_stop_being_manipulated.htm
    Chris Gupta
    Posted on May 06, 2004 at 07:28 AM


    "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. 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."

    Techniques like Delphi are "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." These two published articles are a must read for those of you who are in need to deal with corporations, large organizations and other bureaucrats.


    How to Stop Being Manipulated!
    http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/05/04/how_to_stop_being_manipulated.htm
    Chris Gupta
    Categories - Control tactics & The Nature of Government


    ..." 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 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."...

    The Delphi Technique is what Aliss encountered in Health Canada (HC) Public Hearing:
    http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/03/12/health_canada_hc_public_hearing.htm .

    The Following ...articles are a must read if we are to be able to deal with corporations and other bureaucrats. While the articles are somewhat repetitious they are diverse enough to help better comprehend the technic. As more and more people understand these shenanigans the technique may be modified to counter resistance. Interestingly HC in their public hearing did not knowing[ly] allow multiple like minded people to come their hearing....

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    continued next post...

  • abbagail
    abbagail

    HOW COLLECTIVISTS USE THE DIAMOND TACTIC TO
    SWAY PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HOW TO THWART THEM
    by G. Edward Griffin
    http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/diamond_tactic.pdf


    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 Technique 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.

    --------------------------------------------

  • abbagail
    abbagail

    LET'S STOP BEING MANIPULATED! - THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE

    By: Albert V. Burns

    More about the Delphi Technique to manipulate public meetings - and how to overcome it.
    http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/newsarchive/Stop_being_manipulated_by_Delphi.mht


    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.

    ---------------------------

    "Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

    Albert V. Burns writes from Utah and is a regular columnist for the Spanish Fork Press. He has an extensive knowledge of the conspiracy which has been working so hard to destroy this nation and incorporate it into a one world government. He has developed an extensive personal research library and the knowledge to find what he needs, to write his columns. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

    Albert V. Burns can be reached at: avburns@mindspring.com

    Published in the September 23, 2002 issue of Ether Zone.
    Copyright © 1997 - 2002 Ether Zone.

    -----------------------------

  • abbagail
    abbagail

    HOW COLLECTIVISTS CREATE THEIR OWN OPPOSITION AND HOW NOT TO BE FOOLED BY IT

    by G. Edward Griffin

    www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/falseopposition.pdf


    Most of us find it difficult to believe that there are others who want to deceive
    us. We can accept that there may be a few crooks and sociopaths at the outer edge of
    society, but surely no one high in politics or finance or the media would ever do such
    a thing. The reality, however, is that many leaders in these fields follow an agenda
    which they believe is so important that deception is a reasonable price for its
    advancement. That agenda is a New World Order based on the model of collectivism.
    (For an explanation of what that means and the history of its development, see The
    Future is Calling – Part One on the Freedom Force web site at
    www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf .)

    One of the most common deceptions in our time is the offering of false
    leadership; in other words, leading one’s own opposition. Collectivist strategists
    realize that, as the New World Order unfolds, there will be public opposition to many
    of their programs. They reason that it would be stupid to wait for this to spring from
    natural forces, because then it might become too powerful to overcome. Instead, they
    anticipate this turn of events and create their own opposition so they can control it at
    every step of the way. They put forth leaders who are covertly loyal to their own camp
    or they support useful public figures who are susceptible to flattery, blackmail, and
    financial reward to insure that they follow the party line.

    In either case, these people must behave as genuine opposition leaders. They must be bold in stance and vigorous in activity. Their facts must be accurate, and their complaints must be valid. Otherwise, they will not appear as leaders, and no one will follow. But they will never offer real solutions and they will never win the contest. It is rigged boxing match. The winner is always selected by those who pay the loser.

    The best way to understand this strategy is to observe it in operation, and a
    good place to begin is with the Federal Reserve System. For those who are familiar
    with the creation of the Fed, it will be remembered that the Federal Reserve Act was
    an outgrowth of a public outcry to “break the grip of the money trust.” The financiers
    who constituted the money trust did not wait for a genuine grassroots movement to
    take hold. Instead, they covertly led the crusade against themselves and drafted their
    own so-called reform legislation. They created an institution that was offered to the
    public as a government agency to break the grip of the money trust but which actually
    consolidated their power and expanded it. This was a classic example of offering false
    leadership and leading one’s own opposition.

    2
    THE MONEY MASTERS

    The Money Masters is a video documentary based upon a 1998 book by the
    same title written by Bill Still. It is an excellent production with sound history and
    professionally created images. It tells the story of our debauched money system in an
    entertaining and convincing manner. There is just one problem with it. It offers a false
    solution – which is to say that it offers no solution at all. The alleged solution is that
    we should abandon our present fiat money system and adopt another one very much
    like it. Yes, it advocates fiat money! The proposal is that we should take the power to
    create money-out-of-nothing away from those big, bad bankers and turn it over to
    those nice, trustworthy politicians where, supposedly, it will be used for the benefit of
    “the people.” It is naïve to think that politicians are any more trustworthy than
    bankers. It is equally naïve to think that, because politicians are elected, they will
    protect the people they represent. The reality of present-day “democracy” is that
    politicians serve special interests with financial clout, not voters. With enough money,
    votes can be purchased through media exposure. Politicians with the largest campaign
    budgets are almost always the winners. Turning over control of the Fed to the
    politicians would change nothing but the outward appearance. The solution is not to
    politicize the Federal Reserve. It is to abolish it.

    The problem with money created out of nothing is not who does it but that it is
    done at all. The solution to fiat money is not more fiat money. It is real money based
    on tangible assets, and none has yet been discovered that serves as well as gold or
    silver. The assertion in The Money Masters that wooden sticks were successfully used
    in England as money is grossly misleading. Tally sticks were occasionally used like
    government-issued script that could be applied to the payment of taxes, but at no time
    in history were they ever used as a medium of exchange for substantial economic
    transactions. To propose that we now can live with fiat money based on that myth is a
    non-solution that is irrational and dishonest.


    SECRETS OF THE TEMPLE

    In this regard, Money Masters is like William Greider's book, Secrets of the
    Temple, which was offered to the public in 1987 as a scathing exposé of the Federal
    Reserve System. Greider’s history was excellent, but his conclusion was fatally
    flawed. After having proved that the Fed was conceived as a weapon of the banking
    elite against the common man and having shown that this is exactly the function it has
    always served, his conclusion was, not to abolish the Fed or even to make serious
    changes to it. His “call to action” was simply to stop worrying about it. The Fed has
    made mistakes, he said, but we have learned many lessons along the way. All we need
    now are wiser men to run it! That is exactly the kind of powder-puff solution that
    made his book acceptable to the giant publishing house, Simon and Schuster. It is no
    solution at all. The elite do not care what we know about a problem if we don't do
    anything about it. They are quite good at putting forth their own opposition – writers

    3

    like Greider – who will sound the alarm and rally the troops but lead them exactly
    nowhere.


    THE MONOPOLY MEN

    In 1999, Liberty International Entertainment released a made-for-TV
    documentary entitled The Monopoly Men that echoed a similar message. That’s not
    surprising inasmuch as Bill Still was one of the writers and also appeared as an on-
    camera expert. The program contains a great deal of accurate and hard-hitting history
    showing that the Federal Reserve, through its power to create fiat money, has operated
    virtually as a conspiracy against the American people. The solution? More fiat money,
    of course – only this time it should be under the management of politicians, not
    bankers.

    The collectivist bias of the writers and producers is revealed in a segment
    featuring socialist, Huey Long, in which he passionately advocates redistribution of
    wealth as a solution to the economic ills of society. Abraham Lincoln’s issuance of
    fiat money (called Greenbacks) in violation of the Constitution is presented as an act
    of statesmanship. Greenbacks were politically expedient as a means of extracting
    money from Northern taxpayers through inflation to pay for the Civil War, but it was
    blatantly unconstitutional, as were many other features of the Lincoln administration,
    such as the arrest of citizens without charges and trial by military courts without
    juries. This dark period of American history is hardly what should be offered as a
    blueprint for our future.

    And there are numerous other flaws that mar this otherwise excellent
    production. For example: the erroneous acceptance of the word democracy as a
    virtuous form of government and the perpetuation of the myth that JFK was
    assassinated because he opposed the international bankers. The real danger, however,
    is that, because this program is professionally executed and contains a great deal of
    accurate history, many viewers will be lulled into uncritically accepting its non-
    solution of politicized fiat money. It is a classic example of false opinion leadership.


    DAY OF DECEIT

    In the year 2000, Simon and Schuster published another book in this same
    genre, Day of Deceit; The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, by Robert Stinnett. It
    is a block buster of facts and previously hidden documents proving beyond any doubt
    that FDR, Secretary-of-War Henry Stimson, General George Marshall, and many
    others high in the Roosevelt Administration secretly plotted to cause Japan to
    successfully Attack Pearl Harbor as an excuse to bring the United Stated into World
    War II supposedly as a victim of an unprovoked attack. So, what was Stinnett's
    conclusion? Was it to condemn these men for their treachery? Not at all. It was that
    this act was justified because it helped put a stop to Hitler in Europe. In other words,
    to halt totalitarianism in Europe, it was necessary to adopt totalitarianism in America,
    and to do so was an act of great statesmanship! Once again, Simon and Schuster

    4

    provided the American people with a false opinion leader. What's the point of getting
    all frothed up over a president lying to the voters and deliberately causing thousands
    of Americans to be killed if we are then to decide that he was a hero for dong so?


    AGAINST ALL ENEMIES

    In 2004, Simon and Schuster continued the tradition with a book entitled
    Against All Enemies, by Richard Clarke. This is an excellent overview of certain
    aspects of George W. Bush’s abuse of the Presidency. It verifies that, prior to 9/11, he
    disregarded warnings of pending terrorist attacks and, after 9/11, launched an
    unnecessary invasion of Iraq. There are no surprises here. Almost all of this
    information had managed to seep through to the public in spite of media loyalty to the
    White House. It was this information (plus a lot more never mentioned by Clarke) that
    caused Bush’s popularity ratings to decline sharply. Clarke added very little to the
    knowledge base except that he had been an insider with first-hand involvement.
    The book’s true agenda is revealed by the author’s solutions. He accepts
    totalitarian measures in the U.S. as necessary for homeland security and indirectly
    supports the expansion of UN power as a desirable goal on the path to world order.
    However, the real “solution” that jumps from almost every page was the need to
    replace Bush in the November 2004 elections. That made a lot of sense, but who
    would take his place? The fact is that Bush would have been replaced by John Kerry.
    (Clarke’s book didn’t go to press until after Kerry had become the frontrunner of the
    Democrat Party.) This was no solution at all. Kerry was a member of the CFR and,
    although he might have made minor alterations in Iraq, we can be sure that he would
    have continued to follow the CFR blueprint for world government based on the model
    of collectivism. In fact, in his campaign speeches, he told us that he would. When he
    refused to allow a challenge to the validity of Bush’s victory in the Ohio elections – as
    Al Gore previously had prevented a challenge to Bush’s victory four years previously
    in Florida – it was silent testimony to the fact that the boxing match had been rigged.
    These men had been paid in some way by the king makers to lose, not win. It was not
    yet their turn.


    THE QUIGLEY FORMULA

    That leads to the greatest example possible of leading one’s own opposition. It
    is the deception of a two-party political system. The net effect of Against All Enemies
    was to implement a strategy described by Professor Carroll Quigley, President
    Clinton’s mentor when he was a student at Georgetown University. In his book,
    Tragedy and Hope, Quigley explained the value of allowing people to believe that, by
    choosing between the Democrat and Republican parties, they are participating in their
    own political destiny. To a collectivist like Quigley, this is a necessary illusion to
    prevent voters from meddling into the important affairs of state. If you have ever
    wondered why the two American parties appear so different at election time but not so
    different afterward, listen carefully to Quigley’s approving overview of American
    politics:

    5

    The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern
    Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved
    closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and
    platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the
    revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back
    to the Civil War). ... The argument that the two parties should represent
    opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left,
    is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers.
    Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people
    can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or
    extreme shifts in policy. ... Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired,
    unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every
    four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things
    but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.1


    OBVIOUS CLUES

    When Against All Enemies hit the bookstores in March, there were several
    obvious clues that it was following the Quigley formula. The first was that it was
    given incredibly favorable coverage in the mass media. It was on the network news
    and received front-page coverage in almost every major publication. No book
    publisher could purchase that kind of exposure at any price. No author who offered
    genuine opposition to the CFR agenda would ever receive such a favorable and
    extensive media blitz. If you understand the degree to which CFR members control
    the media, you would know immediately that Clarke’s message was given the green
    light by that group. They were leading their own opposition. If Kerry had created a
    landslide at the polls, they were perfectly prepared to dump Bush, because they would
    win either way. Bush, of course, was not without resources. If the U.S. had sustained
    another large-scale terrorist attack prior to the election, the public would have rallied
    behind him. As it turned out, that was not necessary. The race was very close, and it
    was easier to rig the computerized voting machines in Ohio.

    Clue number two was that the activist group, MoveOn, chose this book for
    national promotion and fund raising. MoveOn was created as an organization to
    defend President Clinton during his impeachment, and its focus has always been to
    promote the Democrat Party. It is very selective in its choice of issues. Partisan loyalty
    is paramount. MoveOn serves the same function for the Democrat Party as Rush
    Limbaugh does for the Republican Party. They both attack the opposition but seldom
    say an unkind word about those on their side of the aisle. MoveOn would have us
    believe that Republicans are bad and Democrats are good. Republicans want war and
    Democrats want peace. Republicans are indifferent to human suffering and

    Footnote 1 - Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 1247- 1248.


    6

    Democrtats are humanitarians. Republicans are out to destroy the planet and
    Democrats want to preserve it. Republicans are racists and Democrats love everyone.
    Republicans are corrupt and Democrats are honest. It’s so simple that even the most
    uneducated person can understand it – which is the whole point. These stereotypes are
    easy to sell to a population that is unhappy with present leadership. MoveOn is the
    Democrat Party cheerleader. It directs public indignation against Republicans so as to
    “throw the rascals out” every now and then without changing basic policies. It
    implements the Quigley Formula perfectly, although most people who support that
    organization are probably unaware of the function it serves.

    The third clue was that Against All Enemies was published by Free Press, a
    division of Simon and Schuster. As mentioned previously, Simon and Schuster is the
    same company that published Secrets of the Temple and Day of Deceit. I am not aware
    of any of its hundreds of titles that seriously challenge the goals of the CFR. It would
    be foolish to expect this book to alter that pattern.


    FAHRENHEIT 911

    Four months before the 2004 presidential elections in the U.S., film producer,
    Michael Moore, released a feature-length documentary film entitled Fahrenheit 911. It
    was a powerful condemnation of the George W. Bush Administration with particular
    focus on the war in Iraq. Moore compiled an amazing collection of video clips
    showing Bush and key members of his Administration in off-guarded moments and in
    situations where a lack of sincerity was glaringly evident. The story that emerges
    shows the Bush family closely allied with Saudi princes and the bin Ladin family in
    business ventures that profit from war production and from the vast oil reserves in the
    Middle East. It hammers hard on the human suffering caused by a war, not to destroy
    a terrorist stronghold, but to gain access to oil resources and lucrative government
    contracts. Moore’s creative talent was applied with precision and resulted in what may
    become a new genre of political filmmaking. The effect was devastating to Bush and
    his supporters who were left with little defense except to claim that the production was
    biased and that certain statements were not correct. This is my analysis of Fahrenheit
    911:

    1. The program is biased, and certain statements are not entirely correct, but
    the important details are true.

    2. In addition to profits from oil resources and war contracts, there is a second
    motive that also drives U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere.
    It is the creation of a New World Order based on the model of collectivism,
    and it is supported with equal vigor by leaders of both major political
    parties. Mr. Bush and his team are deeply committed to that goal. Fahrenheit
    911 gives no attention to that agenda and even goes so far as to claim that it
    plays no role in these events. That theme was advanced in a statement from
    one of the on-camera experts who said, “This has nothing to do with
    conspiracies or political agendas. It’s all about oil and making money.” That
    7
    is the party line of the Democrat Party, and it obscures the fact that
    Democrats and Republicans share that important goal.

    3. Omission of this bi-partisan agenda makes it possible to deliver the message
    that America’s problems in the Middle East are caused by greedy, war-
    mongering Republicans who are in power and that the obvious solution is to
    replace them with humanitarian, peace-loving Democrats. This message was
    implied throughout the film, but it broke through in clear language when a
    young soldier said, “I used to be a Republican, but when I get back home,
    I’m going to work hard to get Democrats elected.” If the film had
    acknowledged the New World Order agenda of the Bush Administration, it
    would have led to the fact that leaders of the Democrat Party, including its
    presidential candidate at that time, John Kerry, share the same vision, and
    the partisan message would not have been possible.

    4. The content of the film and the timing of its release made it clear that it was
    conceived as a covert campaign tool for the Democrat Party. It implemented
    the Quigley Formula in every detail.

    Inevitably, the mind turns to the question: Was this the intention of Michael
    Moore? My opinion – no, that is too strong a word – my suspicion is that Moore
    probably was not consciously implementing the Quigley Formula. However, there are
    powerful economic factors that would have compelled him to follow it in any event.
    Anyone who has done as much research into this matter as he has must have come
    across voluminous information about the political agenda. However, if any of it had
    appeared in his film, it would have been unacceptable to the Democrat Party. Without
    the enthusiastic support of that powerful sector, there would have been small chance
    for film distribution and even less for box-office success. Financial success does make
    a difference, even to Michael Moore.


    WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (the video)

    Not to be outdone by Democrats, the Republicans responded to Fahrenheit 911
    with a campaign film of their own. Following the same formula used by Michael
    Moore, the production appeared, not as an official creation of the Republican Party,
    but as the private release of an independent filmmaker, Brad Maaske. It was, however,
    a covert campaign film for the Bush Administration.

    The name of the production was Weapon of Mass Destruction; The Murderous
    Reign of Saddam Hussein. The theme was not, as one might expect, that President
    Bush was correct in telling the American people that Hussein possessed WMDs, but
    that Hussein, himself, was the WMD. That’s an interesting twist, and one that has
    considerable merit, although not sufficient in my opinion to justify a full-scale war in
    which tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens and thousands of American soldiers are
    killed and maimed.
    8
    As the title suggests, this is an anti-Hussein propaganda piece. I use the word
    propaganda in a non-judgmental sense, merely to say that it was designed to create
    revulsion and hatred in the mind of the viewer – which is easy to do when the subject
    is a megalomaniac and butcher like Hussein. The goal of the film was to close the
    minds of viewers to all considerations except one, and that was to justify any action
    that is perceived as a means for releasing Hussein’s victims and punishing him for his
    crimes. All other issues were ignored.

    It’s easy to fall prey to this passion, but before doing so, we need to ask: Why
    Saddam and not the leaders of China or Russia or North Vietnam or many other places
    in the world where the leaders have been equally despotic and even more threatening
    to the United States? Are we now to invade these countries also? If not, why not?
    There are no answers to these questions except those that require us to consider other
    leadership agendas; agendas that are far less humanitarian than the one advertised.
    But, of course, the film does not raise those questions.

    There are many facts presented in Weapons of Mass Destruction that are true,
    and many opinions with which most of us can agree. However, since it was a political
    campaign film, its purpose was, not to tell the whole truth about the war in Iraq (or
    any other issue), but only those parts that made the Bush Administration look good.
    The story line is based on the unquestioning acceptance of the official version of how
    and why 9/11 occurred. We are asked to uncritically accept the supposition that
    terrorists attack the US “because they hate America’s freedom.” There is no hint that
    the Administration may have encouraged the attacks and then allowed them to happen
    for the purpose of using a war on terrorism as an excuse for other agendas, such as
    creating an American dominance in the Middle East, gaining control over that
    region’s oil reserves, and building a global government based on the model of
    collectivism. If one blindly accepts the official version and ignores the evidence to the
    contrary, then this film makes simplistic sense: Hussein was evil; the terrorists
    attacked us; the terrorists in some way probably were connected to Hussein; therefore,
    the war was justified. As Brad Maaske says in the film: “Did we have the right to go
    into Iraq, and was the war worth it? After listening to the experts and leaders that I
    trust, I know that it was worth it.” That is the official line of the Republican Party.
    However, if one is not convinced that the experts and leaders are worthy of trust, the
    film is extremely disturbing because of what it omits.

    The Quigley Formula is a strategy for leading one’s own opposition. Those who
    execute this strategy are experts at rigging boxing matches in which both fighters are
    on their payroll. It is important to understand, not only the Quigley Formula, but the
    strategy of false leadership which it implements, because that strategy is used in many
    other forms as well, especially in the creation of opinion leaders in the media and
    activist leaders in organizations offering themselves as opposition to those in power.
    Those who would defend their freedom must not be fooled by this strategy.
    9


    RECOMMENDED READING

    The concept of a New World Order based on the model of collectivism is explained in
    The Future is Calling – Part One, a free download from the Freedom Force web site:
    www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf. The following books and
    recordings on this topic, available from The Reality Zone, are highly recommended.

    Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time
    by Professor Carroll Quigley
    This is the book that blows the lid off the secret organization created by
    Cecil Rhodes to quietly gain control over nations of the world and
    establish a global government based on the model of collectivism.
    (More: www.realityzone.com/tragedy.html)

    The Anglo-American Establishment
    by Professor Carroll Quigley
    Quigley states: "What is not so widely known is that Rhodes in five
    previous wills left his fortune to form a secret society,... And what does not
    seem to be known to anyone is that this secret society ... continues to exist
    to this day." (More: www.realityzone.com/aae.html)

    The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin
    This book reveals the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation,
    depression, prosperity. Your world view will definitely change. You'll
    never trust a politician again – or a banker. (More:
    www.realityzone.com/creature.html)

    The Hidden Agenda; Merging America into World Government
    In this video interview by G. Edward Griffin, Norman Dodd, Congressional
    investigator of tax-exempt foundations, reveals their concealed plan for
    merging America into world government based on the model of
    collectivism. (More: www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda.html)

    Who's Who of the Elite: The Bilderbergs, CFR, and Trialateralists
    What are the names of the people who actually rule the world and
    what positions do they hold? This compilation answers that
    question. Indexed by name and category. (More:
    www.realityzone.com/whoswho.html)
    10

    SEND THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS:
    www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/falseopposition.pdf
    You can print this as a handout or send it as an email attachment. To send as an attachment, bring it on
    screen in Adobe Acrobat and select FILE > SEND MAIL > PAGE BY
    EMAIL. From the box that appears, you can send to more than one person at a
    time. Include a brief personal message and sign off with your name so
    recipients will know it is not spam. Then click on SEND. If spell check
    appears, select IGNORE ALL. An optional method is to copy this file to a disk

    © 2005 by G. Edward Griffin, published 2005 September 21

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this email is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    Thanks guys, I almost have enough time to read all that. www.web-smilie.de

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit