Have you never wondered how political decisions are really made? Is the voice of the people being manipulated towards a predetermined outcome-is public opinion manufactured?

Apparently, in not only town hall meetings across the nation and in the nation’s capital of Washington D.C., this appears to be the overwhelming reality.

In other words, the American decision making process with regard to political policy, whether on a local, statutory, or federal level, only appears to be democratic, when in truth, it is something else entirely.

Though regular visitors and even some loyal followers may find the following topic comparatively unexciting, please allow one to introduce what is known as the ‘Delphi technique’.

The grander implications of what is, upon deeper examination, a sinister psychological technique, transcends national boundaries, in that the standard utilization of this scientifically created method also serves the emerging presence of global governance. Incrementally, UN global hegemony is emerging from behind the curtain of national security. And, Americans are being tricked into accepting, perhaps even desiring the idea of surrendering their perceptions of national sovereignty to an all encompassing global governance. But, this is part of the scam that is perhaps the most sinister, if not pernicious. It must be understood, global governance is not a concept that is arriving at some time in the future-it is already here.

In fact, there is every indication, global governance was consolidated by the thirteen ruling Jesuit Papal bloodlines in 1776.

Yes, folks, you read that correctly, contrary to what American history books inform all pubic school students, 1776 did not mean freedom from the chains of tyrannical bondage.

How can this be so, one may ask?

Remember, that to the ruling elites, the true meaning of concepts has been inverted from everything the common man has been conditioned to believe.

For, they believe truth is lies, and freedom, slavery. For generations, Americans have been encouraged, out of a sense of civic duty, to take part in town hall meetings in helping to determine the prevailing public policy of one important issue or another. During such meetings, citizens are ostensibly able to make their impressions and opinions known to those sitting on town or mayoral councils. To anyone who has attended such meetings and witnessed the proceedings, everything seems to fall in line with accepted notions of democratic procedure.

But, is this in fact the case?

What if one were to learn the parameters of public debate, perhaps even the nuances of policy, had been predetermined, and that your participation in a town meeting to discuss the formulation of such policy, in the end, was designed to satisfy superficial perceptions the public’s true voice had been solicited and in fact heard?

Rand Corporation

Back in the 1950’s, a private US government contractor called Rand Corporation developed what came to be known as the Delphi technique, ostensibly to forecast the impact of technology on warfare.  Although explanation of the technique may at first appear complicated, the Delphi method entails manipulation of responses to a proposed problem, in so far as the solution arrived at will reduce the range of preferred responses into what is then termed ‘expert consensus’. The results of the Delphi technique have also been popularly termed as ‘group think’. Although Rand Corporation primarily utilized Delphi as a cold war psychological weapon, its creators readily observed the potential for wider applications in fashioning public perceptions, and official political and public policy to meet predetermined goals.  

Put another way, the Delphi method solicits the opinions of experts through a carefully designed series of questionnaires interspersed with information and opinion feedback in order to establish a convergence of preferred opinion. Now, how is the Delphi technique applied to the arena of public town hall meetings? What makes the application of this technique today so sinister, is the fact it is done with such great subtlety that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of its utilization may not recognize it. It could be speculated, even public officials trained to utilize this technique don’t fully comprehend the Delphi method enough to articulately explain its more subtle applications, it is merely they have been trained to acknowledge its overall psychological effectiveness in helping to formulate what becomes officially preferred public policy. 

The ‘friendly’ town hall facilitator

To begin with a pertinent example, has one never attended a public meeting in your hometown where the moderator or presenter could be defined as a friendly, or perhaps even gregarious personality type?

This person, usually trained by a non-government organization such as Common Purpose, plays the starring role in the application of the Delphi method, in that he or she, despite being recognized as someone from outside the community, is someone with whom those assembled at the public gathering could easily relate or perhaps even sympathize-someone whose very pleasant or sunny demeanor can cause immediate polarization between those deemed positive and negative factions.

In this way, any and perhaps all prospective obstacles or objections to the predetermined outcome are likely mitigated through mere force of personality. After all, studies conducted by both Stanford Research Center and Tavistock Institute of Human Relations have decisively demonstrated humans are more likely to make decisions based on emotional rather than rational considerations

Public opinion is manufactured into consensus

The creators of the Delphi method were well cognizant a smiling face is often the most effective component in selling any agenda, predetermined or not, to the general public. Once the emotional bond between the public attendees and the facilitator or moderator has been established, it becomes very difficult for any opposition to be voiced without quickly being identified as a negative dissenter. In the midst of public meetings, most people want to be viewed favorably by those in the community, individuals they may consider co-workers, friends and even neighbors. Given that most people have an overwhelming desire to be liked, the last thing they want is to endure negative or disparaging perceptions, or worse yet, to be thought of as one who should be ostracized from the community.

To anyone who has witnessed the Delphi technique in action, the immediate recognition will be made that the so-called facilitator is present to ensure from the outset the predetermined agenda will be readily embraced and minimally or never challenged. Facilitators are well-trained to recognize and immediately minimize or eliminate all perceived dissent to the predetermined agenda. Although cast to appear as a neutral party, the facilitator is charged with making certain the predetermined agenda will in fact receive minimal or preferably no dissent, and in doing so is keen to identifying prospective attendees that may have a tendency towards a dissenting position. In many cases, a list of attendees is collected in advance through online sign-ups, giving the facilitators, in cooperation with public officials a chance to compile or consult personality profiles based upon digital data sets culled from a variety of sources such as social media profiles, voting and medical records, and even credit history, making the process of identifying possible dissenters to the predetermined agenda quicker and more efficient. Streamlining this process even further is the separation of meeting attendees into various discussion panels overseen by additional group moderators.

Now, this is the element of the Delphi method representing something of a paradox.  Dividing meetings into separate discussion or moderator control groups may serve to more fully mitigate dissent, but this process also exposes the technique’s Achilles heal.  While in the discussion groups, not only are the moderators well trained to direct the discussion towards the desired predetermined agenda, but encourage the participants to then put into writing their own concerns or ideas, while at the same time further pacifying or outright discouraging any remaining dissenting voices or opinions.

Of course, the participants never recognize their written remarks, collected by the moderators for further later discussion, were more than subtly directed, no matter how seemingly contrarian, towards falling within parameters that will support the predetermined agenda. This is the aspect of the Delphi method the public never seems to question. The public is never privy something may be amiss with regard to their participation in what appears to be the making of public policy.

After all, one can never be too certain their individual ideas, concerns or disagreements are ever part of the final consensus. And that folks, is where the true cleverness lies with the entire concept of the Delphi technique.

The process is never challenged, because each participant is more likely to conclude they were in the minority, and thus the moderators and organizers are free to communicate to the participants, and hence the community at large, the conclusions, or consensus, was wholly due to the result of public participation. Everyone present at the meeting returns home thinking that indeed, the democratic process is still alive and well in America, when in truth, public opinion and public policy has been manufactured towards a predetermined outcome desirable to the organizers and public officials who shall benefit most. Don’t think for one minute folks this is some new development. For, although the Delphi method has been utilized in one form or the other for decades, it is only recently the technique has been streamlined and perfected.

Go ahead folks, do your own research on this, or better still, one can attend a local town hall meeting and observe the Delphi technique in action-first-hand.