No products in the cart.


The Delphi Technique: Let’s Stop Being Manipulated!

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 predetermined 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 likable person with whom those participating in the meeting can agree or sympathize.

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—or ‘breakout’—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 reconvened.

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 reassembled 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 reread 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.






  1. “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.”

    Go one more step with this. Due to the “Administrative Procedures Act” being a thorn in their side, they will usually have a database of folk they want present at the meeting. You have to be vigilant and active, but if you can get your group together and write up your narrative ahead of time, just simply give a copy to all in the group. The facilitator will limit time per person if they see a large contingency show up, but you can beat it. Designate who talks in what order and bring a marker to see where you last person left off, then continue the narrative when it’s your turn. Remember to mark points of contention on the back of your copy so you can rub the facilitator upside down later. Know this, they are putting “Special Meetings” notices out just days before and usually scheduling them at 3 or 4pm, so your chance of attendance is hindered. Yes I learned that from the most vile of the vile! ;)) Don’t laugh, it works, just ask an Environmentalist….

    May be preaching to the choir here, but the APA was passed in 1947, I believe. Why is that important? Well, in 1920 Prohibition was passed by Amendment. Think about that for a second. This Republic was formed in part by Rum Runners, and they knew they couldn’t regulate around the Constitution, it would have absolutely violated the 9th and 10th Amendments. Of course it was repealed in 1933. The very next year the NFA was passed, totally violating the Constitution, perhaps every of the first 10 Amendments. Who was going to argue during the Depression?

    Then in 1942 Wickard V. Filburn the SCOTUS found that regulatory agencies did have Title of Nobility enough to make punitive regulations outside the legislative process. Shortly thereafter the APA was passed so as to give the people a voice and very little other. Who was going to argue, we just kicked butt in WW2? Fast forward to today where “Titles of Nobility are handed out to Regulatory Agencies which perform Bills of Attainder on a regular basis. In fact, some agencies have their own Kangaroo Courts now……Oh, excuse me, “Hearing Boards.” You all know what it’s become, but that’s where we need to go back to. At least in the short term……

    1. I’ve seen this in action, sometimes to divide and conquer any resistance or single voice that is outspoken. It can be condescending and out right cruel how some people are treated with total disdain and disrespect.

      Once again we see the need to strip these agencies of their “rule” making without the voice of we the people. It’s a huge battle to take back our rights. The treachery is outlandish.

  2. Huh! great history lesson Greg,and Nancy I have not heard of any of this.I have wondered how so much of Agenda 21 has gotten by so many people,I thought (especially) after all of the communistic subversion dancing,punching and destroying property, that the majority of the country had gone commie and people like you and me had turned into a bunch of couch potato wimps.But after hearing this it seems that these one’s are as stelthfull as the serpent in the garden.Amazing! whodathunkit.

    1. Hey Charlie, here’s some of the instruments they are using to side step society. I will put some terms in quotations, if you have time search them, it will be worth your time.

      Am starting with “Home Rule,” you know it as “Centralized Command and Control.” Almost everything you know about Progressive Environmentalism is performed through home rule, or a form there of. The supposed opposite is “Wise Use,” which you know about from the Malheur situation, and loosely translates to “Place Based Land Use Solutions.” Believe it or not, Wise Use has been hijacked by the Conservationists as well.Land Planners; here in the Tri Cities (and possibly in Spo) they have discarded (in two cases) our Land planning boards in favor of a single Planner from Everett.

      Home Rule is when there is a Centralized Plan, that the outlying areas utilize as a jumping off point. Of course everything has to be reported to the higher ups, and is subject to review and revision. It comes from “Environmental Management Systems.” Search that at the EPA. Essentially, Corporations and other large entities are “allowed” to run their own show and report the Central figure every so often, so that new plans of action and revisions can be made. There is an international version called “ISO 14001.” There’s your Agenda 21! The Globalist Corporations don’t mind the setting up of “EHS” divisions, which operate under this home rule system because it strains out the small business community. The paperwork alone is daunting. This would be the over regulation that Trump speaks of. Add to this that it “Quarters” Environmentalists right into the fabric of the corps. This is how they are pushing all the global corps progressive, incrementally.

      Land and Land Use agreements. There is a large push (especially here in WA) for the State to accrue land, but there are some entities that get grants to do the same. “Trust for Public Land” and “The Nature Conservancy.” They have more methods for devaluing property before they purchase than I could shake a stick at, but they mostly use “Land Use Agreements.” Remember the wise use I mentioned, they do under the guise of Wise Use, but really it’s a form of Home Rule. They simply buy up small tracts, get their Enviro buddies to go to all the meetings, use that technique I mentioned and force all the land owners in the vicinity to live down to their standards. I call it the Land of NO!

      Here is a local example; Our local Environmental groups sought to preserve a small tract of land, which as it turns out is a run off ditch for the Kennewick Irrigation District. What they are doing is setting up a classical “Green Belt.” Search “Smart Growth.” Portland Or used to be the poster child for this, but lost it’s place because it wasn’t progressive enough. Smart Growth and Agenda 21 go hand in hand for the local restructuring. Anyway, the city of Kennewick tried to interrupt the Green Belt by setting aside/ rezoning 1,400 acres for commercial development. A group named “Futurewise” near Everett interrupted the project via the courts saying that not all land use was considered and that taking that land from farming posed a problem. They added that they “felt” that the Tri Cities had not proven a need to rezone for commercial purposes, and won! Search “Washington State Growth Management Hearing Board,” and “Shoreline Hearings Board.” They both originate from the “Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office.” Read some of their arbitrary decisions, that no one knew about. It will twist you off! For all those in different states, you have them as well.

      Here’s another instrument that I recently learned about. It turns out that the EPA is suggesting to their Environmental Group buddies, that they sue the EPA on the front side for any regulations they want changed. Here’s how it works; Groups sue the EPA (on our dime), the EPA pretends to fight it, then turn it over to the Dept. of Justice. The DOJ has their own enviro wing that mitigates with the enviro lawyers, behind the scenes, and ultimately settles, never going to court. This forces the EPA to make a regulation, so it doesn’t happen again, and the DOJ pays out huge sums of money to the Environmental Litigants. It’s a twofer…..all on our dime!

      These instruments of Governmental abuse are exactly why I believe using the terms in the Constitution when talking to our youth and progressives is important. Title of Nobility, Bill of Attainder, Ex Post Facto, the Contract Clause, Interstate Clauses, all of it. Then be ready to explain where it comes from. Most people don’t even read the Constitution, let alone take the time to have rudimentary understand of its purpose.

  3. Thanks, Greg and Charlie. “They” have to lie and deceive to push their agenda through. For me, it goes against the grain to start out assuming I’m being lied to. But that’s where I am when I’m dealing with people who believe, “The ends justify the means.”

    1. The paradigm of false choices. This may be of interest to for this conversation. The NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) has utilized the Delphi Technique since the early 70’s. This speaks to Charlie’s comment as well.

      Nixon signed the Act in 1970 (if memory serves), just after the EPA was formed. I may have that backwards. BTW the EPA was originated and manned by all the excess lawyers from all the other agencies. Got that tid-bit from my Eviro Policy instructor, that had served in the EPA shortly after it was formed. Point is, they set up a process which as they put it, “considers the Environment.” The ink wasn’t even dry before the Natural Resources Defense Council entered suit against the EPA. Not only that, they got “Standing” in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Environment. As you may have noticed the Environmentalists and Conservationists have been bringing suit on our dime ever since. In fact read the comment I will write to Charlie in a minute to see how far this has come.

      Here’s how it goes; Any time the Government and for that matter, major corps have an issue dealing with: Land use, Species of all sorts, or Water/Air/Soil, there has to be an assessment performed and a ROD (Record of Decision) put on file. They form a “Working Group” comprised of the Agency, supposed stake holders, companies performing the task, and often special interest agents. This working group decides which level of assessment (I, II, III) is to be performed. Then they either generate typically 4 possible “Action Plans,” one of which is “No Action,” or a FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact). FONSIs used to be rare, but not so much any more. To your point, those 4 action plans are generally based on false choices, based on the land of “NO.” If you go to these “Scoping Hearings” that is if they actually have it in the location that it should be based upon. You will only be able to submit a written comment if, and only if, you fill out their proper paperwork first. Believe this, they don’t want any new ideas floated around, especially to a group of stakeholders that may forward a different course of “Action” based on this crazy idea. The fix is always in! Here’s two examples from my own experiences.

      Wolf Management Plan in WA State. As luck would have it. I was in Environmental Assessment class when the WDFW brought the last hearing on our Wolf Plan to Spokane. It was scheduled for Seattle, I believe, but due to some seriously angry ranchers in NE Washington, they Brought it to Spokane. I had been following the plan because my paper was going to be on that very subject.

      Personally, I don’t believe in the “Box.” If I can’t see it, touch it, or it doesn’t touch me, it doesn’t exist. So of course I wrote up a new idea. Seeing how the WDFW had been buying up private property on our dime, and this plan needed a cost effective solution due to a “Double Indemnity” clause for animal replacement, then why not have some animal husbandry on those DNR and WDFW lands? It not only would have been cost effective, but the animals could have been replaced with similar aged animals. We often overlook the cost and effort of raising the animals in the first place. I handed it to the Facilitator as I walked in. Never to hear back from them. Believe it or not, this is not the best part.

      This meeting originated so that the Ranchers and the Colvilles could have their say. In the middle of the scientists (I used that loosely) babble to say how good the plan was, they introduced the tribe Game Warden. He told them; “We will follow the recommendation of the WDFW and USFWS are far as it suits us.” He mentioned the Northern half” about 10 times on purpose (long story), and dropped the “We live in 90% poverty on the reservation” bomb. Heck, I’m surprised he didn’t plant a totem right there in the meeting room. I really like that guy!

      Then the scientists went on giving the crowd all the advantages the plan provided for. The ranchers were to speak at 2:30ish. At 2:30pm the Working group went around the horn to tell everyone of their accomplishments, not only for this supposed plan, but their whole life stories. The Wolf Biologist (about 30yrs old) spent about 45 minutes telling everyone how great he was. Basically they stalled out the ranchers until very few spoke to deaf ears.

      Here’s a more recent issue that’s literally in my back yard. I will be brief, promise. Snake River Dams. The mouth of the Snake is literally right across the Columbia from me. They did an Environmental Assessment, and then a judge in Portland, OR (about 240 miles down the Columbia) decided that the Environment wasn’t dutifully considered by removal of the dams. So, they are doing the process over (on our dime of course). This will tie into the note to Charlie in just a minute, about front loading regulations. They weren’t going to have a meeting in the Tri Cities, which is easily the most impacted by the removal should it happen, but group pressure forced a meeting here. They said we could come and comment. Oh, boy do I have an idea! I wrote it up as if I would get to speak, shortening it to fit a “Facilitated Minute.” Don’t know if you have been to a college researcher’s poster event, but this room looked like that on steroids. All their scientific facts and figures posted everywhere, but what struck me was the “orientation” on the NEPA process, that explained less than I have at this point. Then I walked into this little room where the comments could be “Heard” to find out they had a tiny suggestion box and their special forms with a field about 7″ X 4″ in size to make your comment. I walked up looked at the box and Annette Cary (a super progressive environmentalist reporter) was standing there. I jammed the comment in the box knowing it wasn’t set up for speaking, only boxed comments and left. Point is, it’s almost impossible to sway anyone unless you are on the inside, but we must try to ingrain ourselves. I’m definitely blackballed, but you all may be able to penetrate their progressive thin skin. NJack has, God Bless him!

  4. I went to a state wide hearing on the use of microchips for tracking public property. I was not invited, but had flown the person who was and sort of invited myself in. It turned out it was a sales job to convince everyone in government the microchips are good. Questions were controlled with a similar process to diminish resistance. Toward the end of the brainwashing seminar, I quietly asked the table I was at if they were as individuals ready to be “micro-chipped”…and their new born chipped at birth…ohhh…did the wheels start turning in all directions. Anyway, had a nice flight home with my new baseball cap they were handing out. lol

    1. Great Job! That’s exactly why they give everyone false choices. You’ve seen this in real time. When something outside their Agenda in introduced, the public gets educated and they may be forced to go with the will of We the People. They hate it! To your point, have you noticed our congress persons sending out emails with vote tallies. They give an “Either; Or” false choice and a “Not Sure” box? Where’s the “Other” choice?

      Will add this; Trump just suggested “Biometric ID” for Refugees and Immigrants. I know I don’t have to suggest to this group where this will lead. It seems like everyday we hear about a new piece of 20’s- 30’s Germany being put into operation, just by an updated form.

Comments are closed.