Conspiracy Analysts

When someone is labeled a conspiracy theorist, what is your first impression? Most people think of a hysterical person who fears that just about everything is a plot, without any proof of his "delusional" or paranoid fears and conclusions.



While this can be the case with certain truly paranoid individuals, for the most part the term "conspiracy theorist" is used to cast doubt as to the sanity of individuals who are trying to expose authentic plots and crimes. "Conspiracy Theorist" has become a derogatory term often used by controlled opposition.Those who want to conceal their criminal actions often place this label on those who are getting uncomfortably close to the truth.Often, those doing the name calling are the ones to be suspicous of. As a friend often tells me "The smeller is the feller"


I propose what I think is a much more appropriate title for those of us who are concerned about the increasing crimes against humanity. I really like the respectable sound of "Conspiracy Analyst". This title represents what concerned citizens are really doing.... analyzing the facts, putting the pieces together,and trying to make sense of them.


It is not wrong, silly or paranoid to question and analyze events that harm others. On the other hand, it is "wrong" and actually very dangerous NOT to question and analyze. Don't be afraid to speak your mind. Don't let propaganda and labels keep you from sharing your doubts and suspicions. Ask for divine guidance when it comes to acquiring wisdom in these matters.


A very wise man once said.... "Ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you Free!

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome & Activism Concerns

The following post is from a person who has personal experience with the Incline Village Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) outbreak. After years of observation and frustration, this is Erik's conclusion. I agree with Erik and feel that the tactics he speaks of below are widely used in medical/health activism. Controlled opposition can be defined as individuals and or groups which are formed to look as though they are set up to promote causes, monitor outbreaks, find cures and to help make proper treatments available.....BUT, instead their purpose is to thwart any positive action.This intentional obstruction of any forward movement can be due to conflicts of interests, political agendas and other monetary goals

Since the very inception of the syndrome, the CDC has conducted a masterful performance of controlling (limiting) the dissemination of information.


The tactic has always been the same.


To stay just on the ragged edge of credibility by slowing the release of, and claiming credit for information that has reached a level in which it can no longer be denied.


For this purpose, instead of looking to the actual "CFS doctors", a surrogate "spinmaster" is proffered as the person to whom patients should look for information.


From Stephen Straus on, a chain of individuals have been placed in charge of "CFS" as the "thought leaders".


As we saw with Dr Reeves "whistleblowing", things are not always as they appear.


The very "CFS advocates" and "CFS organizations" who appear to be working on behalf of pushing information forward are, in fact, acting as obstructionists and reshaping history by a carefully crafted presentation of partial-information.


This is so unbelievable to the unwary public that it seems utterly inconceivable, and even sounds "conspiratorial".


The only means of knowing whether a person who is in the position of a "thought leader" is being perfectly straightforward is to know the history well enough to observe whose interests are truly being served by the presentation of information, and whether certain critical facts are being held back.


One may notice the peculiar way these "thought leaders" give lip-service to the history and evidence generated by doctors who pioneered the CFS field, and yet still seem to put an amazing slant on it as if we're not really sure, nothing proves anything, and everything is in doubt, usually because it is not "replicated" in all and sundry persons diagnosed with CFS.


One would think that "thought leaders" would be very close to the noted CFS researchers, and yet there is a strange distance.


Combined with this is an almost uncanny way that the thought leaders seem to be slightly more connected to the CDC...


even as they seem to be strongly criticizing the CDC.


It takes many repetitions before the average CFSer realizes that this cannot be an accident, when it is so consistently done.


-Erik Johnson
Incline Village "observer" of misinformation

TEACH OTHERS HOW TO DEFEND AGAINST SOCIAL MANIPULATION AND CONTROL

We are intentionally being bombarded by many crises and issues at once. This is for the purpose of creating chaos....then "order" out of chaos. It is almost impossible humanly to reach everyone and warn them about every issue. I have learned from Bobby Garner at www.congregator.net that it makes more sense to learn the tactics of deception for onself and then when one is able to decipher and "see through" certain agendas which SEEM to be "for the good"...then to go out and share with others those tools that you used to avoid manipulation and brainwashing. We can't try to save the world all by ourselves. We must let others join us in uncovering the error of mortal mind.

Many movements sound well meaning and we all get caught up sometimes in the mystery and fascination of it all...I know I have. I believe the key to remaining grounded is to ask the Creator to give us wisdom so that we don't wander off the narrow path. We need to thoroughly investigate any group or ideology we want to take part in. I was communicating today with Bobby Garner and have his permission to share his logical response.

"Be aware, but not deeply involved. What works best for me is to look past all of the "issues" and don't be sidetracked by them. They are in my opinion designed to be appealing and important, but are in fact unimportant, because the resolution of them is part of the dialect to achieve the predetermined outcome. My advice is try to stay focused on the big picture and as the issues develop and pass by, notice how they fill in some of the detail.

I think divine guidance is important, but only in conjunction with good cognitive thought processes. I believe the True God will not violate our good sense, but will allow us to make mistakes and see the results of our error. It's up to us to make the necessary corrections. The world is following many gods, who allow nearly any thought or no thought at all. They are gods of error and they reward error such that no one ever sees the need for correction.
"
I would encourage you to visit Bobby's website at the link above and the "activism concerns" at my blog
http://lymesentinel.blogspot.com/search/label/Activism%20Concerns

When we learn the tools of deception, we can no longer be deceived and taken advantage of.

Using Spiritual Principles To Expose

Date: Wednesday, 4 March 2009, 10:37 a.m.

The only way that those in power can continue to have control over us is to manipulate the public through tactics of fear and deception. Once we are able to see through these tactics or methods, then we can take back control of our own lives. We need to to educate ourselves in order to become empowered...empowered for "Good". Learning these tactics should not be for the purpose of using them back on what or who we perceive the enemy to be. This only perpetuates hate, fear and a struggle for power.

Exposing propaganda and other means of control will naturally begin to dissolve the "evil" or error. However, in order for this to truly work, we need to "uncover" without a sense of revenge or hate. We need to be examples and to try and show those whom we feel are misguided....that we don't have to be stepped on or to suffer when we try and do what is right.

I believe that the very people who seem to need power and control, are the ones who are the most fearful. Perhaps they see a world where circumstances are ruled by chance.
Alinsky taught that the end justifies the means. In other words if evil deeds are needed to accomplish a goal that perpetrators perceive to be Good...then the evil means are justified.

This outlook is totally false and on the wrong track. Evil can NEVER produce Good. The Bible tells us that an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

Trying to expose in a way that has spiritual principles behind it, should be the goal. Then when we turn to God/Spirit for solutions.....the solutions or answers that come to us will benefit everyone. Every day is a new day and everyone has the choice and opportunity.... each day... to begin anew.

Manipulation and Coercion

What The Heck Is The Alinsky Method?
Being Used To Destroy Our Freedoms
Albert V. Burns

The education establishment in this country, at all levels, continually decries the absence of parental involvement in the everyday process of educating the young people of this country. We are asked to volunteer time to ease the burdens on the teachers. We are NOT expected to assume that we will have any input into decisions effecting what they will be taught or how the teaching process is to be done.

In the book, "Educating For The New World Order," the author, Bev Eakman points out repeatedly the necessity of the educationists to preserve the ILLUSION that there is: "Lay, or community, participation in the decision making process, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."

It is interesting, and EXTREMELY important to Americans, both as parents and as citizens, to clearly understand just HOW the "squeezing out" process takes place. It is a well defined, if not well perceived, process known as the "Alinsky Method" (which was derived from a procedure named as "The Delphi Technique.") This method of manipulating people is based on the fact that people in groups tend to share a common knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics known as "group dynamics."

In this process, one or more people known as "Change Agents" or "Facilitators" appear to be acting as organizers, "allowing" each person in the group to express their concerns about some program or policy under consideration. While this process is going on, people are urged to make lists or form into task forces. The Facilitator carefully notes which members of the group are leaders, which are "loud mouths" and which may be easily swayed to different viewpoints.

At a certain point, the previously friendly Change Agent begins to act as "devil’s advocate," becoming an agitator. The process involves playing one part of the group against another, the "divide and conquer" technique. Anyone who is not clearly in accord with the Facilitator’s agenda is made to appear ridiculous, inarticulate, ignorant or dogmatic. The idea is to make these members of the group angry thus escalating tensions. The end object being to shut opposition voices out of the group.
The "targets" of such manipulation rarely, if ever, realize how they are being manipulated. If they do suspect, they generally have no idea how to defeat the process.

This method is being used at all levels of government to force meetings toward PRESET conclusions. There are three steps to defeating this process. They are simple to learn, if not always easy to put into practice since the Facilitators are well trained in agitation techniques.

The first rule is: Always be charming, pleasant and courteous. SMILE! Speak in a normal voice to avoid seeming to be belligerent or aggressive.

Rule No. 2 is to STAY FOCUSED! Write your question or statement down in advance to help you stay on track. These Change Agents are trained to twist the conversation around to make the questioner appear foolish or belligerent or aggressive. The idea being to put the questioner on the defensive. Be careful! As mentioned in Rule 1, always be charming, pleasant and courteous (if it kills you to do so!) Often an attempt will be made to change the subject, digress or distort your intent. Always bring them back to the question you asked! If they distort your question into what amounts to an accusation of them, simply state clearly and precisely: "That is NOT what I stated. What I asked was..."(here repeat your original question.) Do not be distracted or angered by their efforts to make you look bad.

Rule No. 3: BE PERSISTENT! When the Facilitator realizes that putting you on the defensive is not going to work, quite often he, or she, will go into some long drawn out discussion of some unrelated or only vaguely related subject. Such a discussion may drag on for a number of minutes. The intent being to have the crowd become bored and forget what the original question was. Let them run on, then very calmly, quietly but with determination drag them back to the subject by saying: "But you didn’t answer my question! My question was..."(again repeat your question.)

Never, NEVER allow yourself to become angry. Anger directed toward the Change Agent makes him or her the victim. Their object is to become liked by the crowd, to be seen as a friend by a majority of those present to convince that majority the ideas of the Facilitator are correct and acceptable.
With the increasing demand for education reform, increasing agitation among the public and more and more grassroots research exposing the defects in our current government indoctrination centers, also known as public schools, more and more people are being exposed to this Alinsky method of maneuvering public meetings toward preset goals. Somehow, people walk out of public meetings wondering just what happened - how were their ideas and objections so neatly derailed. This consistent pattern of manipulation of public meetings is causing concern about the corruption of the very process of government established by our Founding Fathers.

Next week we will examine some of the finer points of the Delphi Technique, how and why it was originally developed and how it is being used to destroy our freedoms.

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 18, 2002 issue of Ether Zone. Copyright © 1997 - 2002 Ether Zone.Reprinted by permission.

IS BUILDING A CONSENSUS ALWAYS A GOOD THING?

This article speaks more on the subject of the Delphi Technique. If people understand how they are being manipulated, they will begin to see when they are compromising their values due to tactical "persuasion". As the article talks about below, the Delphi Technique is often used to coax or sway people into accepting a preconceived goal. It is used by Think Tanks, Activism Groups, Government Agencies, Corporations, etc. The Delphi Technique can sound positive because it encourages people to work together to acheive consensus. But.....is consensus always good?

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Delphi.htm

THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE
For more info about the Delphi technique, run over to this page for an excellent discussion.
About two years ago, I ran across on the Net an article about the "Delphi technique," which was just a simple method developed obviously through time and motion studies to get people to agree with a certain course of action. That article indicated that Delphi was essentially "group brainwashing" so that the "system" could achieve agreement regarding a pre-determined conclusion and course of action. The article was enlightening, but I threw it away.

Shortly thereafter, a friend of mine to whom I had e-mailed the article attended an "Agenda 21" meeting in Birmingham and there he saw the Delphi method brazenly used out in the open. He immediately reported back to our group his discovery. This prompted me to watch for more such instances, which came when Henry Lamb of Eco-Logic told me that this technique was used at the international meetings of the environmentalists. Henry attends all the international meetings of these creeps and stated that "consensus" building was used to get these groups to agree upon a pre-determined plan; Henry deserves applause for all his hard work fighting these tyrants. But in any event, Delphi is frequently used by powerful organizations to manipulate professional groups and others to agree with the wishes of the masters.

I have been watching for any article about Delphi to cross my desk and recently one such article came. The below article was apparently written by some teacher who is aware of the use of Delphi upon teachers to get them to agree with NWO plans. Here is that article, slightly cleaned up:
"The Rand Corporation in the early sixties developed the "Delphi Technique" for the purpose of maneuvering segments of the public into accepting pre-determined government policies. In the seventies and eighties, it was used to convince land owners of the merits of accepting general land use planning maps. Now it is being employed to persuade the public to accept Outcome Based Education and the licensing of all employees via endorsements in the Certificate of Initial Mastery ("CIM") and Certificate of Advanced Mastery ("CAM") programs, a/k/a "School to Work."

"The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input under the pretext of being accountable to the public. For Delphi to work, it is critical that the targeted group be kept away from knowledgeable people who could lead them away from the Delphier's pre-determined outcome.

"One variation of the Delphi technique is to use a series of meetings. The attendees are often given a number or a colored card when they enter the room, to determine at which table they are to sit. The purpose of this is to break up the groups of potentially knowledgeable people who arrive together so that they will be sitting with strangers and therefore be subdued.

"Typically, at each table is a facilitator, someone who will know which way to help "steer" the group. Usually, the people at each table are instructed to answer among themselves some of the questions and arrive at a table consensus. Someone is chosen to speak for the table, and most of the time it is the person who has been secretly pre-briefed about the desired Delphi outcome. The table spokesperson is the only one allowed to address the podium and the others have little opportunity to address the podium or the crowd directly.

"Anyone knowledgeable enough, or brave enough, to speak out in opposition will not be welcomed. Often they are told from the podium "we don't have time to discuss that now," or "we discussed that on another date," or "we can discuss that after the meeting." They will attempt to quiet, isolate and discredit dissenters. After attending the Delphi meeting, participants may feel that they are in disagreement with the apparent majority. The Delphi technique is often successful in bluffing people into submission. Don't let them succeed. Call their bluff.

"The Delphi technique often uses a series of surveys to bring about "consensus." The surveys are promoted as information gathering regarding the wishes of the targeted public, but in reality they are designed to manipulate the desired outcome. The survey will sometimes use gradings like: "agree all of the time; agree most of the time; agree some of the time; agree not much; agree never." Or the survey grading will ask the respondents to use ratings like "most important, moderately important, least important."

"The questions are typically "loaded" questions. An example is the question asked of Oregon teachers on a Delphi technique survey: "Do you agree or disagree that the following elements of H.B. 3565 [Oregon's Education Act for the 21st century] will lead to improved student learning if implemented?" The survey listed such items for the teachers to agree or disagree with: "site councils," "increased accountability for school sites and districts," "full funding for preschool programs to enable all students to enter school ready to learn," "extended school year," "Certificate of Initial Mastery," et cet. The questions are patently loaded. For example, site councils are not charged with improving student learning as their function is to implement the state law, dole out professional development courses and money to selected teachers, and apply for grants from foundations and the federal government. For the teachers to answer agree or disagree that the site councils will lead to improved student learning is misdirecting the respondent.

"The Delphi surveys "educate" the people taking the survey. After the first survey is taken, the respondents are given an analysis and told that most people agreed or somewhat agreed on the pre-determined outcome. Then usually they are given another survey and asked if they can be flexible and try to rethink the "few remaining" areas of disagreement. When the series of surveys are accomplished, the respondents are told that the majority of respondents achieved "consensus" with whatever direction the pollers wanted in the first place.

"These techniques were developed decades ago. The Rand Corporation has more recently been developing games that groups of business people, council members, organizations, et cet, can use to help "sell" people on collectivism, consensus vs. majority rule, et cet.

"Never, ever compromise when it comes to "right and wrong." With the right attitude you shouldn't care what people think, as long as you are standing up for what is right. Accept persecution gracefully."
End.

HERBS FOR LYME DISEASE & GENERAL HEALTH
http://www.1shoppingcart.com/app/?af=1097153

The Delphi Technique: Crucial To Understand

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.

Always be charming. Smile. Be pleasant. Be Courteous. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.
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.
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 will 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 cry from the populace at large. Eerily, this scenario held great similarity to what has been 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 lets 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 non-directive, neutral, non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to move the meeting to 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, lets move on to the semantics of the meeting.

It is imperative to the success of the agenda that the participants like the facilitator. Therefore, the facilitator first works the crowd to cause dis-equilibrium-establishing 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 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 the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting is established without the audience ever being aware of it.

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 complied by others. Herein lies a very large problem. Who complies 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." Oh-h! The next question - 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 situation If you have fifty people in a room, each writes his/her ideas and dislikes on a sheet of paper, to be complied 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 well being 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 well being of the agenda that the people perceive that their input counts.

This scenario is being used very effectively to move meetings to 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. The reality is the outcome was already established by others, but this is not apparent to the citizen participants.

Controlled Opposition Groups

Grassroots vs Astroturf
by Emma Holisterwww.artmargin.com July 26, 2006


The following is a brilliant article that looks at aspects of one of the most controversial topics in grassroots activism: the conspiracies between the human rights grassroots associations and the big industry and government groups they oppose.

I am occasionally accused of being a trouble maker because I denounce the 'Controlled Opposition Groups' (COGs) in our midst. These are activist associations / groups that have strong ties to industry and big government, that pose as true grassroots organisations, 'helping the people, for the people, by the people', but who are leading their often well intentioned members off the cliff and into oblivion with political actions that are doomed to failure and with false statements that create confusion and conflict amongst the true grassroots organisations. These doomed actions and false statements have to be denounced by true grassroots groups, who are then accused of 'creating conflict in our political movement'. We have our fingers rapped, and are told off for not realising that we are all 'on the same side', that we shouldn't be critisising and fighting eachother, because that's how the enemy will win, through the divide and conquer strategy. This 'scoulding' can go so far as to take the form of repeated threats, abusive harrassment, lawsuits and even death threats.

However, if we let the Controlled Opposition Groups do their dirty work, without publicly denouncing them, they gain immense power, because of their government and industry contacts, and often become more popular and famous than the true grassroots organisations who are making real differences in the world of activism and legislation to protect our human rights.

Controlled Opposition Groups play on emotion, on personal friendships, on power. Once a group or well known activist individual or association chairman / woman has been taken in by a COG, often it is quite simply pride alone, or need for money, that stops them from admitting they've backed a lame horse and are leading their thousands of well intentioned members astray, with actions and statements that destroy the true activist groups and protect the big industry they are claiming to oppose.

Emma Holister
www.artmargin.com

http://www.thenhf.com/articles_331.htm Read More

25 Rules of Disinformation

How to Fight Back and......

8 Traits of The Disinformationalist: What to Look For ......by H. Michael Sweeneycopyright (c) 1997, 2000, 2001 All rights reserved (Edited June 2001)

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy.

There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases. .......Read More.....http://www.congregator.net/pages/truth.html