-1-

The Varnish of Democracy

A Parliament of Owls by Scott Gustafson

- A root that beareth gall and wormwood -

It is possible to observe continuity, via Freemasonry, from the earliest times. As long as
the Messianic Kingdom of Peace has not been established, it will be an ineradicable phe-
nomenon. But this does not mean that we must take it lying down. It constitutes an im-
portant task for Christendom. If we can speak of ecumenicity, then it is certainly in this
field. No thought of syncretism, for Freemasonry is the anti-church, from which the
centre of evil takes up into itself the fallacies, the lies, the hypocrisy, the weakness and
the tricks of every time demon. This article will first point to the continuity of this school
of thought, which is raised like a fist against God, even from the first rebellion in Para-
dise. Then the methods employed by Freemasonry will be demonstrated, methods where-
by its members – generally unaware – set off along the path of the achievement of matu-
rity in evil-doing. Higher-placed Freemasons continually evaluate the members, without
the members being aware of it. Those regarded as unsuitable for higher things remain in
the kindergarten. But these people too are functional, since thanks to them an image of
respectability is gained, respectability to which Freemasonry has no claim whatsoever.

1 – No giving in to heathen practices

Two covenants have been made. The first at Horeb, with much violence and lightning.
The people, mentally immature, had little choice, like a baby at baptism. Once the
people had reached the age of reason, a confirmation of the covenant was required.
After the forty-year trek through the desert, like many long years of schooling, they
were confronted with their Amni Mitzvah, which means ‘the people of the command-
ments’. Bar Mitzvah means ‘the son of the commandments’. When he reaches the age
 -2-

of thirteen years, a boy becomes Bar Mitzvah because from that moment he must fol-
low the Jewish laws and from that time on the responsibility for his own deeds falls on
his shoulders and not on those of his father. From the time of the Amni Mitzvah the
people of Israel were to assume responsibility for their own deeds. The people/High
priest relationship was to change. The mollycoddling phase was over, and Moses could
take his rest. During the second celebration of the covenant Moses said (Deut. 29:17-
18): “You saw the abominations of the peoples through whom you passed. So that there
may not be among you man or woman or family or tribe whose heart turns away from
the Lord our God to go and serve the gods of these nations and that there may not be
among you a root bearing bitterness or wormwood!” The poisonous root, known as al-
sem, means that giving way to idolatrous and heathen practices leads to corruption of
the community and disturbs the relationship with God. Here we refer to Acts 8:23, in
the chapter on Simon Magus.

Men roept: Zelfjustitie heeft geen plaats in onze rechtstaat

Anders gesteld: “Recht in eigen hand heeft geen plaats in onze rechtstaat.” Dit
houdt dus in dat een burger géén recht op eigen recht heeft, bijvoorbeeld om
eigen of andermans lijf, leden of goed te beschermen. Dit is één van de vele
bewijzen dat een staat die dit principe hanteert, zoals de Nedelandse, n i e t een
rechtstaat is omdat die het grondrecht van ieder mens: bescherming van eigen
leven, lijf en goed, niet erkent, te beginnen bij het vogelvrij verklaarde ongeboren
leven. Voorts: De omschrijving van een rechtstaat is: “Staatkundige éénheid
waarbinnen het gezag van de overheid gebonden is aan rechtsregels en waarin
ieder afzonderlijk persoon alsmede alle daarin aanwezige gemeenschappen erop
kunnen vertrouwen dat die rechtsregels van kracht zijn en door de overheid wor-
den toegepast en nageleefd.” Ieder die ook maar een beetje het nieuws volgt,
weet dat de ambtenaren die ‘de overheid’ vormen, waaronder in eerste plaats de
voortdurend liegende regeerders, die door en door corrupt en naar recht volko-
men verrot zijn. Ieder dient dan ook te weten dat het een leugen is dat Nederland
een rechtstaat is en dat het een leugen is dat Nederland een ‘democratie’ is.
Ofwel dat het een dubbele leugen als we zeggen: “Nederland is een democra-
tische rechtstaat”.
Reactie van een zekere Gerard op Xandernieuws, 27 aug. 2018

2 – The desire to become a god above God

Traditionally Simon Magus is regarded as the first ‘Christian’ Gnostic. Gnosis is the
theology of the heathen, traceable back to the ancient Egyptian gnosis, which is a not
implausible starting point. Simon’s ideas were elaborated by his disciple Valentinus to
become a philosophical system known as the Gnostic heresy. The details of the system
are reasonably well known. Characteristic of the system is its mixture of the Christian
and the heathen elements. It replaces facts by legends, expressing the legendary tales
and heathen myths in the language of Holy Writ. It names heathen gods by their bibli-
cal names for God and identifies idolatrous rites with Christian terms and notions taken
from Christian theology. Which explains why these ideas were so eagerly accepted by
Freemasonry’s philosophical workshops. Here I involuntarily think of the Beast of the
Book of Revelation that looks like the Lamb: “He had two horns like a lamb and spoke
like a dragon.” (Rev. 13:11) We are also obliged to think of the tactics employed by
the serpent in Paradise. Eve was seduced by him to become God’s equal through the
knowledge of good and evil. But how can that equality with God be wrong, since God
Himself created Man in His own image and likeness? The deep-rooted evil here lies in
the fact that the serpent persuades Man not to see the likeness to God as a gift but to
wilfully claim it – even worse, he must attempt to become a god above God, He who
 -3-

dares to set rules for us. For the apostate real freedom consists of doing precisely that
which God has forbidden. As the ex-Grand Master Alain Bauer expressed the core of
the matter:
«« We have to recognise that freedom can have two meanings: for the Christian it
is a means of attaining the good; for the Freemason it is an end, an aim, even
unbridled, that which leads to contradiction. Abortion, euthanasia and the
manipulation of embryos are the expression of a humanism without humanity, the
ferment of its own extinction. »» (1)

Via Freemasonry we can observe continuity from the earliest times. The conspiracy of
the proud heads that will bow to nothing was already in action, as witnessed by the
apostle Paul (II Thess. 2:7). Freemasonry has always denied this continuity in order to
support its contention that it means no evil, and that it is merely a continuation of the
honourable guilds. In “How Freemasonry Came into Being” the history of its birth is
exposed from the Collegia Vicentina in 1546 up to its official inauguration in 1717 with
the establishment in London of the Great Mother Lodge of the World. This account
shows clearly that the movement is diametrically opposed to Christendom, and is there-
fore a root that brings forth gall and poison. It is obvious that it is unsuitable for a
Christian to become a member, even if his involvement goes no further than mem-
bership of a social club, since that too is an aspect of Freemasonry.

Mgr. Mutsaerts surprises with his lecture about church and state
The Auxiliary Bishop of Den Bosch, the Netherlands, Rob Mutsaerts, spoke
in the weekend of April 1, 2015 at the annual conference of the Youth Organiza-
tion for Freedom and Democracy (JOVD) of the VVD political party.
Mutsaerts made it clear that the Roman Catholic Church is not in for a
government where the clergy exercise power, but that it considers the separation
of church and state important as long as the government guarantees freedom of
religion. He also made it clear that this does not mean that the church cannot
make political or moral statements: “So the separation of church and state does
not signify the separation of religion and politics, although that is a common
misconception. When the village pastor or bishop, or even the pope, expresses
an opinion on a subject that is currently on the agenda in politics, there is sure
enough someone who shouts that this is not permissable, saying: ‘there is sepa-
ration of church and state’. This is said as a ploy to silence all criticism.”
RKKERK.nl (website of the Roman Church in the Netherlands)

3 – A growth process towards a certain state of mind

The witness of the former Theosophist Marquès-Rivière, who left the Lodge around
1930, can teach us a great deal. He is still a much-quoted author on the subject of tan-
tric magic and esoteric traditions from the time before his conversion. In “Freema-
sonry’s Spiritual Betrayal” chapter he states:
«« As well as this religious aspect, we should also note in the atmosphere of
Freemasonry a mystical sort of anguish of a special kind: a search after the occult
(…) But I have to insist on the fact that Freemasonry was the source from which a
variety of sects drew their elements; for them it was a kind of preparatory school
(…) As well as Freemasonry, therefore, there was a multiplicity of sects that still
exist and whose organisation is derived from their common mother (…) There was
a counter-church, with its scriptures, its dogmas, its priests, and Freemasonry was
‘one’ of its visible aspects. (The writer goes on further:) I have acquired living
testimony, not of an occult plan, which would not be precise, but of the existence
 -4-

of an anti-traditional, anti-spiritual and anti-Christian mode of thought in the

deepest meaning of the words.»» (2)

In full awareness of its aims, the construction of Freemasonry is such that it stimulates
a growth process towards a spirit of opposition and a style of living opposed to God.
This rebellious attitude, this non-conformity – nothing is certain because Man is his
own measure – has become so penetrating and all-dominating that they can and will no
longer think otherwise – yea, they even think that God is pleased by their efforts. And
thus Jacques Mitterand, Grand Master of Freemasonry in France, stated the following:
“Freemasonry is nowhere, the Freemasons are everywhere.” (3)

4 – An organised form of bungling

Freemasonry offers a wide range of schools. Something for everyone. The many splits
within Freemasonry could perhaps give the impression that there is no uniformity
within the organisation and that coordinated political action is difficult to bring about.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Despite the formal and structural dividing lines – come about historically – between the
various obediences (umbrella organs), in the last few decades the latter have started to
collaborate even more closely in movements extending beyond national borders. This
was achieved through friendship alliances and informal agreements based on mutual
respect. This is a general tendency and easily demonstrable: those involved are not se-
cretive. Currently we can say that a fundamentally changed situation has come about
compared to forty years ago. This is not so surprising since it constitutes a confirmation
of a unity of thought that has always been present regarding the important aspects of
existence. The motto “Unity in diversity” is totally fitting here. The “striving for plura-
lity” thus means in Freemasonry jargon that an increased presence must be guaranteed
in one or other sector. As Jean-Luc Caradeau puts it: “This is the most difficult thing to
understand: that Freemasonry is divided, in pieces, and that innumerable organisations
claim the spirit of Freemasonry, and yet it is one and indivisible.” (4)

Should we trust what the media tell us?

Does Modern man’s view of reality match up with the Biblical portray of reality,
with the reality that Jesus lived in and of which He was constantly aware? The
world around us, as it is presented to us in the media, is not the whole of reality.
In fact, it is meant to distract and keep us from reality. Once we realize this, we
can begin to analyze the messages that bombard us on a daily basis for what they
are, satanic propaganda. Virtually any time we turn on the TV, look at a billboard,
open a newspaper, or surf the Internet, we are being lied to. If we agree that Sa-
tan is both the father of lies and the prince of this world (John 8:44), we should
not be surprised that in spite of our best intentions, we believe a lot of things that
are simply untrue. It is crucial to be humble enough to admit when we have been
deceived. So that we can see through Satan’s deception, and work to thwart his
agenda while we work to further the Kingdom of God, in anticipation of the re-
turn of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

“The New World Order and the Eugenics Wars” by Andrew John Hoffman
Believers Press – USA # 2009 (p.4)

The danger of the obediences lies in their apparent innocence, which makes people
more likely to join them. Within the different schools mediocrity and banality reign
supreme. And the petit bourgeois desire for promotion and honour rules the roost, with
its partisanship and bickering. Eating and drinking – that’s what they’re good at!
 -5-

Members with a little intelligence complain of the lack of quality and express their de-
sire for thinkers who rise above the common level of Freemasonry. The Lodges do
things differently everywhere and they want things to be different – and, indeed, in
some places they do in fact undertake very innocent activities. But in yet other places
the novices are grossly misled. In the end, with all their empty fussiness, they arrive at
a fountain that sends forth only waters of bitterness. And thus they constitute a body
outside Jesus Christ, through whom ‘alone’ every life is sanctified.

How then is the spirit of unity fostered? On a local level, in the so-called workplaces or
‘ateliers’, this is given shape by means of a tried and tested technique, known as the
Delphi Technique’ (see annex). This was developed for the U.S. Army Air Corps short-
ly after World War II, a method that has a striking resemblance with the ways within
Freemasonry, which may be just a coincidence, but I don’t think so. In a Lodge meeting
of any kind whatsoever there are always one or more Freemasons of a higher level
present, often without the ordinary members being aware of the fact. The higher mem-
bers are expected to visit lower-level Lodges and to put forward proposals, that they
themselves have received, and to suppress any alternatives, even reasonable ones, with
no means of achieving this being shunned. The tactic whereby a dissident is silenced by
being ignored or humiliated is usually sufficient. In this way, an invisible power can
pass on its decisions and obtain political power. A Freemason always knows what is
going on in the lower echelons, but whatever happens higher up is rather vague. When
members in mutual agreement participate in a lower-level meeting – which can be a
festive occasion or a dinner or an informal gathering – they will often be able to have
their proposals accepted without much opposition since the others are ignorant of the
higher aims. In order to impose their will on the foot soldiers they will take the time
required to do so, even if it takes a great deal of time. The decisions made higher up are
preferably pushed through in the form of step-by-step decisions, thereby obviating the
need for direct orders, so that the origin of the orders is not revealed and they will be
embraced because those involved believe that the decisions have been taken by them-
selves. In this way the evil ways of thought become an undetected part of the lower-
level members. Any individual, and the group he belongs to, is thus set on a path to-
wards maturity. After observed personal development, anyone regarded as suitable will
be invited to ascend to the next level. And though members are elected democratically
to the administrative functions, which represent the visible organisation, the strategic
functions are tacitly decided by the top, in a manner known as co-option. The electability
of members to some positions also falls under this heading.

And though we cannot speak of conspiracy in the usual meaning of the term, it is pos-
sible to perceive a hidden agenda and orchestrated deception. This deception has far-
reaching consequences. It is not just any old thing. “It is the anti-Church, whose centre
of evil adopts as its own the fallacies, the lies, the hypocrisy, the weakness and the
trickery of every demon of the times” (cf. A-K. Emmerick).

Thanks to similar techniques, a deception of this type has taken up its abode in the
democracies of the free West. (5) By way of illustration, 25% of the parliamentary
posts in France across all parties are occupied by Freemasons, while they represent only
0.2% of the population. It is high time for a separation of Freemasonry and State! As
matters are organised behind Freemasonry’s closed doors, so too things happen outside,
since in our political systems and public bodies structures have been created which
agree with this, the fruit of the French Revolution, which – as is well known – was
prepared in the secrecy of the Lodges. Do not be misled by the diversity of the political
spectrum, for the same diversity can be seen within Freemasonry, while the driving
force behind the different manifestations always remains the same.
 -6-

Tom Zwitser has the following to say about the democratic process, based on his book
worth reading, from 2010, which contains a summary of a number of facets of his
thesis yet to be published. It ties in beautifully with the foregoing: (6)
«« The [modern] state creates individuals who seem to make their own decisions,
but instead they follow the choices proffered by the state, and this explains why
they come to the fore while the state remains opaque in its inner workings. (…)
Democracy is always at the service of something that is realized [which the ruling
power wants to be realized], namely concentration of power. Society is organized
by the state and not by democracy, let alone by the people. Democracy turns out to
have always been its opposite, namely a way to widen the gap between the people
and the elite; democracy is choosing from a predefined list, after which voters are
also guided through a well-oiled and expensive marketing process to make the
[supposed] right choice [whereby undesirable alternatives are ignored and belittled
or inappropriately presented as dangerous to society]. It’s no longer about being
heard or about representing a supporters’ base; it’s about image and media. It’s
not about ‘what citizens think’, but about what they can be made to think. The
greater the sphere of influence on which the [so highly acclaimed] parliamentary
democracy operates – which is now slowly shifting from the nation-state to the
world-state [that of the New World Order] – the clearer it becomes that democracy
[as an operating principle] is becoming accessory. Democracy is literally an edge,
standing in between the state and the people. What the people are allowed to say
once every four or six years ultimately strengthens government power, to the
detriment of the people. It is a way of channeling the ‘demos’ (populace) in
directions favorable to the state [and that is why totalitarian states have been able
to join the democratic process seamlessly, as we have witnessed in Russia]. »»

Hubert Luns

[Published in “Profetisch Perspectief”, spring 2007 – No. 54]

[Published in “Positief”, November 2010 – No. 406]

Several sentences have been directly inspired by the writings of the venerable A-K. Emmerick.
 -7-

Notes
The abortion legislation organized by Freemasonry
(1) On 5th September 2005 the gynaecologist Alain Bauer officially left the Freemasons,
an occasion used by “Le Monde” to recognise his major contribution in preparing the
“Loi Veil”, the January 1975 legislation, which accorded the right to free abortion.
France was the first West European country to promulgate such a law. Since then Bauer
had been an influential activist in favour of the new bio-ethics in science (the right to
manipulate embryonic cells and so on). He publicly proclaimed his regret at such
actions and asked pardon of God and of men for his crimes in the service of Freema-
sonry. At the time he was Grand Master of the “Grand Orient of France”. Until recently
he was an advisor to Nicolas Sarkozy. In an interview in “L’Homme Nouveau” (no. 1356
dated 12th Nov. 2005) he explained how intensively Freemasonry had been involved in
preparing the “Loi Veil” and how the ‘brotherhood’ prepared the ground in all manner
of sly ways. The minister responsible, Simone Veil-Jacob, and her sister were the only
two members of their family that survived the German extermination camps. The
hecatomb of victims of abortion, meanwhile, has exceeded those of the Shoa by one
hundred times. For this reason the New York “Union of Orthodox Rabbis” expressed its
scandal at her presence in 2005 at the commemorations marking 50 years since the
liberation of Auschwitz.
More recently still, Dr. Pierre Simon, ex-Grand Master of the “Grand Lodge of
France” (1969-71 and 1973-75) stated in a radio interview with France Culture on
Monday 8th October 2007 the following, which is completely in line with statements
made by Alain Bauer – also, incidentally, with the revealing book that he wrote in 1979
entitled “De la vie avant toute chose” (Life above all else). Like Alain Bauer, Pierre
Simon is a gynaecologist. He was advisor to Simon Veil during the preparations for the
abortion legislation. He stated:
«« For forty years the struggle we have been waging has always been the same:
contraception, liberation of sexual behaviour, abortion, homosexuality and
euthanasia (…) We were supported by a large parliamentary brotherhood wishing
to drag mankind from multi-secular obscurantism, to descend from heaven on
earth. »»

(2) Jean Marquès-Rivière has various anti-Masonic books to his name. The volume
quoted bears the title “La trahison spirituelle de la franc-maçonnerie” (Freemasonry’s
spiritual betrayal) (Des Portiques # 1931, pp. 89-90), of which an extended version
appeared in 1941 (quote taken from pp. 240, 246-47, 255, 264); also “Les grands
secrets de la F.:M.:” (The great secrets of Freemasonry) (Baudinières # 1935) and Les
rituels secret de la franc-maçonnerie (Freemasonry’s secret rituals) (Plon # 1941).
 -8-

(3) Jacques Lafouge in Paris Match of February 15th 1996 on the occasion of his elec-
tion as Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France.

(4) Reference: “Guide de la Franc-Maçonnerie d’aujourd’hui” by Jean-Luc Caradeau -

Éd. Trajectoire, Paris # 2007 (p. 8): « C’est là le plus étrange à comprendre, la Maçon-
nerie est divisée, morcelée, d’innombrables organisations revendiquent la qualité
maçonnique, et pourtant elle est une et indivisible. »

A hidden agenda
(5) Politics too has a hidden agenda. Thus in the promulgation of the legislation on
contraception, nothing was said about people’s minds being made ready for abortion, in
the promulgation of the legislation on abortion, nothing was said about people’s minds
being made ready for euthanasia, in the promulgation of the legislation on euthanasia,
nothing was said about people’s minds being made ready for eugenic manipulation –
that is, at every stage of human development any malformed creature was to be thrown
away, such as the murder of infants who fail to achieve the level of a so-called dignified
existence. This is a term that fits anyone we leave in their misery without intervening,
but it is not fitting that we apply it to a human being, even in the first stages of its exis-
tence, in order to take away its right to life. God decides, and thus life itself is the justifi-
cation for life. In view of the decision-making process outlined above, it is extremely
difficult to trace the extent to which the politicians involved were aware of this hidden
agenda. Did Simone Veil know of its existence? Did Dutch Prime Minister Dries Van
Agt? We can only wonder…

(6) The theme of the thesis is “Western Culture from the late Middle Ages to the
present”. The booklet by Tom Zwitser “Delicious Flat World” is a private publication
under the auspices of Bitterlemmon # 2010 (pp. 172-73).

-
 -9-

.APPENDIX.

Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus

How it is leading us away from representative government
to an illusion of citizen participation

In group interactions the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving

consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known
as ‘facilitators’ or ‘change agents’, who are coaching the process. They delibera-
tely escalate tension among group members – it’s called polarisation – pitting
one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear ‘sensible’,
while making differing views appear ridiculous.

By Lynn Stuter (Nov. 1998)

• How the Delphi Technique works

The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle -
the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the
new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to ‘oneness of mind’ [consensus means
solidarity of belief], the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc.
In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views
and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new
thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and
support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual pro-
cess of evolution, ‘oneness of mind’ will supposedly occur.

In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus

on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as ‘facilitators’ or
‘change agents’, who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one
faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear ‘sensible’, while
making opposing views appear ridiculous.

In her book from 1991, “Educating for the New World Order” *), author and educator
Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve
the illusion that there is “community participation in decision-making processes, while
in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out”.

The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is
that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they dis-
play certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the
facilitator to apply the basic strategy.

The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in the group to express con-
cerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit
input from group members, form ‘task forces’, urge participants to make lists, and in
 - 10 -

going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to
identify the ‘leaders’, the ‘loud mouths’, the ‘weak or non-committal members’, and
those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes a professional agitator and the ‘devil’s advo-
cate’. Using the ‘divide and conquer’ principle, he manipulates one opinion against
another, making those who are out of step appear ‘ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inar-
ticulate, or dogmatic’. He attempts to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating
tensions. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. A proficient fa-
cilitator is able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in oppo-
sition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.

The Delphi Technique works! It is very effective with parents, teachers, school chil-
dren, and community groups. The ‘targets’ rarely, if ever, realize that they are being
manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the
process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group. Each individual has to make a
choice, for or against, in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the
process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought
during discussion. Soon, members from targeted group begin to adopt the idea as if it
were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.

• The Delphi Technique in the political arena

Consistent use of this technique to control public participation in our political system is
causing alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our
Founding Fathers (in the United States). Efforts in education and other areas have
brought the emerging picture into focus.

In the not-too-distant past, the city of Spokane, in Washington State, hired a consultant
to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city government. This development
brought a hue and cry from the local population. The ensuing course of action holds an
eerie similarity to what is happening in education reform. A newspaper editorial des-
cribed how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to ‘discuss’ what
they felt needed to be changed at the local government level. A compilation of the out-
comes of those ‘discussions’ influenced the writing of the city/county charter.

That sounds innocuous. But what actually happened in Spokane is happening in com-
munities and school districts all across the country. Let’s review the process that occurs
in these meetings.

First, a facilitator is hired. While his job is supposedly neutral and non-judgmental, the
opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to direct the meeting to a preset conclu-
sion.

The facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a good-guy-bad-guy scenario.

Anyone disagreeing with him must be made to appear as the bad guy, with the faci-
litator himself appearing as the good guy. To accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out
those who disagree and makes them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which sends a
clear message to the other participants that, if they don’t want the same treatment, they
must keep quiet. When the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator
becomes the good guy – a friend – and the agenda and direction of the meeting are es-
tablished without the audience ever realizing what has happened.
 - 11 -

Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups of seven or eight people. Each
group has its own facilitator. The group facilitators steer participants to discuss preset
issues, employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator.

Participants are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the
results, as promised, to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask par-
ticipants, you typically hear: “Those running the meeting compiled the results.” Oh-h!
The next question is: “How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper
was incorporated into the final outcome?” The typical answer is: “Well, I’ve wondered
about that, because what I wrote doesn’t seem to be reflected. I guess my views were in
the minority.”

That is the crux of the situation. If fifty people write down their ideas individually, to
be compiled later into a final outcome, no one knows what anyone else has written.
That the final outcome of such a meeting reflects anyone’s input at all is highly ques-
tionable, and the same holds true when the facilitator records the group’s oral com-
ments on paper. But participants in these types of meetings usually don’t question the
process itself.

Why hold such meetings at all if the outcomes are already established? The answer is,
because it is imperative for the acceptance of the ‘School-to-Work’ agenda, or the envi-
ronmental agenda, or whatever the agenda, that ordinary people assume ownership of
the preset outcomes. If people believe an idea is theirs, they’ll support it. If they believe
an idea is being forced on them, they’ll resist.

The Delphi Technique is being used very effectively to change our system of govern-
ment from a representative form, in which elected individuals represent the people, to a
‘participatory democracy’, in which citizens selected at large are steered towards ow-
nership of preset outcomes. These citizens believe that their input is important to the re-
sult, whereas the reality is that the outcome was already established – by people not ap-
parent to the participants!

• How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique

Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting
in a specific direction:
• Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not
to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

• Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or questions. When facilitators are
asked questions they don’t want to answer, they often digress from the issue that was
raised and try instead to put the questioner on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic.
Courteously bring the facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so
that it becomes an accusatory statement [a popular tactic], simply say: “That is not
what I asked. What I asked was…” and repeat your question.

• Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn’t work, facilitators often resort to
long monologues that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually
forgets the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish. Then
with polite persistence state: “But you didn’t answer my question. My question was…”
and repeat your question.
 - 12 -

Some other rules:

Never become angry under any circumstances. Anger directed at the facilitator will im-
mediately makes him a victim. This defeats the purpose. The goal of facilitators is to
make the majority of the group members think just as he wants them to think, and to
alienate anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of his agenda. People with
firm, fixed beliefs, who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, are obvious
threats. If a participant becomes a victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the
crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, and why
objections are written on paper rather than voiced aloud, where they can be open to
public discussion and debate. The whole process is called ‘crowd control’.

At a meeting have two or three people, who know the Delphi Technique, and dispers
them through the crowd so that, when the facilitator digresses from a question, they can
stand up and politely say: “But you didn’t answer that lady/gentleman’s question.”
Even if the facilitator suspects certain group members are working together, he will not
want to alienate the crowd by making accusations. Occasionally, it takes only one inci-
dent of this type for the crowd to figure out what’s going on.

Establish a plan of action before a meeting. Everyone on your team should know his
part. Later, analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to hap-
pen the next time. Never strategize during a meeting.

A popular tactic of facilitators, if a session is meeting with resistance, is to call a recess.

During the recess, the facilitator and his spotters – people who observe the crowd du-
ring the course of a meeting – watch the interaction of the crowd to see who congre-
gates where, especially those who have offered resistance. If the resistors congregate in
one place, a spotter will gravitate to that group and join in the conversation, reporting
what was said to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer
clear of the resistors. Do not congregate. Instead gravitate to where the facilitators or
spotters are. Stay away from your team members.

This strategy also works in a face-to-face, one-on-one meeting with anyone trained to
use the Delphi Technique.

When she wrote this, Lynn Stuter was an education researcher in Washington State.

*) “Educating for the New World Order” deals with what is the true purpose or agenda
of government controlled schooling. I say schooling – training – instead of education.
The alleged purpose of public schools is basically to teach the 3 R’s (Reading, Writing,
and Arithmetic). And this seems to be the beliefs of the parents. But since the seventies
the emphasis in American public schools has been on the modification of behavior and
belief instead of academic skills. This modification leans toward a group or collectivist
attitude instead of individual initiative. The key goal of this attitude adjustment is to-
ward a group consensus. The individual should accept whatever the group believes.
Group consensus is the goal whether or not students learn certain facts and skills. If the
group believes that 2 + 2 = 5, then that is correct!