Fighting Back – How to Confront the Liberal Agenda on their own Turf
Since the railroading of the death care bill over the wishes of the majority of Americans, the LSM has upped its ongoing tactic to distract, marginalize and drown out the conservative voice, particularily Governor Palin’s. Media mouthpieces Curry, Mitchell, Sawyer, Couric, Maddow, et al, pick any day, another event, they blast away continually, savaging the conservative voice with ridicule, race baiting, and false claims of calls to violence by conservatives, ad nauseum.
How do we meet that? Set your sites on contacting the LSM broadcasting stations that promote false news, false witness, false reporting. Your target will be to zero in like crosshairs on reporters who use fear mongering and ridicule against everyday Americans who oppose their agenda.
STAND UP TO LEFT at every opportunity. Remember the motto of the Boy Scouts? BE PREPARED. Reload your talking points to keep them fresh and your powder dry. Be ready to denounce the liars of the left. They have been around a long time with their obnoxious and dangerous agenda. We are just getting started, propelled by the truth and a desire to remain free, honor liberty and continue the pursuit of our happiness on our own terms.
What is The DELPHI Technique?
Originally published in 1969 by the Rand Corporation
” 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 decision-making 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 non-committal.”
- 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 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.
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.
This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained 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.”