Tag Archives: visioning

Holt It! Donna Digs into Sustainable Devopment

Donna Holt is working on stopping damaging sustainable development policies in VA. She covers the history of this movement and demonstrates how foreign policies find their way into US policy and implementation at the local level.

Here is a segment of her very well laid out research;

The History of Sustainable Development – Connecting the Dots

Sun, 10/17/2010 –  Donna Holt

Sustainable development was brought to America when President Clinton (initiator) initiated the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. This decision-making committee began with Agenda 21 as its proposal. Its goal was to translate Agenda 21 into public policy.

An early achievement of the council was the development of 16 “We Believe” statements among which is No. 8.

“We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our goals.”

This new collaborative process is the “consensus process”.

The PCSD operated from 1993 – 1999. Their first major publication was “Sustainable America – A New Consensus”. It contained more than 150 policy recommendations taken directly from Agenda 21.

At the eleventh meeting of the council, after the recommendations had been developed, then Secretary of the Dept. Of Commerce, Ron Brown, said that his agency could implement 67% of the recommendations administratively using rule making authority. Other department secretaries reported similar numbers.

The recommendations covered a wide range of public policies. Among the most important are land use policies. Sustainable America says:

“Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological or aesthetic consequences… The key to overcoming it is through public policies…(p.112).”

The 1990’s saw an expansion of government control of land use. In 1997, the federal government already owned about 1/3 of all the land in America. State and local governments owned another 10%. The federal government designated and expanded 21 National Monuments, designated 43 million acres of “roadless” areas, and appropriated millions in grants to states and local governments and land trusts for the purpose of acquiring more private property. These activities were promoted by the land management agencies, all members of the PCSD.

Millions in grants were awarded to the American Planning Association between 1997 – 2000. The EPA and other agencies issued millions more in challenge grants to local governments and organizations for “visioning” projects.

During the 1990’s there emerged a rash of visioning projects in towns and cities across the nation. They were typically called something like “Yourtown 2020”. They were all the result of the PCSD and funded by grants by an agency of the government who was a member of the PCSD.

The EPA, for example, would issue challenge grants for visioning projects to NGO’s (non-government organizations) and to local governments. The grant recipient would designate an initiator who would select the visioning council. Those selected would be politicians, agency bureaucrats, bankers, NGO leaders, and Businessmen. Those selected would be known in advance to support the goals of the initiator and most stand to gain financially from the implementation of the goals.

To spread this process across the country, the EPA coordinated a Smart Growth Network consisting of dozens of non-government organizations which included:

• American Planning Association
• The Conservation Fund
• The Natural Resources Defense Council
• The Sierra Club

All of these organizations have promoted government control of land use since the 1976 U.N. conference.

In each of the communities where visioning councils were established, their starting proposal was the recommendations of the PCSD. Their objective was to:

• Present PCSD recommendations as local goals for the community
• Through the consensus process, remove any objections that might arise
• Develop specific recommendations to achieve goals

The result became the “Yourtown 2020 Plan of Action”.

This process takes typically 12 – 18 months during which the local initiator begins to issue press releases and to involve local media to introduce the idea of building a sustainable community. The idea is to build so much public support for the sustainable community as defined by the “Yourtown 2020 Plan of Action”, that elected officials will have no choice but to rubber stamp it.

Funding continues to flow from government agencies to local governments and non-government organizations for the purpose of implementing sustainable development. For example, HUD’s Sustainable Community Regional Planning has recently awarded nearly $100 million for innovative regional planning proposals.

Hundreds of NGO’s were funded to launch the “visioning process” in communities across the country. An NGO (initiator) will begin the visioning process by carefully selecting representatives from various stakeholder groups (environment, business, education, agriculture, government) to serve as the visioning committee or council. Those chosen to serve on this council are well-vetted and known to support the goals of sustainable development.

Read the whole report

The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Create It: Policy, Prognosticating and Propaganda

Kaye Beach

Nov 3, 2010

Policy, Prognosticating and Propaganda

I’d rather we take each one separately but the (world) order of the day seems to be Convergence.

After stumbling upon the Vision Working Group Report and Scenarios with its hair raising depictions of autonomous tranquilizer dart shooting drones and missions to medicate the world’s population with neuro-behavioral genetic vaccines, I began to look a little deeper into the concepts that are providing the foundation for new policy that has transforming our national security system as the ultimate end goal.

“Transformation has many elements. Perhaps one of the most important is that it involves creating or anticipating the future. Either you create your future or you become the victim of the future that someone else creates for you.” — Arthur K. Cebrowski.  The father of network-centric warfare.”

The picture that begins to emerge from studying the Project on National Security Reform’s policy proposal entitled Forging a New Shield and its associated papers, especially their Vision Working Group Report, makes me think I might understand where Cebrowski is coming from.

The directors of these projects are working on creating the future and I am afraid that we will be the victims of it.

Headlines indicate that the seemingly sci-fi scenarios in the Vision Working Group’s report are reflecting current trends.

So what is this all about?

-National Security, Transforming Government (policy and structure), science, funding, education, ethics, new technologies, ideology and many other attending topics too numerous to list.

But my overriding concern is focused the effects this policy and this manner of developing policy may have on our already degraded constitution, individual rights and the sovereignty of our nation.

Specifically I am looking at 3 main documents (a collection of related documents will be provided at the end of this report)

Forging a New Shield

An 800 page policy paper

Produced by the Project for National Security Reform (or PNSR) which was issued in 2008 and presented to Congress and both President Bush and then President elect Obama

“A focused, centralized national security authority is the entity needed”

**update on “Forging a New Shield” policy efforts**

In 2009, a follow-on report — Turning Ideas into Action — was published that proposes next steps and provides the implementation tools that will be required to make national security reform a reality.

PNSR is now partnering with key stakeholders to transform the system through initiatives such as proof-of-principle pilot projects and the development of the National Security Reform Roadmap and Scorecard.

And here is a recent publication assessing progress of policy changes in national security;

Project for National Security Reform and National Security Strategy Side by Side Analysis published on Aug. 26 2010

The Vision Working Group Report and Scenarios , which was released in July 2010.  This paper is a companion to the policy paper, Forging a New Shield.  The Vision Working Groups’ job was to test the policy by imagining future scenarios that might arise and then theorize as to how the new policy would hold up.

The third document is from 2002;

Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance,a report resulting from a conference held in Dec 2001, which I will cover at length a little further down.  The concepts laid out in this document seem to form the basis for the other two more recent, policy oriented documents.


In the policy paper, Forging a New Shield, the PNSR (Project for National Security Reform, established and funded by Congress “to undertake one of the most comprehensive studies of the U.S. national security system in the nation’s history”)

The PNSR proposes a complete rewrite of the National Security Act of 1947.

The premise for the revamping is that we are entering a time period that is fraught with unique challenges and we  “must strengthen other important elements of national power both institutionally and financially, and create the capability to integrate and apply all of the elements of national power” in order to meet these new challenges.

The National Security Act of 1947

The National Security Act of 1947 reorganized the leadership of the military following World War II, formalizing a Department of Defense (DOD) with a Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) that reports directly to the Commander-in-Chief. According to the website of the U.S. Secretary of State:

The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 Pub.L. 99-433 reworked the command structure of the United States military. It increased the powers of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff implementing some of the suggestions from The Packard Commission commissioned by President Ronald Reagan in 1985.

It made the most sweeping changes to the United States Department of Defense since the department was established in the National Security Act of 1947.
source wikipedi

“All truly new ideas destroy what they replace.”

The Vision Working Group Report and Scenarios is a write up of that groups efforts “to stress test the solution sets proposed in Forging a New Shield

This document gives a glimpse into what these experts believe the 21st Century holds for the world by way of challenges.  It was the Vision Working Group Report that first caught my attention and a quick scan of the contents of the report reveals why it did.

The Vision Working Group Report covers nine scenarios that are ‘gamed’ pre and post policy reform (meaning the policy reforms suggested by the PNSR in Forging a New Shield)

Near the beginning of the Vision Working Group’s report readers are reminded that;

“All truly new ideas destroy what they replace.”


. . . The process of scanning the horizon for the next great news must be continuous, and never bound to conceptions of “permanent” truth.”

This statement might be viewed as simply encouraging the keeping of an open mind but when I have encountered phrases like “scanning the horizon”  in government documents of late, it is meant in an active, dynamic sense

I wonder what  “permanent truths”  we need to be unbound from.  Does  the evolution of human bodies and societies requires that our sense of morality and ethics too, must evolve?

Here are the scenarios;


Scenario 1: Red Death -“we meet a country struggling to get back on its feet after a major biological attack and witness a debate about the future role of the U.S. Gov­ernment both at home and abroad.”   Page 37 pre reform scenario.  Post reform Red Death scenario is on page 79.

Scenario 2: People’s War- Deals withglobal asymmetric warfare against a nuclear-armed great power” pg 42 and pg 81

Scenario 3: A Grand Strategy-Explores the “utility of an integrated grand strategy development capability for smoothing the transition from one presidential administration to another.” Pg 45 and pg 82


Scenario 4: A New EconomyIn this not so far out scenario “the United States faced its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The crisis was a perfect storm of the unintended conse­quences of new technologies, policies, court decisions, and popular expectations.” Pg 50 and pg 87

Scenario 5: Pax Robotica-Looks at the “the intersec­tion of unmanned robotic warfare and on-the-ground diplomacy”, page 54 and pg 89

Scenario 6: Who Holds the High Ground Examines the prospect of “major com­petitive changes in the Earth-Moon system from the perspective of a traditional interagency space work­ing group.” Pg 58 and pg 92

And then there is my very favorite scenario of all;

Scenario 7: A Brave New World-“we examined a plan to apply prov­en neuroscience, psychiatric, and medical techniques to the control of pathological behaviors in a world of readily accessible weapons of mass destruction.”  In the world envisioned by this group, National Security encompasses everything and any hint of rebellious spirit must be quashed for our own safety, of course.  This takes us straight down the eugenics path.  Eugenics simply means good genes and in the near future, us having “good genes” (and therefore a good attitude) is a national and global imperative reliant on the US with the blessings of the UN and the WHO, to stamp out by mass treatment of neuro vaccines delivered from above by aerosol spraying, al la chemtrails.  Page 62 and pg 95


Scenario 8: A Warm Reception Focuses “on the chal­lenge of developing international consensus for action on the issue of global climate and the possibility of un­intended adverse consequences.”  Page  and pg 100

Scenario 9: It’s a Small World – Explores “the implica­tions of a very different future, wherein small, mo­lecular scale machines (nanotechnology robots or “nanobots”) had become ubiquitous.”  Yes.  Grey (and blue) goo included!

The concepts explored in the Vision Working Group Report begged for some context and provided the impetuous for me to do some digging which brought me to the concept of NBIC Convergence.

NBIC-nanobioinfocognitive science, an idea that began to gain a lot of traction with some people in the late 90’s.

It bears repeating that NBIC technologies are seen as the tools of transformation.  Power tools to be precise.

Development of NBIC tools for investigation and transformational engineering at four levels: nano/microscopic, individual, group, and society” (emphasis mine)” Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance

The idea of converging technologies predicts the entry into a new phase in science and technology that is supposed to result from the integration of biotechnology , information technology, cognitive science and information technology.

From what I gather,  the idea is that we have entered “The Age of Transition”, as Newt Gingrich explains in this document, a report devised from a conference held in Dec. 2001-Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance

In 1994 Newt said that he had a goal of “reshaping the entire nation through the news media”

In “Vision for the Converging Technologies” Newt Gingrich proposes to reinvent government for the “Age of Transition” and says that ““If you bring that [nanotech]together with the biological revolution, the next 20 years of computation, and what we should be learning about human cognition, the capability can be quite stunning. For example,there’s no reason to believe we can’t ultimately design a new American way of learning and a new American way of thinking about things”

Hey Newt!  You keep your darn nano off of my neuro!

Oh and by the way,  your Toffler is showing….

The Converging Technologies Report, which was published in book form in 2002, explains the premise of the “Convergence” conference;

“It is essential to prepare key organizations and societal activities for the changes made possible by converging technologies. Activities that accelerate convergence to improve human performance must be enhanced, including focused research and development, increased technological synergy from the nanoscale, developing of interfaces among sciences and technologies, and a holistic approach to monitor the resultant societal evolution.” (My emphasis)

The common thread that runs through all three documents is the distinctly Transhumanist vision of our future created by NBIC Convergence.


Transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations. They draw on futurology and various fields of ethics such as bioethics, infoethics, nanoethics, neuroethics, roboethics, and technoethics mainly but not exclusively from a philosophically utilitarian, socially progressive, politically and economically liberal perspective

source wikipedi

Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance



The NBIC motto:

If the Cognitive Scientists can think it
The Nano people can build it
The Bio people can implement it, and
The IT people can monitor and control it.

Confident aren’t they?

Rand looked at NBIC Convergence in 2001;

The Global Technology Revolution: Bio/Nano/Materials Trends and Their Synergies with Information Technology by 2015

“The results could be astonishing. Effects may include significant improvements in human quality of life and life span… continued globalization, reshuffling of wealth, cultural amalgamation or invasion with potential for increased tension and conflict, shifts in power from nation states to non-governmental organizations and individuals… and the possibility of human eugenics and cloning.”

The Convergence of NBIC is presented as imminent, if not already reality which puzzled me.  I didn’t know we were so far advanced.  This also disturbed me because the technologies discussed have enormous implications ethically.  The attitude of the presenters though, is not one of caution; actually it is quite the opposite.

“Nanotechnology, biotechnology, electronics and brain research are converging into a new field of science vital to the nation’s security and economic clout.”

Or so say influential research agenda-setters like the National Science Foundation, along with a loose-knit group of government, academic and industry researchers who are trying to accelerate the convergence process.

NYT Feb 2003

This attitude is even more frightening when you consider that this convergence is believed to be the onset of a wild technological ride that will (by most counts) or may lead to something that we don’t know the human race will survive, “The Singularity”

This subject is touched upon in the Vision Working Group Report;


The authors of this set of scenarios have inten­tionally omitted any scenarios driven by what has been dubbed a “technological singularity” or, more grandiosely, “The Singularity.” Several technologists estimate a singularity occurring within the period covered by these scenarios. Although there are many definitions, in general, a technological singularity is said to occur when intentional, intelligent machines take over their own development, and due to their superior memories and processing abilities, quickly advance to states beyond human comprehension. It is hypothesized that such superintelligent entities will reshape the world as they see fit, with or without hu­man input.

The decision to omit a singularity scenario was based on practicality, rather than a determination that such a scenario is implausible.

PNSR Vision Working Group Report

In a paper entitled Designing The Future NBIC Technologies and Human Performance Enhancement

James Canton Ph.D. writes;

“NBIC convergence represents entirely new challenges for scientists, policy makers and business leaders who will have, for the first time, vast new power tools to shape future markets, societies and lifestyles.” (Emphasis mine)

, Designing The Future: NBIC Technologies and Human Performance Enhancement

If NBIC convergence represents “power tools” or “transforming tools” by which the powerful can change the world, I can see why they might be so enthusiastic but the fact that National Security policy is being drawn from these concepts is startling to me.  That is exactly what is happening.

“Human Performance Enhancement” as the overarching goal of NBIC Convergence is repeated frequently throughout the 2002 “Convergence Report”   I suppose readers are to take it on faith that this is a noble and worthy goal.

What do they mean by Human Performance Enhancement (HPE)?  James Canton (who is credited with inventing the whole idea of NBIC convergence) defines HPE like this;

“Human Performance Enhancement, (HPE) refers to the augmentation of human skills, attributes or competencies through the use of technology, medicine or therapy designed to replace or increase performance capability. Examples of HPE run the gamut from restoring sight or hearing to manipulating genetic material with the goal of promoting or preventing a condition. Other examples include augmenting normal capabilities such as intelligence, perception or mobility.”

What is eugenics.  Very simply eugenics means “good genes”

Eugenics is the “applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population,” usually referring to human populations. According to Wikipedia

What is “Human Performance Enhancement”?

Human Performance Enhancement entails;

“manipulating genetic material with the goal of promoting or preventing a condition.”

HPE looks for all the world to be the re-branding of eugenics.

The biotechnology spoken of in all of these documents invariably raise the specter of eugenics which is openly acknowledged by even the proponents of the technology.

James Canton, who according to the Lifeboat Foundation is “a renowned global futurist, social scientist, keynote presenter, author, and visionary business advisor. He has advised three White House Administrations, the National Science Foundation, and MIT’s” says:

“I think we will stop short of eugenics. . .”


Eerily Canton writes;

“No doubt there will be countries and cultures that view HPE (human performance enhancement) as a weapon for overt or covert social manipulation. There will be autocratic nations that view the enhancement of their population’s intelligence, mobility or other cognitive and physical capabilities as desirable.  Of course there will be abusers of HPE. Planned social evolution based on HPE will be a not-too-distant-future scenario that democratic societies will have to navigate. But at the same time, individual choice will prevail if global social order and democratic values is a desired goal. (Emphasis mine)  FISTERA Report

Read that passage carefully.  In it Canton sums up the crux of the issue or at least the crux of the issue as far as I’m concerned.

He makes the assumption that the US is immune to the temptations to manipulate their populations unlike some of those less noble governments out there.  That is a dangerous assumption and one that history reveals is patently untrue!

Some fans of the Transhumanism openly embrace and defend eugenics.  At least this is honest.

See Future Generations at www.eugenics.net

It is difficult for a non scientist like me to separate the hype from reality but there are some elements at play that give even a layman like me a hint as to what this is all about.

Here is one;

While not included in the summary or the main recommendations, the report includes a paper on a proposal for a new science or discipline called memetics (Strong & Bainbridge 2002). This is related to the “human cognomen project”, starting from the assessment that the most valuable resource in the upcoming information society will be culture.

From the FISTERA REPORT 2005

Thankfully, the Convergence Technologies report has been amply mulled over by others with the credentials to make more sense of it than I can.

One of the best critiques of the Converging Technologies Report and the concept of NBIC Convergence is a man by the name of Joachim Schummer.  He goes to the heart of it.  Is this “convergence” of these technologies really an issue or just hype?

He wrote a scathing dissertation about the NBIC Convergence idea entitled;

From Nano-Convergence to NBIC-Convergence:

Schummer asserts that;

“the concept of convergence of technologies is a teleological concept that does not describe or predict any recent past, present, or future development. Instead it always expresses or attributes political goals of how future technology should be developed.”

And that;

The concept was already fully developed as a flexible rhetorical tool by US science administrators to create nanotechnology (as nano-convergence), before it was broadened to invent the convergence of nano-, bio-,info-, and cogno-research (NBIC-convergence).

His scholarly assessment jibes heartily with my very unscientific gut instinct that much of NBIC Convergence is bluster and hooey.

There are many fans and critics of NBIC tech and the promise and perils they portend for the future.  Most seem to concentrate on the theoretical rather than the actual.  The spiritual and ethical implications get lots of space of course and not surprisingly, many futurists run with visions of utopia.  Plenty of critics with a more pessimistic view predict disaster.

If I were to take all of this at face value, frankly it would make me sick.  I am doubtful that this grand convergence is all that it is cracked up to be but the fact that we seem to have people in positions to effect policy and funds that treat this concept as gospel and seem intent on forcing it to life with very little attention given to how to navigate it in a way that respects the rights of everyone is what has really got my attention.

As noted by Schummer;

“Although the NBIC-report was no official report and although no official report has ever been commissioned by the NNI on the NBIC issues, it eventually found its way into the official science policy agenda of the US.  Supplement to the President’s FY 2007 Budget for the NNI, where all agencies have to explain their activities, the NSF states:”

Special emphasis will be placed on research in the following areas:

  • • Merging science and engineering at the nanoscale: the convergence of nanotechnology with information technology, modern biology, and social sciences will stimulate discoveries and innovation in almost all areas of the economy.” (NSTC/NSET 2006, 5)

In case you don’t know, NNI is, The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).  The program was established in fiscal year 2001 to coordinate Federal nanotechnology research and development.

“The NNI provides a vision of the long-term opportunities and benefits of nanotechnology.”

More about the NNI

Schummer wrote his paper in 2008.  In it he makes note that the idea of NBIC Convergence was being integrated into policy.  Since then the NBIC Convergence meme has steadily wormed its way further and further into US policy.

Please Don’t miss my point.  I don’t have the resources to dissertate about the myriad of ethical considerations about the technology.  The policy that is being founded on the presumption of NBIC convergence and that is obviously infused with an ideological agenda is what I am speaking to.  I simply want my government to adhere to the principles that respect our right to self determination and freedom.

The PNSR’s Forging a New Shield and their Vision Working Group Report are evidence of the concept of NBIC Convergence at play at the highest level but it is evident as well in this recent NNI budget supplement

NNI Supplement to the President’s 2011 Budget As indicated in this document, the total investment by NNI member agencies for 2011 is nearly $1.8 billion for nanotechnology R&D. Among other subjects, the document highlights Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives to accelerate nanotechnology development in support of the President’s priorities and innovation strategy. NNI member agencies identified areas for these initiatives ripe for significant advances through close and targeted program-level interagency collaboration.


Schummer also notices the Transhumanist ideological bent that pervades the work on NBIC Convergence;

“Roco found further support for his move from nano-convergence to NBIC convergence in a techno-religious movement called transhumanism. Again that is no coincidence, because his co-editor and NSF fellow Bainbridge is an influential leader of the transhumanist movement.

Transhumanists strive for salvation from world-immanent suffering in a transcendent, so-called post-human, state through step-wise technological transformations. One step is the removal of diseases and aging and the perfection of the human body through some wondrous nanotechnology and genetic engineering.”
Schummer points out that for all the noble talk of curing diseases and expanding longevity, one of the main drivers of Human Performance Enhancement is the military’s desire for a Super Soldier.

“It is no coincidence that this image of the ideal human being almost exactly matches the capacities expected from the perfect soldier in combat. Indeed, many of the enhancement examples are explicitly taken from the military area, like armors that support physical strength and robotic war fighter systems. Moreover, a whole section of the NBIC-report is devoted to “National Security”, with representatives from all major military agencies.

The military seems to be the driving force behind the move from nano-convergence to NBICconvergence.  That might be economically justified by the fact that the Department of Defense has had the largest share of the NNI budget thus far. However, binding the community of natural, engineering, and social scientists in an allegedly humanistic vein to a human ideal that is modeled after the perfect warfighter, as Roco did, is a severe intrusion of military values into civic society.”

Race to the Bottom: Information Superiority and the Human Soldier in the NBIC Era

The above presentation addresses the desire for a robo-soldier and gives some attention to managing the discourse surrounding the debate on NBIC in order to improve the chances of public acceptanceBack to Loco Roco-

Mihail Roco is the co-editor of the NBIC Convergence Report which was commissioned by the U.S. National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce.  He is the founding chair of the National Science and Technology Council’s subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET), and is the Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology at the National Science Foundation  http://www.nsf.gov/eng/staff/mroco.jsp

Mihail Roco’s slogan is;

“The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Create It”

This nifty slogan reinforces my feeling that there is a whole lot of selling going on here.

Since the science of all of this is beyond my expertise to assess, I have spent a little time looking at something I am more qualified to assess, the people.

Looking at who are key players in pushing the idea of NBIC convergence says a lot.

The results of that research are forthcoming….




Here is my cache of documents pertaining to NBIC Convergence and the PNSR


Group Manipulation Tactics-Thwart the Delphi Technique

Kaye Beach
Sept. 25, 2010 (Updated July 17, 2012)

The Delphi Technique — What Is It?
The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of
experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In recent times,
however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose. In Educating for the New World Order by B. 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 lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out.”

PDF The Delphi Technique

Rosa Koire, author of “Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21
posts this information;

They may call them ‘visioning 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, there is a facilitator at each table , 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, 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 uneasy 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. Read more

How to Counter Group Manipulation Tactics:
The Techniques of Unethical Consensus-Building Unmasked.

This is the seminar manual used at Eakman’s workshops.

This powerful workbook teaches:

  • how to recognize psychological manipulation,
  • how to work around it to reframe the debate to take it away from your adversary, and
  • how to argue the issue in question on your terms, not on your opponent’s

Book by Beverly Eakman

A collection of documents about the Delphi Technique and how to thwart it


Delphi Technique

How to handle predetermined consensus meetings


What American Citizens Need to Know About Consensus and Facilitation

PDF What-American-Citizens-Need-to-Know-About-Consensus-and-Facilitation

Alinsky for Teacher Organizers

PDF Alinsky_for_Teacher_Organizers