Rebekah E. Sutherland, M.Ed. - Sciences

What do the Golden Rule, Marxist philosophies, consensus, psychology and the public school system have in common?

A very powerful behavior modification tool has been used in our modern society. It is called the Delphi Technique. The purpose of the tool was to get diverse groups of adults to come into agreement about a specific idea, plan, or program. The agreement is called "consensus."

Americans have always promoted the Golden Rule which says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Our history is filled with stories about this cooperative behavior and how it resulted in successful endeavors by individuals. The space race that was launched in 1957 is one shining example of the American ability to collaborate, cooperate, and come to agreement. Could this gesture of human kindness be corrupted and misdirected for ulterior motives by the public school system? Yes.

In 1986, a group of concerned citizens called the Pennsylvania Group accidentally discovered a set of training manuals. The seven volume set was entitled, Training for Change Agents. In 1971 the U.S. Office of Education commissioned the Rand Corporation to write the manuals.

The Rand School of Social Sciences was created in 1905 by Sidney Webb, a famous British socialist who was operating inside the USA. Since its inception, the Rand Institute has been steadily working to socialize the citizens of the United States and prepare them for an ultimate capitulation into a socialist form of government. The set of training manuals were created for the purpose of turning potentially hostile groups and committees into rubber-stamp governing bodies. Behavior modification techniques were used on groups of adults to "freeze" and "unfreeze" their values, thereby providing a way to make the group come into agreement -- even when the members of the group did not want to agree. What was most upsetting about the training manuals was the fact that our government used our tax money to pursue psychological objectives; not academic objectives.

The "change agents" who trained with these manuals were deployed into communities. Their objective was to deceive the public about learning programs and their intended usages.

Goals 2000 and the School-to-Work programs are two examples of this type of deception. Parents, PTAs, teachers, and education watchdog groups were invited to discuss small portions of these programs. A "group facilitator" was sent to manage the discussion. The Mr./Ms. Nice Guy change agent would become the Devil's Advocate by pitting one group against the other.

The group did not know that a predetermined outcome was expected. The facilitator would begin the session by allowing the members of the group to introduce themselves. The members who would most likely agree with the plan were allowed to talk first. Those members who most openly disagreed with the plan were labeled as "extremists" and encouraged to be more open minded.

Sometimes the entire group would be turned upon the few individuals who had serious reasons to disagree with the plan. They would be silenced by peer pressure. At the end of the session, the facilitator would seek a summary agreement by the group to "prove" consensus had been reached.

This technique continues to be used anytime a federal agent helps our citizens. Recently in Edgefield, South Carolina, a change agent assisted a group of citizens who were concerned with Land Zoning. Little did they know that the zoning plan had already been created. Their meetings would provide the required "consensus" for the state to proceed with its plan.

And there is more . . .

http://www.rebsutherland.com/Consensus.htm

http://www.rebsutherland.com/

jimbec@aol.com