“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.” –J. Robert Oppenheimer
There are Important Notificationsfrom our host, Wolf Moon; the Rulesof our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveatsfrom Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: Yours Truly has checked today’s post for any AI-generated content. To the best of her knowledge and belief, there is none. If readers wish to post any AI-generated content in the discussion thread for today’s post, they must cite their source. Thank you.
The mass line was a political campaign style developed and used by Mao Zedong and the CCP in the People's Republic of China. It's a very common method for doing agitation and propaganda, as well as for driving radicalization ever since.
The name…
— James Lindsay, anti-Communist (@ConceptualJames) July 14, 2025
*****************
Understanding the mass line.
The mass line was a political campaign style developed and used by Mao Zedong and the CCP in the People’s Republic of China. It’s a very common method for doing agitation and propaganda, as well as for driving radicalization ever since.
The name “mass line” suggests two possible meanings, and as it happens, the technique uses both. One is that the “mass line” is the line the masses are taking, and the other is that it’s the line being fed to the masses.
Here’s how it works.
The mass line begins by being extracted from the masses. Issues that are likely to agitate or incite them are determined by the propaganda office. The issues should be ones that are likely to invoke mass mobilization campaigns tapping a lot of negative, or sometimes positive, emotions (e.g., frustration, anger, fear, despair, or hope and enthusiasm).
These issues are then studied by the propaganda office to determine how they can be packaged, or codified, in terms of the party’s interests, ambitions, and interpretive frame.
These reframed inciting issues are then fed back to the masses in a mass line campaign, which runs reflexively to make it seem like it’s the current issue everyone is talking about and mobilizing around. The emotion under the mass line as it was extracted gets channeled into the mass line campaign as it benefits the party.
For example, the masses could be angry and frustrated that rents are too high and housing is unaffordable. The party would then recognize this reservoir of resentment in the people and would codify it by deciding it is caused by the landlords being too greedy and selfish. They would then feed this interpretation of the issue in a big-scale campaign back to the people with the goal of inciting and mobilizing them all at once. “Rents are too high because we have too many landlords who are greedy!”
The party will likely also package in a pre-determined solution pathway into the mass line because the point is often to get the people to demand the thing the party wants to do. They might add, “we need rent controls” or “we need state ownership of apartments.”
The mass line is then pushed with a vigorous campaign that makes it feel like the most important issue everyone is talking about, and one that has to be solved now, usually according to the line provided by the party. The masses are thereby mobilized to protest and demand what the party wanted in the first place. Their energy, which might be quite legitimate, is coopted to the party’s agenda.
That’s how the mass line works. Be on the lookout. We see them everywhere now.
PS:
For those who followed my explanations of Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy, this is the same methodology applied to education, as Freire himself explains in Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Gathering the mass line is finding the “generative themes,” which the educator then “codifies” and delivers back to the students in a “decodification” that interprets their circumstances for them to awaken critical consciousness and to inspire radical activism.
There are several different psychological methods used to manipulate the public. I think we have all heard of the Hegelian dialectic: Problem – Reaction – Solution. An excellent example is making schools ‘No Gun Zones’ via the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Followed by Facilitating school shootings and then scream we need to get rid of the 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms.
…since the days of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels it has been used as a guided process toward a desired end.
The objective of Hegelian dialectics in this sense is to replace something old with something new (e.g., capitalism with communism, traditional Bible doctrine with theological modernism, a traditional educational system based on moral absolutes with a new one based on relativism, an old age with a new).
Used like this, Hegelian dialectics cannot produce the new thing, but it can destroy the old. Other processes and techniques come into play in actually producing the new thing that is desired.
Hegelian dialectics is used today to create a “paradigm shift” by replacing an old “paradigm” (prevailing belief system) with a new one. It is a technique of “social evolution” and “political transcendence.”
It is not an innocent process. It is used by “change agents” and “facilitators of transformation.” Hegelian dialectics is “the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution” (Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich, “What Is the Hegelian Dialectic?” October 2005, http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm).
Speaking religiously and spiritually, it is an ever-evolving system that never arrives at absolute truth. All is relative and negotiable and the end justifies the means….
Another method we ran into during the Farm Wars was the Delphi Technique.
If you look that term up on Brave today the first three options you get:
In contrast with many other types of interviews and focus groups, Delphi studies allow participants to rethink and refine their opinions based on the input of others, contributing to a more reflective and thoughtful process.
The following key characteristics of the Delphi method help the participants to focus on the issues at hand and separate Delphi from other methodologies: in this technique a panel of experts is drawn from both inside and outside the organisation.
The Delphi technique is a systematic process of forecasting using the collective opinion of panel members. The structured method of developing consensus among panel members using Delphi methodology has gained acceptance in diverse fields of medicine. The Delphi methods assumed a pivotal role in the last few decades to develop best practice guidance using collective intelligence where research is limited, ethically/logistically difficult or evidence is conflicting….
TheDelphitechnique is an excellent consensus-building tool for complex project decisions that lack historical precedent or data. The Delphi method is a game-changing project management method to drive consensus and make complex decisions using an anonymous, and iterative approach by experts to provide input without influence from others…
The Delphi method (also called Wideband Delphi) was developed in the 1950s by the RAND Corporation as a forecasting methodology and named after the Greek Oracle of Delphi who foretold the future.
It is a structured, iterative process to solicit expert opinions and reach a consensus on complex problems or decisions which involves a facilitator sending multiple rounds of anonymous questionnaires to a panel of subject matter experts….
All nice glowing articles about the technique.
After reading that crap, I decide to make my notes from a couple decades ago available because the Delphi technique is not as innocent as those articles portray it. The key phrase is ‘CONSENSUS BUILDING’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A special thanks to Marty Oakley, John Munsell, Lynn Cohen-Cole, Walter Jeffries, Barb and the rest of the Farm War Warriors who taught me so much about the evil encroaching on our land.
The original issue that brought all of this to light was of course the absurdly inflated claims of danger to scientists. Just like AGW, its all done “for the cause.”
Reading about this “deliberative democracy” project is extremely disturbing….
This needs to be looked into. Who set this up, who paid for the “study”, who is behind this? Are there other “deliberative democracy” projects like this going on in any other countries?
Sounds like “manipulative democracy”, not “deliberative democracy.” Scary stuff indeed.
The basis of the Delphi Technique is to achieve consensus on controversial topics and requires professional facilitators, we are told….
More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to “participate” in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to “help determine” public policy in one field or another. They are supposedly being included to get ”input” from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be.
Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.
You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of these meetings.
Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead or “facilitate” the meeting. Supposedly, the job of the facilitator is to be a neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly.
Actually, he or she is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting.…
In her article USDA Employing Delphi Technique, Marti Oakley describes the opposition we face as we go to the USDA listening sessions. I faced a similar situation when I attended a county meeting to discuss our land being turned over to the local tribe, as well as water rights.
I recognize now that the technique used in that meeting to manipulate the people present was the Delphi Technique. Although not aware of it at the time, I did use the technique described in the following article to counter it. This response came naturally, and was probably due to my former peace officer training. Countering this technique is not difficult, and I recommend it.
Here is a link to an article that describes what the Delphi Technique is:
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 decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out.” The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take over of the schools.
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 s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He 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.” S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the “divide and conquer” technique, s/he 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.” S/He 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. Or, if they suspect this is happening, 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. S/He 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…
Ground rules for disrupting the consensus process (Delphi Technique) — when facilitators want to steer a group in a specific direction.
1) Always Be Charming. Smile, be pleasant, be courteous, moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.
2) Stay Focused. If at all possible, write your question down to help you stay focused. Facilitators, when asked questions they don’t 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, 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.
3) Be Persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn’t work, facilitators often resort to long drawn out dissertations on some off-the-wall and usually unrelated, or vaguely related, subject that drags on for several minutes – during which time the crowd or group usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let them finish with their dissertation/expose, then nicely, with focus and persistence, state, “but you didn’t answer my question. My question was… (repeat your question).”
Remember…
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’s/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 meeting 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 he/she wants, if he/she is 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 facilitator 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.
With thanks to Sandy Vanderberg, Peg Luksik and others
It is amazing the variety of methods the Cabal has for controlling the ‘Great Unwashed’ Those are just a few.
