Some of the assertions made by the #onhere Marxists in May through July regarding the "popular uprising" brought to light a couple prevailing circumtances both on this app and off.

First: the communist branding campaign that's been sown online since the run-up to Trump was very successful. It created: fake layer of discourse resting atop reality in the Twitter servers which entangles the mind and gives a false sense of accomplishment and participation to >

those who engage with it; identity politics in the less mainstream sense i.e. a population of "communists" who align as such by dint of proclamation; and a network of pundits to both encourage the above and give the "community" a false sense of ideological gradation.

Second: as I've alleged elsewhere, seeding pundit networks online is very straightforward, as the particiption-bait nature of the internet encourages small groups to collaborate for mutual popularity boosts. One direct agent or algorithmic meddling for one susceptile pawn's >

benefit can have a "lift all ships" effect on the nodes in their immediate vicinity. Along with them come many hangers-on, and cleaning up undesirables is easy thanks to the real usecase of cancelling—a person can more or less be deleted, and by popular demand with very little >

excuse. (They can then rebrand if they were an asset that didn't land, etc.) At the end of this process you have many and various small-scale, modular Fox/MSNBC clones tailored to every niche interest and fake ideology. The #onhere Marxists, it turns out, are every bit as >

modular and susceptible to uncritical ideological coalescence. Like an amoeba, a group that began as acrid, confrontational "communists" unified in their war with the irony nazis, centered on space-filling personalities like Greaves and Kahina, underwent an unprompted and >

drawn out "split" into "Marxist-Leninists" and "Maoists," hinging entirely on rhetorical devices and Reddit-style linguistic feuds about China with no reference to reality. Each "camp" became a niche micro-Chapo, with lusty devotees and a fair share of members who wink-nodded >

their inside connections to the leading figures, mainly through group DMs. The following 3 years served as further development and gradation of the network, with plenty of total and partial cancellations. Greaves alienated the "Marxist-Leninist" niche with a sudden shift to >

comically blatant transphobia, setting up a new subnetwork & anticipating a 2020 alignment w/ libertarian controlled oppo pundits. The "Maoist" corner seemed for a while to have more organizational integrity, with Kahina agreed by all as an unswerving ideological center for the >

polemicists. But amoeba populations don't just stop growing—during COVID's other strange happenings, former devotees made one-day, loud turnarounds. Sourstein, who 3 months prior began hedging directly from Kahina's 2012-era news stories about Chinese-Venezuelan court cases, & >

who had a month prior been suspended by a doxxing-feud with one of Kahina's detractors, published a loud thread about her psychological abuse and conspiracy-theorism. Meanwhile, with as much concrete impetus as when they fought in 2017, Greaves makes good with Kahina & leaves >

the configuration in shambles. This realignment took place by way of appearance as a mundane shuffling of personalities, but by way of substance as a split on several critical questions: specifically the nature, origin, extent, and outcomes of COVID and the separate but related >

worldwide lockdown measures. Those who took a hammer to the "Maoist camp," logic may dictate, could have been thrilled to see Greaves' theatric, hamfisted repentances on their China feud. But that point of contention was out of fashion (hence why it didn't take much buildup or >

selling for him to launch his turnaround). Sourstein and company branded their new motly crew on a new feud, now from a Ben Shapiro-esque "citation needed" perspective denouncing any skepticism of "COVID measures." They consummated the marketing effort with >

days of threads and quote tweets, concocting a masterwork in bad-faith half arguments against ill-equipped idiots.

Now the figureheads of the mighty Maoists and the unshakeable MLs could at last reunite in peace, forming an uninterrupted >

Greaves-Kahina-libertarian controlled opposition front on one end, and a fractured, confrontational anti-conspiracism "Marxist" agglomeration on the other, formed from the remnants of Maoist/ML hangers-on and their smaller-scale (but growing) verbal leaders. To ensure the

maximum alienation, Kahina's own controlled opposition roots were suddenly aired in much greater detail by an anonymous account boosted early by her recent detractors.

This all came to a head precisely within a month of our "popular uprising," just in time for the newly developed fronts to brand their stances on the events. Greaves-Kahina faithfully brought skepticism into their Alex Jonesian fold, while Sourstein et. al. >

boosted NGO bail funds; retweeted a glut of police violence cinematics posted by rightwingers and black bloc-ers; called the "consciousness of the masses" more advanced than vague "theorists" (personified in their examples by Kahina), exemplied by fires in a police station, >

an AFL-CIO office, and CNN (all of which are supposed to demonstrate the heroic proletarians of the USA "knowing who their real enemies are"); boosting agents on the ground performing outlandishly for the camera, whether as memes or as obvious "infiltrators"; and, most >

of all, proclaiming their righteous indignation at any of those (Kahina by default) calling the valiance of the masses, the realism of the Chauvin stunt, or the authenticity of the aforementioned fires into question and pointing out the astroturfed color revolution tactics >

brought home to roost.

It was a flawless turnaround: where previously "lefty is friend to the people and sees their fight" vs. "rightwinger just sees hidden plots everywhere" used to be a standard only in the mainstream or DSA/irony sphere, it now took root directly inside >

the #onhere Marxists who so recently branded themselves on calling that façade into question.

Third: The "nation" of the US, now so long ruled by a world-extensive bourgeoisie without nation, is as fictional as the "nations" of West Europe, as fictional as the colonies its rulers hold in East Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa—all of these territories >

are "states" more in the sense of Nebraska than the real political organization. They're run by governors who report directly to the same cosmopolitan league that finances the destruction of humanity around the world. As consequence, size and development of any one "state" >

is not a question of regional utility or even of national identity, but purely of political-economic, and sometimes military, expediency. As has been the case since said by Nkrumah and Dutt before him, smaller is easier. Dutt's vision of a fascist endgame, a worldwide >

patchwork of tiny, mutually impotent states in constant war, is looking to be the real endgame, but with the added nightmare of a stateless, unified global bourgeoisie to manage each one as if the world were a corporation full of their factories and value chains. As such, >

nothing is "sacred," much less "America." The US is looking more and more like a dead concept that the world rulers it gave birth to are done with and ready to shatter and dispose of. Therefore popular uprisings, especially those instigated by stunts so clearly designed from >

above, are themselves now cast into the giant category of "requiring necessary, immediate suspicion." This point will be further developed later.